Which Antenna is Better? 49:1 EFHW VS 9:1 Random Wire 

Thanks for doing those tests! That was neat to see how similar they were, with the exception of 40m, where the 9:1 was closer in length to a quarter wave but the 49:1 was a half wave. It'd be neat to see how a 71' random wire does, since that's a little more comparable in length to the EFHW.

Thanks for all your testing! I use a 71' non resonant sloper, 9:1 unun, no counterpoise, 50' of coax & common mode choke as a stealth antenna at my QTH because I like to work all the HF bands including WARC bands. SWR is 1.5 to 1 or less on all HF bands using tuner in my Xeigu XPA125B 100 watt amp. From California, 100 watt SSB contacts to Europe, Africa, Mediterranean, South America, Asia, Australia & New Zealand. I get solid signal reports on daily West Coast 80 & 40 nets with 100 watts SSB. It's an inexpensive and fun all band HF antenna!

Your results are consistent with my experience. Both will work, the mission will dictate which one I’ll grab, but I’ll favor the 49:1 all things being equal.

I really enjoyed your video. From the standpoint of a video, it wasn't 'boring' like so many others are, where you didn't show us all of your testing, but just how you set things up and the results. Excellent! So many videos on RU-vid show way too much 'detail', such that I often stop the video as I'm 'bored stiff'. You also appear to have a good understanding of overall antenna design and testing. Nice! I see so many videos where it's very clear that the person producing the video really has a very poor understanding of the subject material and may even be providing inaccurate information in the video. But the internet makes us all "experts", doesn't it!!??!! Finally, your final comparison of the two antenna designs is great. While it appears that the 49:1 EFHW has a little bit of an 'edge' over the 9:1 random length antenna, it looks like the random length antenna is only about 3 to 4 down from the EFHW, but not in all cases. That would seem to fit with the fact that the EFHW is a resonant antenna and the random length antenna is not. One thing that I might suggest is that you use a wattmeter in your next tests, to make absolutely sure that the power output is the same on both antennas and on all bands. Again, I enjoyed your video. Nicely done! John - W0PM

I can rely on Ham Radio Tube to always have the hands on! This is exactly what I was looking for now that I have a simplistic grasp of these types of antennas.

Thanks, this is a subject that really peaks my interest. I love to see more testing done with a longer wire on the 9:1. Thanks again and keep up the good work.

I love my 1:9 non resonant 85 ft endfed. Tuneble from 160 to 6 meters with the internal tuner of all my radios (FT991, FT710 and FTdx101) so no external tuner needed. Made ssb contacts all over the world, using only 100W. 73, de PA3GSQ

Great experiment ! I’m running a 991a with 9 to 1 on 84 foot sloper . Radio tuner works on 80 through 20 meters. I’m in San Antonio Tx, hitting east and west coast pretty easy, and South America. I do want to get a tuner soon. Thanks K5EGD DJ

If you also want WARC bands, 80, and 160, the 9:1 will step ahead. The 49:1 probably won't tune on the other bands. Use both.

Great efforts thank you! Versatility certainly goes to the 9:1, all the bands vs 4 is an easy choice for my backpack!

I'll offer a couple of comments. First, I'm not sure that the SNR reports as averaged are directly comparable. A better approach is to compare the SNR from the same station... otherwise an extra station that heard your signal but it was weak will bias the average. Yes, I might be picking at nits, but we are being "sciencey" right? ;) Second, the Elecraft radios will tune the random wire with no external turner. One of my go-to antennas is called the Sagebrush Antenna (wrote it up on my weblog, heh). I throw one 25 or 29ft piece of wire over the sagebrush and another on the ground. These wires are attached to a BNC cobrahead attached directly to my rig (Elecraft). It sometimes struggles to get a match on 15m with the 25ft wire, so I clearly have some work to do. But I always get a match on this antenna to work 10m through 40m. It'll match on 80m but I have to believe the antenna would be horribly inefficient on that band. Someone else commented that the mission determines what antenna is used. I agree... "the mission determines the loadout." I always have the EFRW, EFHW, and a vertical antenna in the kit. For a quick deployment, I'll put up the SOTAbeams 10m travel mast and run the EFRW. I can make my POTA quota in an hour with QRP and go home. Third, when I built my EFHW for 40m (81:1 matching transformer), I played around with some testing on the non-resonant bands. I found that the Elecraft KX3 would match it from 6m down to 160m. I was stunned because I did not expect that. Again, I have to believe that the 40m EFHW would be horribly inefficient on the lower bands, but the radio will match it. It's good to see another ham getting out in the field and testing stuff. Thanks for doing the work and sharing it with us. 73 de AG7TX

I love this style of video. Thanks for sharing this with us.

That’s not “hands down”, looks like less than a 5% difference, they are very very close. Great experiment though, thanks for doing this hard work in the heat!

I ran a 49:1 for awhile and always had some issues getting it to tune up well. Recently started running a 9:1 with my little G90. The 9:1 tunes up just about everywhere and has worked great. Easy to deploy too.

Great video, thanks. I use both antennas for different needs. The 9:1, 41 footer is for when I don't have the room to put up the 65 ft 49:1. There are times I have had to use a 29 foot 9:1 but with less satisfaction as the 41 footer. I carry these plus others in a bag when out camping so I have all my bases covered. The 65 ft 49:1 is my normal go to antenna when I can use it. Mine are all home brew wound and cut so didn't have to spend a lot of cash. Thanks, Steve, k7ofg.

Nice experiment. One advantage I liked about the 9:1 is that it also works 80m, 30m, 17m, 12m and 6m. The SWR on all bands was easily handled with the onboard Yaesu tuner. Mine is 41' vertical with the feed point on the bottom with a choke at 16' from the 9:1.

Hi Mike, that's the way to do the things! Fantastic report. Thanks for setting the way of doing in comparing antennas. Then all differences come out out (quarter wave or half wave in some band etc) but the way of reporting the things is great, out of emotions (my antenna is better than your antenna HI) and strictly linked to the facts. For future tests, would be interesting to have the directions of the antenna on the ground and the simulation of the radiation pattern (I suppose someone has a MMANAGAL simulation here), to understand also the lobe of the two antennas. Very well done I2GPT Vic

When away from my home I like my 9:1, but keep a 49:1 and a wolf river in my kit. For constrained space, I am using a 29 foot wire with the 9:1 on a fishpole and my tuner matches quickly.

Lotta work. Well presented. Nice job man - thanks for the footwork!

The answer to the question you're asking is, "Yes"

I ran a 9:1 today...the REAL difference is that I ran on 6, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 30, 40 and 80m only being required to press a button during band change....car vs truck. the 49:1 only wins when you don't add the abiilty of the 9:1 on all the other bands.

Great explanation and great antennas to built. I think it will also help of you include the SWR reason all antennas on all frequencies.

Nicely done analysis. Thank you

Very interesting on multiple fronts. Thanks for the test I have the 9:1, and I have had end fed envy. This reminds me why I got the random wire to begin with

The MAJOR advantage of the random wire versus the EFHW is that you can get 80m, and maybe 160m on a much shorter wire. I run a 43' fiberglass push up mast off the back of the RV. I set the transformer so it is a foot or two above the roof, then run 50' of coax down and across the ground to the from of the RV where I have coax bulkhead connectors into the RV. There is another 35' of coax that runs along the floor to my operating position. There is a common mode choke immediately inside the RV. I can run a 20m EFHW from the top of the mast. I can double the wire length and run a 40m EFHW as an Inverted-L, or Inverted-V. Using approximately another two meters of wire (71', or you can use 84') as a Random Wire, you pick up 80m, and maybe 160m. Because I camp in summer (I am in New Hampshire), I don't care about 160m much. I keep three antennas in the RV. Spark Plug Gear EFHW, with elements for 20m, and 40m; 71' random wire on a Packtenna 9:1, and a doublet cut a little long for 40m, that can also be used on 80m. Because of the 300ohm twin lead, I only run the doublet when I am camping without the rest of the family.

Thank you for your science. Appreciate the insight so I'm not going to end up with buckets of parts I don't use.

