DESIGN GOALS/OPTIMIZATION

Questions continue to arise regarding our work with the HEX-BEAM®. Some have been asked before. Some are new. There's a lot of confusing and contradicting talk. Many aren't aware of what really has transpired. My hope is to provide some answers in a simple, easy to understand manner. Among the questions asked are:

• "Where did the HEX-BEAM® really come from?"
• "Since there's a new improved broadband version out, wouldn't it be beneficial to 'optimize' the HEX-BEAM® also?"
• "How does the HEX-BEAM® differ from the various versions which have been coming out now?"
• "Which one is the best?"
• "What about durability?"
• "I want a real HEX-BEAM® - how about a cheaper version"?

Our work with the HEX-BEAM® began with a creative spark. At that time, the term "hex beam" didn't exist and the hexagonal beam was, not only unknown to everyone we spoke with, but the concept itself was considered ridiculous when recognized authorities in the antenna field were consulted regarding its configuration, small size, and surprising performance. One said he didn't have time for things from "never-never land" (later became strong supporter). Another, a highly regarded professional, though very skeptical, said, "If what you're saying is true, you'd better get your patents in order." Desiring not to infringe by building the HEX-BEAM® for others, and considering the benefits of patent protection for ourselves, we took his comment seriously. This resulted in an extensive effort to locate evidence of prior art in published works, searches of previous patents, and in "on air" conversations with operators around the world. No documentation was found for a previously existing hexagonal beam such as the HEX-BEAM® with its tip coupling and other design characteristics - and to our knowledge hasn't been found to this date. Our attorney expected we were eligible for 7-8 patents to cover the various models and designs. Rather than patent, we decided to write some articles, Trade Mark the word name "hex beam", and "let it go" so everybody could know about it. But, articles on the design were rejected. It was amazing! Here was something new and unique... and very exciting! We could get patents on it, and Trade Mark its name, but at first no one would publish an article describing it. We couldn't give "it" away!

In 1993, hoping to arouse some interest, we brought a dual-bander and a well-known reference antenna to Dayton and set up an operating station so folks could actually see it work. The response, "A beam!?... No way!... impossible!" Some looked inside, then under, and finally all around the van to find where the "trick" was in the hook-up to the reference vertical. Some laughed, some shook their heads, others just walked away... Even seeing the dramatic difference between the two wasn't believable. Seeing wasn't believing!

A lot has happened since then, but as HEX-BEAM®s became more widely known, the early rejection of the design changed to enthusiasm. Some hams, being experimenters, began to build their own versions with varying degrees of success. Most, if not all, used dimensions derived from various modeled versions of the original HEX-BEAM®. Though different from the real HEX-BEAM®, these nonetheless began to be called "classic hexbeams" which is really a confusing misnomer, for they are neither "classic" nor are they true HEX-BEAM®s any more than a home made, or otherwise formulated, cola is a Classic Coke(. To further add to the confusion, there's the misconception that the HEX-BEAM® is a "commercial version" of this antenna which some now call a "generic" or "classic hex beam" and that the HEX-BEAM® shares its problems and limitations.

Before continuing with the aforementioned questions, it should be pointed out that the "on air" performance of the real HEX-BEAM® and modeled predictions do not agree. From the very beginning, there has been the impression that since the HEX-BEAM® is a half-size beam, it therefore shares the problems associated with other reduced size arrays. The assumption is - and modeling predicts - that the HEX-BEAM® is substantially compromised by its hexagonal configuration with W-shaped wire elements, that don't have the proper diameter, feeding method, "spacing", etc. Meanwhile, our experience has been, and is, otherwise. When we reported that this half-size 2-element antenna performed on par with a full-size 3-element Yagi-Uda, it was considered preposterous... an unbelievable wild claim. Here was this tiny, 7-1/2 lb., 2 element, 20 meter wire beam that has over 30 things "wrong" with it and it was doing what it's not "supposed" to do. What's to be said?

Though he hadn't used a real HEX-BEAM®, one reviewer, after modeling several iterations, had this to say, "Although one might expect this (the HEX-BEAM®'s configuration) to adversely affect the maximum gain, its most significant effect is to raise Q and narrow the bandwidth of almost all the antenna properties of note for amateur use" - the expected result being a beam "with a narrow banded, relatively mediocre level of performance." At the same time, those using HEX-BEAM®s called telling us how the HEX-BEAM® "heard" and "got through the pile-ups", when other much larger, higher, and more complex conventional systems couldn't. Some marveled at their low SWR. Others wondered why mobile stations heard them so well and why there appeared to be less fading with the HEX-BEAM®. Etc.

