On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 16:47:18 +0000, "W0LEV via
groups.io"
>But I've been bashed and flamed
>for many of my comments. Here it all is from another excellent source.
As many have said, they can work OK under certain conditions. But in many cases,
people wonder why the EFHW/EFLW doesn't work as well as many claim it does.
I found this to be interesting. It's taken from this part of that website:
"Key nuance: standard 49:1 EFHWs are unstable on lower bands due to soil and
height variations. However, in purpose-built Inverted-L designs with higher
ratio transformers (68:1–70:1), stability improves dramatically—showing that
transformer design and geometry matter as much as the wire itself."
It also covers the EFOC (end-fed off-center) antenna, which is more manageable
than the above. It's worth a quick read of that page. This particular part
explains why the EFHW as a multi-band antenna may not be the Holy Grail of
antennas:
=========================================
Why We Do Not Like the “Wideband EFHW”
Some commercial EFHWs are marketed as “wideband” solutions, claiming low SWR
across HF without a tuner. In reality:
The flat SWR curve often comes from lossy ferrites or resistive elements inside
the transformer. This “absorbs” mismatch rather than transferring power to the
antenna.Efficiency can be dramatically reduced—sometimes more than half the RF
power is lost as heat.
=========================================
So a good SWR, as stated in this group many times, does not mean that the
antenna is efficient. A dummy load is probably the most inefficient antenna
possible, yet it offers a 1:1 SWR.
I used an end fed multiband antenna for a few years and had a decent enough
ground system, and it did OK, but I matched it directly with a tuner, no voltage
transformer or balun.
Donald KX8K
----------------------------------------------------
Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: