par EF-SWL installation

[worldscanning]

Hi

I just bought a Par EF-SWL wire antenna and I want to know what the best way to install it for better reception (sloper, inverted L, etc)

And if I install it Sloper, does the transformer be the highest or the lowest of the installation?

I'm new to HF antenna, so I want to do it right.

thanks

Worldscanning

 

[ka3jjz]

I would think you would want the transformer to be the lowest point; this way you can easily change the jumpers and grounding to test each setting's performance so you can get the best solution for your area 73 Mike

 

[raisindot]

Hi

I just bought a Par EF-SWL wire antenna and I want to know what the best way to install it for better reception (sloper, inverted L, etc)

And if I install it Sloper, does the transformer be the highest or the lowest of the installation?

I'm new to HF antenna, so I want to do it right.

thanks

Worldscanning

This will probably be moved to the antenna section, but I recently installed a Par EF-SWL. The transformer is mounted to the outside of my basement window sill, with the center point running a bit of copper wire to an 8' grounding rod, and I've tape a wire to the outer shield of the coax cable and experimented running it to the third post vs. attaching it directly to the grounding rod. Instead of the stock wire it came with, I'm using 500 feet of 12-guage shielded copper cable from Home Depot and am running around 200' of it in a kind of semi-U shaped loop around the back of my yard. I'd call it a very limited scope because it doesn't rise too high from the my window to its first "hold" point, nail attached to a tree, and the rest of the wire is pretty level, since I really didn't want to use a ladder to move it higher and higher (since I take it down where there are thunderstorm warnings). I was hoping to run enough to get some good signals in the tropical bands. I've found instead that it delivers the best reception at 10Mhz and above at night, although it does really bring in the SSB ham traffic in the 3Mhz band, but can't squeeze that many tropicals out of the noise of the lower bands

This is by no means a "professional" installation (it's my first outdoor antenna), so I don't have a lot of perspective on the slope vs. straight v. inverted L perspective.

Suzie

 

[KT4HX]

I also have the Par EF-SWL. Mine is mounted as a sloper because that is the most convenient to my particular situation (and the transformer is at the low end). Part of the reason I like to use a sloper is that it places the transformer end close to the ground making the connection between the transformer and the ground rod as short as possible. It is preferable to keep any ground connections as short as you can.

From what Par says, you can pretty much mount it how you want, but the most important thing is to get it as far away from your house as possible, in particular the transformer end, to minimize pickup of noise generated within the home. As for grounding, I have a ground rod driven in at the far end of my sloper, where the transformer is. I first tried leaving the jumper between terminals #1 and #2 and attaching my ground connection at terminal #1. I found I had a high level of noise present at the receiver (which was tuned to a frequency with no station on it). I next removed the jumper and that dropped my noise level around 3 to 4 S-units. To test it further, I moved the ground connection to terminal #2, and the noise level shot up again. So I returned it to terminal #1, where it will stay. Basically, per the Par manual, you should play around with the ground connection to find the one that gives you the least amount of noise for your particular situation. So that is what I recommend you do.

Hope the above helps. Please feel free to ask any further questions if you need clarification. Good luck!

 

[raisindot]

From what Par says, you can pretty much mount it how you want, but the most important thing is to get it as far away from your house as possible, in particular the transformer end, to minimize pickup of noise generated within the home. As for grounding, I have a ground rod driven in at the far end of my sloper, where the transformer is. I first tried leaving the jumper between terminals #1 and #2 and attaching my ground connection at terminal #1. I found I had a high level of noise present at the receiver (which was tuned to a frequency with no station on it). I next removed the jumper and that dropped my noise level around 3 to 4 S-units. To test it further, I moved the ground connection to terminal #2, and the noise level shot up again. So I returned it to terminal #1, where it will stay. Basically, per the Par manual, you should play around with the ground connection to find the one that gives you the least amount of noise for your particular situation. So that is what I recommend you do.

That's interesting. I assumed that terminal #1 was only for the coax shielding, and never thought to attach the wire from my ground rod to it. Think I will try this to see if terminal #1 reduces noise better than terminal #2, where I currently have the ground wire connected.

Have you used either terminal to shield the 293 cable outer shield? I have tried it both attached and unattached to #1 and can't decide whether it helps or not.

I'm also thinking of running a thin cable from the grounding connection on the back of my Icom R75 (to be replaced soon with a JRC NRD 545, woo hoo!) to either terminal 1 or 2 act as a ground for the radio to see if this reduces noise.

Suzie

 

[KT4HX]

That's interesting. I assumed that terminal #1 was only for the coax shielding, and never thought to attach the wire from my ground rod to it. Think I will try this to see if terminal #1 reduces noise better than terminal #2, where I currently have the ground wire connected.

Have you used either terminal to shield the 293 cable outer shield? I have tried it both attached and unattached to #1 and can't decide whether it helps or not.

I'm also thinking of running a thin cable from the grounding connection on the back of my Icom R75 (to be replaced soon with a JRC NRD 545, woo hoo!) to either terminal 1 or 2 act as a ground for the radio to see if this reduces noise.

Suzie

Well that is the trick. Try all configurations to see what works for your particular situation and location. As you notice in the documentation terminal #1 is actually the shield side of the SO-239, in other words, it is the shield of the coax you use to feed the antenna. You don't need to attach anything to the shield (or outer shell of the PL-259 which screws into the SO-239). The shield of the coax is already connected inside the plastic block to terminal #1. Further, terminal #2 is the ground side of the 9:1 transformer inside the plastic block, and of course terminal #3 is the antenna side of the 9:1 transformer - and where the antenna wire attaches. But please note, that in my particular case I removed the jumper wire between #1 and #2. If you leave it there, then there is no difference between connecting your ground rod to either #1 or #2. You have to remove that jumper to isolate the two respective terminals from one another in order to test which grounding point gives you the most noise reduction.

I would be very surprised if running a ground wire from the back of the R75 to the terminal block of the antenna would help, but it never hurts to try. My configuration is as follows:

The antenna is configured as a sloper, with the transformer end away from the house. There is a ground rod sunk next to it, to which I have a very short jumper to terminal #1 on the plastic block. For feeding the antenna, I am using buriable RG-6 quad-shield coax for the first section of my run. It goes underground (I did this because my feedpoint is at ground level at a point away from the house and I wanted to keep it out of the way of people and the mower) for about 45 feet from the feed point, where it comes out and goes to a grounding block. I have a second grounding rod in at this point, and the grounding block is connected to it via a very short wire. On the other side of the grounding block I have regular RG-6 quad-shield cable that runs up the back of my house to a second floor room where my Drake R8A is. So as you see, I actually have two ground points. One at the antenna feed point, connected to terminal #1 of the plastic block, and another where the underground coax feed comes up and transitions to a second run of coax into the house. I do not have a ground connection from the back of my radio. Since it is on the second floor, the ground lead would be way to long to be of any use. You want to keep ground leads as short as possible. By having two grounds in the feed-line path, my goal is to provide increased bleed-off of any static build up on the antenna, as well as trying to make my antenna as low noise as possible. I am in a sub-division, and it is fairly noisey here. But, by playing with my grounding scheme, I have been able to lower that noise floor to the best I've ever had.

With all that said, I still disconnect my coax from the back of the receiver when I am not using it just to be on the safe side. You will note that I am using 75 ohm coax rather than 50 ohm. In reality, for receiving purposes, that will make little to no difference in the reception quality. The reason I went with RG-6 is because I could get high quality, smaller diameter cable for less cost, that would mate up to the TV-type grounding block I installed at the foundation of my house. Since RG-6 comes with F-type connectors, I am using an F to UHF adapter to mate the cable up to my Drake, and also to the SO-239 connector on the plastic block at the business end of the antenna.

I hope the above makes sense. While I know what I mean, I am not always sure that what I mean comes across in my writing. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck.

 

[raisindot]

Well that is the trick. Try all configurations to see what works for your particular situation and location. As you notice in the documentation terminal #1 is actually the shield side of the SO-239, in other words, it is the shield of the coax you use to feed the antenna. You don't need to attach anything to the shield (or outer shell of the PL-259 which screws into the SO-239)...With all that said, I still disconnect my coax from the back of the receiver when I am not using it just to be on the safe side. You will note that I am using 75 ohm coax rather than 50 ohm. In reality, for receiving purposes, that will make little to no difference in the reception quality. The reason I went with RG-6 is because I could get high quality, smaller diameter cable for less cost, that would mate up to the TV-type grounding block I installed at the foundation of my house. Since RG-6 comes with F-type connectors, I am using an F to UHF adapter to mate the cable up to my Drake, and also to the SO-239 connector on the plastic block at the business end of the antenna.

