Click
at picture for a larger view.
Sloper Antenna Tests
By Mark
Connelly, WA1ION
hcdx mailing list, April 16, 2001
There has
been a lot of anecdotal reportage over the years about the value
of "sloper" antennas, particularly with regards to directivity
and nulling of "pest" stations from given bearings opposite to
the horizontal direction one looks from the high end of the sloper
to its low end.
This article seeks to look into the performance of these antennas
in more detail than afforded by previous accounts in the DX press.
A set-up I have used at several locations is illustrated above.
In the
1970's I set up a sloper at my parents' house in West Yarmouth,
MA with the specific idea of reducing New York City stations.
Broadcasters from that area form the biggest obstacle to foreign
medium-wave DXing from the southern side of Cape Cod. The antenna
worked very well. With WCBS-880 quite strong on a conventional
ferrite or air-core loop, Canary Islands and UK stations on 882
kHz were generally just a moderate to strong heterodyne. Sometimes
the old R390A could slice out the 882 audio, sometimes it couldn't.
When I switched over to the sloper, WCBS dropped markedly in strength
relative to the 882 Trans-Atlantics. Around local sunset, clear
Canary Islands audio was more often the rule than the exception
when using the sloper. Furthermore, right on 880, WCBS had a "hollow"
sound because of the groundwave / skywave mix; frequently it was
under attack by a co-channel Venezuelan that was barely noticeable
on the Space Magnet and Radio West ferrite loops. Other New York
stations up and down the dial were similarly reduced, thereby
assisting in Trans-Atlantic and Latin American DX catches.
In the
'90s, a sloper favoring the southeast was installed at a location
in East Harwich, MA. During auroral conditions, Brazilian and
deep African stations were often received in its "main beam" while
Boston groundwave stations coming from the northwest were noticeably
attenuated relative to how they sounded on random wires, ferrite
loops, and active whips used at the same location.For
the last 22 years at my home QTH in Billerica, MA I have generally
had at least one sloper in use. The one I use for general bandscanning
(the "Euro-sloper") slopes downward towards the east-northeast.
It puts a definite null towards Worcester, MA; Hartford, CT; New
York, NY; and some other major cities on the "I-95 corridor" heading
down to DC and VA. For European reception it ALWAYS beats any
figure-of-8 pattern loop including the exalted Kiwa. Sometimes
I set up a second sloper which gives best reception in the "pest
station directions" of west and southwest. Because this second
wire slopes downward from east to west, it picks up little in
the way of Trans-Atlantics since it's nulling that way. The purpose
of the "west-pest" antenna is for phasing against the "Euro-sloper".
The level potentiometer on its phasing unit channel is adjusted
downwards until a westerly station to be nulled is equal strength
with its level on the "Euro-sloper". The phase adjustment for
a null can then be enacted with little or no effect on the desired
DX signals from the east and northeast.
Several
other well-known East Coast DXers - including Bruce Conti,
Al Merriman, and Ben Dangerfield - have had similarly good results
over the years with the "phased opposing slopers" concept. The
bountiful Trans-Atlantic DX logs from all these guys demonstrate
that the method works.
Over
Easter weekend 2001, it was sunny and mild and the last little
patch of snow behind the house had melted away. Over the long
winter months, numerous antenna test plans had entered my head
and had been scribbled down in my notebook. As soon as weather
permitted, I said to myself, I'm going to get some of my higher
priority tests off and running. Quantifying the performance of
two slopers oriented in opposite directions was a test I'd long
wanted to run. How much of these antennas' stated benefits were
"for real", how much was just conjecture and "folklore"?
It was about time to take some daytime groundwave measurements
to find out.
Each 30
m sloper ran to one side of the high-impedance winding of
a Mini-Circuits T4-6T-X65 (4:1) transformer. The other high-impedance
winding was connected to a 10 m wire which ran along the ground
to a 1.5 to 2 m long copper pipe earth-ground rod. The low-impedance
winding was connected to the center conductor and to the shield
of 50-ohm coaxial cable (length less than 30 m) going to the Drake
R8A receiver inside the house.
The
European (east) sloper showed a definite null on signals in the
swath of bearings between 205 and 280 degrees. A sampling of receptions,
with dB stated as the strength by which the west sloper signal
level exceeded that on the east sloper, follows. Degrees shown
are clockwise of true north, e.g. 270 = due west.
Freq.
|
Station
|
dB
null
|
Degrees
|
650
|
WJLT-MA
|
21.0
|
207.6
|
1200
|
WKOX-MA
|
27.0
|
212.7
|
1060
|
WBIX-MA
|
30.0
|
212.9
|
940
|
WGFP-MA
|
21.0
|
223.9
|
600
|
WICC-CT
|
16.8
|
226.0
|
660
|
WFAN-NY
|
23.0
|
229.8
|
880
|
WCBS-NY
|
22.2
|
229.8
|
820
|
WNYC-NY
|
28.8
|
231.5
|
710
|
WOR-NY
|
21.0
|
232.0
|
1050
|
WEVD-NY
|
19.8
|
232.0
|
1010
|
WINS-NY
|
20.4
|
232.3
|
770
|
WABC-NY
|
21.0
|
232.5
|
1440
|
WWTM-MA
|
20.0
|
234.4
|
1310
|
WORC-MA
|
27.8
|
235.3
|
1080
|
WTIC-CT
|
19.8
|
237.9
|
1120
|
WBNW-MA
|
32.0
|
241.9
|
830
|
WCRN-MA
|
27.0
|
241.9
|
1470
|
WSRO-MA
|
27.6
|
243.0
|
760
|
WVNE-MA
|
23.2
|
246.4
|
580
|
WTAG-MA
|
21.0
|
246.7
|
640
|
WNNZ-MA
|
18.0
|
253.3
|
960
|
WFGL-MA
|
22.0
|
266.4
|
1000
|
WCMX-MA
|
21.6
|
269.2
|
1280
|
WEIM-MA
|
24.0
|
278.3
|
810
|
WGY-NY
|
20.0
|
278.3
|
Several
weak signal Canadian Maritimes stations were only audible
on the east sloper. These included CHTN-720 (PEI), CFDR-780 (NS),
and CBA-1070 (NB). Going from one antenna to the other produced
different dominants on several channels, for instance WJTO-ME-730
and WGAN-ME-560 on the east sloper, WACE-MA-730 and WHYN-MA-560
on the west sloper.
The
western sloper had a somewhat narrower easterly null, most effective
between 60 and 120 degrees. The list of stations that it reduced
relative to the eastern sloper is fairly short because there aren't
many daytime-receivable stations to the east of here.
Freq. |
Station |
dB
null |
Degrees |
970
|
WZAN-ME
|
1.2
|
31.1
|
730
|
WJTO-ME
|
6.0
|
36.1
|
910
|
WABI-ME
|
1.8
|
37.7
|
1230
|
WESX-MA
|
8.0
|
92.4
|
1360
|
WLYN-MA
|
15.2
|
112.9
|
950
|
WROL-MA
|
6.0
|
119.1
|
1430
|
WXKS-MA
|
7.0
|
139.8
|
Stations
"off the side" (e.g. north, south) of each sloper didn't vary
much from one antenna to the other. The western sloper had a slight
gain advantage a bit more often on these because its grounding
was in a somewhat wetter location.
Full bandscan data for these tests may be obtained via Mark
Connelly's web site.
A zipped Microsoft
Excel file
is also available for download.
I leave
it to others, such as Neil Kazaross, to run EZNEC simulations
on these slopers to see how closely the software predictions match
the measured results. The foregoing study does show that, for
a simple antenna, the sloper has a lot going for it. Two opposing-direction
slopers fed to a phasing unit is a time-tested interference-fighting
solution endorsed by a number of the hobby's better known practitioners.
|