I’m a relatively new ham. My first antenna was a 71 ft “random” wire that after a bit of fiddling, has a SWR of 2:1 or less on all bands down to 80 m, except 15m. But jeez is it noisy! I put up a Gabiel vertical I plan on using for POTA and the noise difference is huge. If I can figure out the noise problem, I’ll be happy with my 9:1

A 49:1 and the 9:1 are NOT antennas, they are impedance transformers. You completely glossed over the PURPOSE of these two types of unun's and why someone might choose one over the other. 49:1 unun's are needed for the exceedingly high feed point impedances (thousands of ohms) of RESONANT HALF WAVE end fed antennas. 9:1 unun's are used for NON-RESONANT "random length" end-fed antennas which generally have a fraction of the feed point impedance of a half wave end-fed antenna. They are not the same and need to be considered on their own merits and NOT necessarily straight across replacements for each other. A halfwave antenna, be it an end-fed or a center fed dipole "will work" on the fundamental frequency and ODD HARMONICS without [much of] a tuner. The WARC bands likely will need a more robust tuner since they do NOT fall within the harmonics of the other HF bands. Conversely, because NON-RESONANT "random length" end-fed antennas present impedances ranging in the hundreds of ohms on ALL HF bands, the 9:1 ratio should manage to bring a mismatch within the range of available tuners, internal and or external. Put another way, the EFHW with a 49:1 unun should be a good fit for the non-WARC bands if only an internal tuner is available. The EF random length is a good fit for ALL HF bands with a 9:1 unun when a robust tuner (10:1) is available. In most cases, the length of the wire is based on the lowest band of operation. For example, if you only have up to 66 feet to hang a wire, don't expect to get much done on 80m using an EFHW, and to a lesser extent the random length (53') antenna. Any discussion of these two different antennas needs to start with: 1.) What band(s) will be used? 2.) How much space is available to hang wire? 3.) What kind of tuner is available? If you plan on 40m and up including the WARC bands, choose the random length, IF you have the room for it AND you have an external tuner available. If on the other hand we're talking about Field Day where the WARC bands aren't used, use the EFHW. So turning to WSPR reports first is putting the cart before the horse. In other words, don't let WSPR numbers be the first and only consideration. Start with what you want/need to cover, then what resources you have AND can put up. If you can go with either antenna, then and only then pull out your spreadsheet to tip the scales. Even though we're "amateurs", there's no reason we can't apply critical thinking and experience to improve our skills. Also, crunching numbers can be deceiving; don't let a snapshot of propagation in one afternoon convince you it'll be that same way next month, next week or even tomorrow. NO ONE can control propagation! The only things we can control are the use of the physical resources we bring to the field. Don't forget to use a couple of counterpoises or if you use your coax for that, put a choke/line isolator at the radio.

Thanks for this Mike. 'preciate ya dude! Cheers and beers, 73!

I liked this test, would be interesting to get more data on various days. Thanks!

great comparison. wish u wuda used more length on 9 to 1 closer to your 60 ft on the 49 to 1.

Swapped out a 71' EFHW for a random wire 92 ft (with 90 foot coax counterpoise). Inverted L with 70 horizontal/20 vertical so very close layout. On the 40/20/15/10 the EFHW supports, I see approx twice as many FT8 spots as the random. However, the random can tune

A very interesting experiment. The results are about what I have experienced with thousands of POTA contacts as an activator running QRP. I did a similar experiment a few weeks ago using the same park. radio, frequency, and power over a 3-day period of time. I tested a homebrew EFHW 49:1 unun, homebrew random wire with 9:! unun to a manual tuner, and homebrew ground mounted vertical. While my sample size was lower than yours the results were pretty much the same as yours. In my experiment all 3 of the antennas I used had almost exactly the same number of contacts, and almost identical pattern of contact by call areas. Very interesting. As mentioned by others comments, just pick your favorite antenna based on the area you want to work from, and the results will probably very similar no matter what antenna you use... 72 Paul NA9M

49:1 are traditionally a QRP or lower wattage transformer or maybe as high as 1KW but prone to saturate, and 9:1 UNUN's can be made for 5KW of headroom wattage.

Interesting comparison, thanks for collecting and sharing this data. I'd like to see the same sort of test done but using a tuner at the feedpoint of the 9:1 antenna, to eliminate high SWR on the coax and the associated losses. I have an LDG remote tuner I use for this purpose, my FT-891 will even power & control it (using the ATAS settings) directly, so I don't need to bring the bias-t box along. Both of these end-fed solutions deserve a spot in our arsenals, as you've demonstrated here.

Me resultó muy esclarecedor! Era una de mis grandes dudas. Los que solemos usar este tipo de antenas en el campo, sabemos que a veces lograr un espacio de 20 metros para montar la antena, no es fácil, 20 metros es muy largo. en Cambio 12,5 metros o 16,20 se crea o no, siempre es algo menos. Gracias Colega.73 desde Argentina. EG: I found it very enlightening! It was one of my big doubts. Those of us who usually use this type of antennas in the field know that sometimes achieving a space of 20 meters to mount the antenna is not easy, 20 meters is very long. On the other hand, 12.5 meters or 16.20, whether you believe it or not, is always something less. Thanks Colleague.73 from Argentina.

On 20 the 41ft 9:1 is close to a 5/8 wave so maybe that helped her a bit on 20m.

I bought an end fed long wire from Palomar that is 155 ft long. I wanted to be able to use it on 160 for regional nets (and on all bands of course). When I first set it up the resonance for 160 was in the broadcast band so I communicated with the manufacturer he suggested looking at it as an off center fed dipole and install ferrite current chokes to get the SWR down on 160, it came with the snap on ferrite choke. It worked though I still need a tuner, but without moving the snap on ferrite setup father up the feedline to a good 12 ft away from the shack entry point, SWR simply wasn't possible. You used a choke but not in a tunable way. I have put a small WSPR transmitter on it and it seems it works as well as my other antennas over a period of time. I love watching how the bands change as you observe the WSPR reports over a period of time.

Interesting experiment and I think that you would be hard pressed to make a wrong choice by using either antenna. I am sort of wanting to put up a 9:1 at home and I have found that my internal tuner works fine on the CaHR 9:1 from 40 through 10. So as long as I am not really running 80 and 160, I can get by with the internal tuner.

Great test! I use both types of antennas, and I too am surprised how close they are to each other. I normally use 158' Wire into the MFJ L-Network Tuner as my Portable antenna. I use this mostly when camping so I'm on 80 and 40, but will make a contact where I can. Going camping this Saturday for a week in fact. I'll be taking a 80 meter EFHW, and 40 meter EFHW (in case I can't get that much wire up). Enjoyed the video for sure!

Excellent video Mike!

Thanks for input today

I have both 9:1 and 49:1 antennas at my QTH. Switching between the two, I found the 49:1 as having more gain but, the 9:1 is definitely less noisy.

I've found that the 49:1 is easy to build, easy to use and gets great results. I never got good results with a 9:1, but I chalk that up to being lazy 🤣

Great job. Thanks. I’m a 66 ft EFHW 49:1 user here at my limited space QTH, and have had better than expected results. A couple of thoughts. Try a longer wire length on the 9:1 like 53 ft or one of the other non resonant recommended lengths. I think that would be more of an apples to apples comparison. The 49:1 end fed is limited to harmonic bands. The 9:1 can be used on the WARC bands as well (obviously with a tuner). Either one is a good choice depending on your needs and preferences. 73 Marc, W4MPS

Ghostbusters. A man after my own heart. I hit ya on FT8 last week!

I use my PackTenna 9:1 with 17.5 ft. of coax as the counterpoise for my SOTA work. I find this more effective than hooking a dedicated wire to the board and (subjectively) have benefited from this configuration. It is also one less step while setting up. Great success with PackTenna. I also run 73 ft. of wire which offers some more gain which you mentioned, you might lengthen in a future video. Your numbers would have changed with these differences for the 9:1. Thanks for your effort, it was interesting.

I think it's a win for the 9:1 because of the space.

I use a 9:1 for a vertical antenna which gives me multi band use from 17m up because the wire is shorter like you say. I use the 49:1 for the lower bands because it is longer I have it up horizontally. Good tests, well done, that took quite a bit of effort to do that.

Hi Mike, as I watched your excel tables for both antennas they cover the same most far distance on every band. Signals tend tot be slightly better on thé 49:1 but I take more antenna wire into account. Watching this video I'm thinking of putting up a spiderbeam HD 12,5 meter vertical with 41 feet of wire and just next to the 9:1 matching network I will mount the Chameleon URT-1 remote tuner so all frequenties are tuned at the antenne itself. I think this will outpetform my 49:1 end fed half wave hanging in inverted-L configuration. Icing on the cake is having alsof 30 and 12 meters available. Good video. 73 Phil ON4VP

I (KD1XI) have done similar experiments with the same types of antennas. I got similar results. I now use a 40 meter end fed half wave with 49 to 1 transformer.

I’ve made an Efhw with a 9:1 and 71ft of wire. Works a treat. Had a 2,000+km SSB QSO on 10 watts, using the wonder wand widebander tuner. Be interesting to see how a longer wire performs for you. 73 de M7LGC

I run a 9-1 with a tuner in the shack with my ft891 for convenience but when I go to the field I prefer a 49-1 because I don't have to drag a tuner.

EFHW’s don’t require a tuner. EFHW’s do not burn up signal in their feed lines when used on resonant bands, so long runs of coax are ok. EFHW’s can really only be used on their resonant bands, or their advantages evaporate. Random wires with a 9:1 balun require a tuner, but can be used on any band. They burn signal up in their feed lines (even with a tuner), so they’re not good with long coax runs (try to keep it less than 10’, I run mine with 2’ of coax); but with a short coax feedline losses are minimal.

I like the 9:1 for ease of deployment. I use a G90 so tuning is no problem. Take it to the beach and you'll notice less difference ... IMHO.

So awesome, you give me hope for my 9:1 in a valley. 👍👍👍

It would be interesting to see whether these results are statistically significant?

Fantastic experiment! Thanks for doing it. There is a formula for determining and rejecting outliers. You may have done that, I don’t know. But it’s worth looking into. Cheers again!

I was gonna say neither because they are never in stock😂. Checked their page and saw they had some so I ordered! Thanks!!

Great to see real world comparisons! I wish more RU-vid channels would do this, instead of just promoting a company that is donating the user an antenna. May I suggest using a center fed dipole antenna as a base line antenna in comparisons. It is single band, but probably the most efficient wire antenna/dipole.

Just wanted to add, I have a 9:1 about 84 feet long (about 30 feet up horizontal) with a long counterpoise going to ground and a Yaesu FT-710, it tunes 160-10 no problem. When I go on vacation I bring a 10 meter pole and shorten the 9:1 to 29 feet with ~ 33 foot counterpoise to ground but only tune up 40-10. So you def need the length on a 9:1 if you want to tune up all bands on a shack radio. Never tried an external tuner.

Thought the label read "Packed Enima" .....?

I prefer the 71ft 9:1 EF vs the 66ft EFHW because It allowed me to work all continents on 7 bands, not just 4. It also got me 5/6 continents on 80m vs nothing on the 66ft EFHW.

You did better than me. Yesterday I went out with 3 antennas, and was not very empirical at all, ultimately only making 2 say contacts. I will make the test with WSPR soon.

TL;DR 41' random wire with 49:1 works OK I'm late to the party, but I've been running a 41 ft EFRW with a 49:1 balun (kit from HF Kits in NL,), 20+ ft off the ground. This after a miserable resonant dipole experiment. I didn't know what to expect, but with a short (6 ft ?) counterpoise, it seems to work pretty well. I can tune up all bands from 80M to 10M with both my G90 and FT-900. SWR looks good with the RigExpert analyzer. I've worked a little Dx with it... BUT I'm thinking about subbing in a 9:1 and extending the wire to 71 ft, just to compare. I'd be really interested in seeing identical wires hooked up to the two baluns. Thanks!

. Thanks for the comparison video. Interesting… I use a 9-1 unun with a 107 foot “random” wire antenna with an external antenna tuner because I’m wanting to use it on any band, not just 1/2 wavelength bands… it’s mostly horizontal from about 25 ft high at the feed point on my chimney mount point to about 16 foot on my garage at the other end of the property.. it works well considering. If I had more room for a better, higher antenna no doubt I would have a better one. I have worked 200 countries on FT8 in the last 16 months. Between that and my 40 ft vertical with a 4-1 unun, I do ok…

My 9:1 wire is a bit over 33 feet. No tuner needed 40-10 except for 60m. Usually don't have space for 66ft wire.

I think you've shown the antennas are statistically identical. Thanks for that.

I'm about to make one of these.. so watching with baited breath!

Great experiment. The results were very close to each other, so either one would probably be fine. It just depends on how much space you have. I once had a random wire antenna that worked pretty well. It was an antenna I had used for SWL but then started using it when I got my ticket. It was probably around 60 or so feet in the attic space fed with a single wire that was attached to a screw terminal on my receiver. I later connected that same wire to a homebrew tuner. I could get it to load everywhere, but occasionally had RF in the shack issue. With the UnUns out there now, I wonder if anyone still feeds an antenna like that?

49:1 every time for me. Easy to wind, easy to build, easy to deploy and good results.....

TennTenna is a great choice if you have somewhere to hang one end.I also use a Harvest Outback 2000.

It seemed to be that the biggest difference was on 40m, and that's probably because of the length of the 9:1 antenna, with the longer length (71ft?) it would probably be very similar again.