I hope the above makes sense. While I know what I mean, I am not always sure that what I mean comes across in my writing. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck.

Thank you for your information. Boy, I feel dumb for attaching a wire from the 259 coax shield to terminal 1. So, if I'm understanding you right, because terminal 1 is 'attached' to the 259 lead I don't need to run a wire from the coax sheild terminal 1 and instead should run a wire from terminal 1 to my grounding rod (to which I am also leading a wire from terminal 2). In other words, I could run separate wires from terminals 1 and 2 to my grounding rod and keep terminal 3 just for attaching the antenna?

Given my total lack of electrical knowledge, I think that's about as far as I could go with this...your idea of the separate grounding blocks sounds like a great idea but I don't quite understand how you're doing it...I'm a visual person, so I do much better what I see photographs of how things are setup.

Suzie

 

[KT4HX]

Thank you for your information. Boy, I feel dumb for attaching a wire from the 259 coax shield to terminal 1. So, if I'm understanding you right, because terminal 1 is 'attached' to the 259 lead I don't need to run a wire from the coax sheild terminal 1 and instead should run a wire from terminal 1 to my grounding rod (to which I am also leading a wire from terminal 2). In other words, I could run separate wires from terminals 1 and 2 to my grounding rod and keep terminal 3 just for attaching the antenna?

Given my total lack of electrical knowledge, I think that's about as far as I could go with this...your idea of the separate grounding blocks sounds like a great idea but I don't quite understand how you're doing it...I'm a visual person, so I do much better what I see photographs of how things are setup.

Suzie

We all go through a learning process, so not to worry. However, you do not need to run separate grounding wires from terminals #1 and #2 if you keep the jumper between them. When you first received the antenna, it came with a small jumper wire between 1 & 2. As long as that jumper is in place, they are connected together, so only one ground wire from either of them to a ground rod will effectively ground both the terminals. If you remove the jumper between 1 and 2, then you isolate them from one another. That is what I did in my case, and for me, I found that grounding (to the ground rod) terminal #1 alone gave me less noise than grounding #2 alone. When I first connected it, I still had that jumper in place, and found I had a higher noise level until I removed the jumper and isolated the coax shield from the transformer ground. If you PM me your email address, I can take some pictures of my setup for you to see visually. Maybe that will help.

 

[worldscanning]

thank you all for yours infos, its help a lot. I will try to install it this week-end.

thanks

worldscanning

 

[gcgrotz]

Heres all you need to know, from the wiki:

Universal Magnetic Balun is specifically designed to reduce noise from the antenna

Do it like they say, I had one like that for a while, it works great.

 

[KT4HX]

Heres all you need to know, from the wiki:

Universal Magnetic Balun is specifically designed to reduce noise from the antenna

Do it like they say, I had one like that for a while, it works great.

That looks like an interesting concept. However, since he already has the Par EF-SWL, we were trying to help him with what he has on hand. Whether or not he wants to order the balun and isolator from Wellbrook of course is up to him. Afterall, experimentation is the fun about working with antennas!

 

[ka3jjz]

Just as an aside, for those that like to roll their own, the Shortwave Antenna yahoo group has several files and a few pics on the subject. By no means are they a cure all, but anything we can do to cut the noise level down helps, for sure....I'm pretty sure that the PAR uses a different winding and core, but the idea is the same.

A word of caution on those files - some of them are pretty technical.

73 Mike

 

[raisindot]

Heres all you need to know, from the wiki:

Universal Magnetic Balun is specifically designed to reduce noise from the antenna

Do it like they say, I had one like that for a while, it works great.

Got to tell ya, it doesn't tell me what I need to know. To me, this is completely incomprehensible. Why is it that nearly every article or diagram of these kinds of things looks and reads just like this, throwing jargon around, assuming readers understand the arcane technology, and showing line diagrams rather than detailed illustrations of photographs of how wires/cables/baluns/coax all get connected together? I swear, if someone put out an antennas for dummies book that had photographs of how these things looked when they were all connected, it'd sell pretty darned good and these companies well sell a lot more of their products.

Soapbox off.

Suzie

 

[KT4HX]

I would agree that such a book or guide would sell well. But to play devil's advocate, I think it is also reasonable for the manufacturer's to assume that those interested in their products might also have some knowledge of the material to the point that they know what to look for to meet their needs. It is indeed incumbent upon all of us with a fascination of radio communications to make an effort to learn as much as they can. I too like photos, but I also feel comfortable with well illustrated line drawings, and even schematics (depending on the equipment involved).