Even today, one can only wonder why simulations of the HEX-BEAM®'s performance are held as fact, rather than the readily observable and repeatable reality of 1000 or so HEX-BEAM®s, in at least 1000 different locations world wide, in what must be 10,000s, if not 100,000s, of QSOs over almost 20 years! What is said here is not to be taken as an affront on modeling, for modeling serves a purpose. However, I must again say, "THINGS ARE HAPPENING WITH THE HEX-BEAM® THAT MODELS DON'T 'SEE' YET! SOME VERY IMPORTANT THINGS ARE BEING MISSED!"

REGARDING OPTIMIZING

First, it should be said that optimum doesn't have the same meaning to everyone, so we know that the "OPTIMUM" beam for everyone and every application hasn't been found yet. The most any of us can hope for, is an antenna that comes closest to meeting our individual requirements. Antennas may be similar, yet each is unique in its own way.

Asking the question regarding "optimizing" of the HEX-BEAM® assumes that it is the same antenna as that which some now call "classic hexbeam" and is therefore an obsolete/non-optimized design. This simply isn't true.

It needs to be pointed out that when we realized the surprising performance level of the HEX-BEAM®, we knew something was happening that we didn't quite understand yet, so an extended period (3+ years) of R&D followed, which focused on optimization of the initial concept. The main design objectives were:

1. Maximum gain in smallest possible size at lowest practical height
2. Durability to overcome problems long associated with wire beams
3. Good directivity
4. VSWR<2:1
5. Operating bandwidth similar to conventional designs (3% +/-)
6. Legal limit capability

The question is asked, "Is the HEX-BEAM® a "classic hexagonal beam" or is it an "improved broadband hexagonal beam"? Unfortunately, many don't realize that the real HEX-BEAM® is neither of these, nor is it a copy or version of some other prior design of which there's talk from time to time (See T-TECH DESK/OCT 08). Over the years, we have attempted to report our findings as clearly and accurately as we know how, and haven't tried to disallow, dismiss, or disparage any former or present work of others. Still, some folks apparently aren't comfortable with the HEX-BEAM® being what it is... "The HEX-BEAM®." We aren't quite sure why this is, but it is strange... and puzzling!? There seems to be a need to "pass it off" or think "it" had to evolve somehow, or come from somewhere other than a "creative spark"... a thought... the thought of a hexagonal beam comprised of six 60-degree segments, having 2 W-shaped elements, which provide two intense flattened fields... fields that can be controlled more precisely. So yes, there are questions. And yes, there is confusion. And why?

My inventor friend, the late Howard Johnson, who was influential in our work, said it this way, "There's little hope that what you're working on is truly new if it's NOT considered totally outrageous in the beginning." Later the same people will say, "It's nothing new, we knew about it all along." And what follows is "We have something better." So between "outrageous" and "it's been there all along" and "we have something better", there's confusion. We don't know how to eliminate the confusion, so we simply continue to point out:

The real HEX-BEAM® is not the same as what some now call a "generic" or "classic hex beam" since its characteristics are very different... see above "design objectives 1-6." We trust that the discerning will "see."

Also, the HEX-BEAM® is not a "New improved broadband hexagonal beam" as the term is used today, since it has already been refined or "improved" over the years and has been, and at present is, an optimized broad-banded design, having somewhat differing design goals than this G3TXQ version... see above "design objectives 1-6."

A quick glance at the HEX-BEAM®'s radiation pattern(s) and performance specifications will show these differences. The most obvious of these are its gain curve(s), deep side nulls and broad 2:1 operating bandwidth.

REGARDING WHICH IS BEST

Best doesn't have the same meaning to everyone. We need to again mention that the HEX-BEAM®'s actual "on air" performance is different than any known models predict, for models are only simulations. When viewed through the lens of existing computer modeling, only some of what's happening in the condensed fields unique to the HEX-BEAM® is "seen." There's a lot more to the story!