That with my G90 I used Adam, K6ARK's 49:1. When I picked up and 857 I needed to switch to the 9:1.

I am not sure why the results are surprising. In addition there was a tad insertion loss from the tuner, jumper, and added connections. That could be all the difference.

I get a lotta flack for using a Nelson Antennas EFRW as my main home QTH antenna, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as contacts are made it's all good. It's an easier antenna at home even when needing a tuner. Thanks for the contabulations, great data-backed assessment.

I have a 49:1 66 feet long. I have all the normal bands good. But with my MFJ 949E I can tune in 80M

I just bought a nelson HWEF for 10-40m, but I haven't put it up yet. I'm going to run it for my shack antenna on an Icom 7300. I bought the 1000w model as I also have an amp and tuner if needed. I love my DX Commander, and have made tons of contacts on it, but damn, as a permanent installation in Northern California where we get the high temps and lots of wind, it's just too much maintenence to keep it working good. At this point, I need new guide plates, and that's over half of what the price of the HWEF I bought was. Eventually I will take the DXC apart, and measure all the plates and 3d print them. But for now, I want to get back on the air. It's been almost 2 years since my shack radio has been turned on and that is a travesty. Had to work on the last two field days, so haven't even had the portable gear out. Portable, I use a 49:1 HWEF that is home brew and works great for POTA and such. Thanks for the info on these two antennas. Looking forward to seeing more of this sort of content.

Thanks for doing the test! I would like to see a test with a closer wire length.

Interesting. I set out a few weeks ao to design/build a Doublet - then got from a friend the idea of an end fed long wire with a 1:9 Balun - now wondering if it should be a 1:49 device! decision time... Al GM4ENF.

It is nice of the state oy Texas to build you a test range. It is a solar powered oven on the range

Hey Mike! Can you do a video on where you collect your WSPR data and how you do those calculations? The maths nerd on me is curious. 🤓

Curious if ground counterpoise wires/ground screen (in addition to the counterpoise the coax gives you) would help with signal levels. Also - does using a line isolator/choke on the coax cause issues with its usefulness as a counterpoise?

Nice data collection, shows more similarities than not. I been using a 9:1 w/ a 55ft wire. (+/- a foot) with great results w/ my G90. You always do an excellent job, very informative and give me some ideas also. Bob K. KD2WBz 73

well both of them are a win. I will pack both. more bands on the 9:1 . some are set as a offset center working 6 meters as well. for parks on the air I say pack them both. 73's

Hi Mike. I just got an X6100 for Christmas. Your conclusion sold me ... get both.😊 Seriously, my question is will the X6100 internal tuner be capable of running a 9:1 antenna?

Great experiment Mike. Could you use your FT818 next time and only run a few milliwatts on WSPR. I am amazed who hears my tests at milliwatts, and some other ops I hear running even less power than I do.

The 9:1 gives you two more bands. 17 and 12 wouldn't be possible with the EFHW. Depending on the material of the Toroid the 9:1 could even give you 6. The 9:1 nearly always wins as far as versatility is concerned, the 49:1 is usually more efficient because there is no mismatch on the coax and the radiation pattern is much more of a "real" dipole. If you use a longer wire and feed it with an antenna coupler the results should be even closer but the EFHW won't give you 17 and 12.

Josh saw this coming. 😂

Good job. Enjoyed

The answer is like many other ham radio answers is "it depends".

Ah,a nice cool day for you to operate on @ 104F….112F in Tucson yesterday…🥵

Honestly the numbers look to be within margin of error, except maybe 40m, which can be explained with the difference in length of the wire. You could redo the experiment and maybe use the same wire but switch transformers and fold the wire onto itself for the 9:1 tests to shorten it to a good random wire length. 🤔

Wire length should have been closer for each radio. 71 ft for the 9:1

And no windowscreen was injured in this test. Sounds like the 9:1 setup could fit places the 49:1 couldn't with adequate performance. n0km

I like your video could you do the same but with a 4:1 /49:1 and 9:1 Random Wire

Use the Ellinsworth EFHW design 49:1 so you don't have to use a tuner. Less battery ftw

To me it seems the counter poise turns it into a non-optimised off centre fed dipole.

Thanks!

Please do the CHA LEFS 40-10m. It has a 5:1 matching transformer, I believe. It's resonate on 40, 20, 15 and 10m.