I will concede that not everyone has the same aptitude for technical information that another might have. But that is true of almost any field. For some the key to their understanding of technical issues is a matter of an educational or practical experience background. But for many of us here, it's been more of a hobby interest, and each person makes a decision as to how much "on their own time" technical study they want to undertake in order to expand their knowledge. One of the biggest boons to expanding one's radio knowledge has of course been the internet. It brings to the table a vast warehouse of archived information as well as direct interaction with those that possess more knowledge and experience than ourselves. The key is to tap that well. That is where a site like this one comes in. Sure there are plenty of old curmudgeons on here, but I think that most would agree that the helpful people at RR far outnumber them.

 

[raisindot]

I'm all for education and all that, but my primary goal is to be able to listen to things, not become an expert in jargon or electical theory. If the learning curve is too steep for those with no backgrounds in electronic theory, and there are no basic, dummy-level resources to help explain it, then how are people like me going to enjoy this hobby?

Before I got my EF SWL, I read a lot of messages and went to numerous sites looking for simple, straightforward explanations of grounding, attaching wires, dealing with coax shield, and all that. I couldn't make heads of tails of their jargon-filled explanations and inscrutable line diagrams. Even the downloadable SWL manual made no sense to me. I even called the owner of PAR and. though very kind, he got frustrated trying to explain how to hook things up because he couldn't leave his "jargon mode."

Then, a kind soul from here sent me a photo of his setup with the SWL, showing how the coax, antenna, and ground wires all attached to the transformer and to the ground rod. That one photo did more to advance my understanstanding than a hundred messages, and I was able to set up my first installation based on that alone. If I could see more photos of different setups--for example, I'd love to see close up photos of how dipoles are put together, grounded, connected, etc.--that would help me at least understand how it works from a simple assembly point of view. The theory stuff can come later.

Suzie

 

[KT4HX]

And thus, many have found RR to be a good place to ask. I fully understand the need to break out of the lingo in order to explain things at times. Sometimes it is difficult for those with more experience to move away from that tendancy. It kinda goes back to that old saying that it's easier to show you how, than to explain it. Pictures are a great way to clarify what is being said. Even better is if you can actually talk to the person face to face, see first hand with your own two eyes how they have things connected up. Unfortunately, here, so many of us are spread all over the place and such instances are rare. I know I had the pleasure of helping someone locally with their scanner, getting them up and running and explaining some of the in's and out's. I think that was much more beneficial to him than trying to explain it via postings, PMs, emails, and even phone calls. I myself have always been a hands-on person, and always do so much better with concepts if I can sit and talk to someone and ask questions. Speaking of questions, always remember there are no dumb questions. If something doesn't make sense one way, there is usually another way of explaining the point that makes more sense to the listener's ears.

 

[darticus]

Also installing a Par and have a question. My ground connection is on my roof at my antenna mask. In this case would it be ok to mount the matchbox on the high end of the slope or will this cause another problem. Ron

 

[ka3jjz]

You already have a related thread on this subject in the HF general forum. Please don't cross post - it's considered bad form. Be patient - someone will answer shortly

best regards..Mike

 

[darticus]

Sorry I'm thinking I'm only joining in with a conversation on a similar topic. Please delete if need be.
Ron

You already have a related thread on this subject in the HF general forum. Please don't cross post - it's considered bad form. Be patient - someone will answer shortly

best regards..Mike

 

[majoco]

Iv'e always been a bit dubious about the claims for some of the 'wonder' antennas. The guys who put them up and then say that they're a great improvement - improvement over what? I really can't see that the PAR-EF is any more than a longwire (and a short longwire at that) with a matching transformer at the end. Many SWL's will have a setup like that - me included - except all of mine is homebrew including the transformer with most of the stuff out of the junk box. I can do a spectrum scan after changing something to prove to myself whether I've made an improvement or not and change as necessary, but unless you have a reference then the claims of reception from all around the world 'which I didn't have before I installed the Super-Dooper Gee Whiz Antenna' are meaningless. Lets compare Apples with Apples, then we'll see which is good, bad or ugly. Bearing in mind of course that some places will have better reception than others, regardless of what sort of antenna you put up!