With the HEX-BEAM®, to the best of our knowledge, its "on air" gain/size ratio is unequaled. This is especially apparent with the beam at modest heights and during low angle (DX) communication. Its gain isn't "narrow-banded" as models of the design have predicted since it doesn't roll off as expected. Its 2:1 VSWR bandwidth is in the 3% range (similar to Yagi-Udas, etc.), so it isn't narrow-banded there either. Also, it has a peak F/B in the 25-35 dB range, usable F/B for its entire operating bandwidth, and also has excellent side nulls, which often are more important than F/B alone. With our discovery and utilization of top feeding using a single feed-line, this broad range of performance is made possible on each band of operation with the 5-band HEX-BEAM® using a single feed-line without matching networks and their associated losses and problems. The HEX-BEAM® also has other attributes not mentioned here.

With the "Improved broadband hexagonal beam" version, which Steve Hunt, G3TXQ developed, the design goals were somewhat different than ours were. From what we understand, his primary goals were to overcome the problems associated with the earlier modeled/homebuilt derivatives of the HEX-BEAM® which reportedly did have narrow gain and VSWR bandwidths and poor F/B. Steve has done very well at meeting these goals. Though larger in size, this G3TXQ version provides a generally lower overall VSWR than the HEX-BEAM®'s < 2:1. Also, though this version doesn't have the HEX-BEAM®'s deep side nulls or the same high level of peak F/B, it has a very good overall level of F/B. It appears that homebuilders, thinking that a 1:1 VSWR provides better performance, began "tuning" for 1:1 VSWR. Many didn't realize that when a beam is tuned for best gain and/or F/B, its drive impedance most often isn't 50 Ohms and that the most beneficial characteristics of an array can be lost in tuning it to match 50-Ohm line.

It can be said then that every antenna design has its own "personality." Each is "best" in its own way, since each is "optimized" with its own set of priorities and design goals in mind. In our case, retaining the HEX-BEAM®'s focusing effect and deep side nulls was very important. Also, many other factors come into play... size, weight, wind-load, power handling capability, durability, price, etc.

REGARDING DURABILITY

An antenna can be "just what I always wanted", but if it won't "be" for long, the initial delight soon disappears. Our first hexagonal beams built using cheap poles were a disaster. Having no insulators, or melted insulators, when using high power, wasn't nice either. And re-building antennas and climbing icy towers during a New England winter just wasn't fun! Something had to be done!

We've tried to change those things and are therefore pleased to hear from customers who are using their HEX-BEAM®s a decade or so later. The first HEX-BEAM®s, even with the early-design spreaders, have survived numerous hurricanes, ice/wind storms, etc. Others have suffered surprisingly minimal damage with collapsed supports, fallen branches, etc. Having the "right" spreaders has been a big challenge. Though it took a year of design/development effort, our new improved, Epoxy-glass spreaders, though pricey, are stronger and more durable, yet have the proper stiffness and flex. This tapered 2-piece design results in reduced wind load, and saves on shipping cost. They are ring-reinforced at the ferrule and mounted to the hub plate using simple, yet very effective, resilient UV resistant doublers. These spreaders, along with the incorporation of Phillystran® lines promise even better service for the "i" (improved) series of HEX-BEAM®s. Also, we found along the way that sometimes it's seemingly little things that can cause bigger problems later. Some hose clamps called "stainless steel", have screws that are only Cad plated which will eventually deteriorate. This may not be a problem in some areas, but is a real problem in salt spray environments. For this reason, and others, standard equipment with the "i" series of HEX-BEAM®s is all-stainless steel hardware.

When available insulators melted in high power applications, and were found to be inadequate otherwise, we designed our own. These custom element-end insulators and element to spreader mounting fittings that we use are manufactured in-house. This element termination and element to spreader mounting method has "stood the test of time." Also, the element to feed mounting method which we use is low loss, handles high power levels, simplifies assembly/disassembly, eliminates other separate support structures, and contributes significantly to the HEX-BEAM®'s long-term efficiency and survival in the worst conditions. Then there's the UV resistant center support with just the right amount of "give" and the trouble-free and extremely low-loss integral wiring harness/mounting stud system. There's more, but... When you see a HEX-BEAM®, you're cordially invited to take a closer look, if you haven't already.

REGARDING "CHEAPER" VERSION

This is our 18th year of work striving to make the HEX-BEAM® the best little beam we possibly can. Still, when asked this question, we have often wondered what to change or leave out to make the HEX-BEAM® more affordable. Those who don't have a HEX-BEAM® yet, consider it "spendy." Those who do have them consider their HEX-BEAM® is "worth every penny." When we have asked, "What should we change?" the virtually unanimous answer is, "Don't change a thing!" (One person added "but, I'd STILL like to get it for $500 or so!"). From those who "have been there, done that" we hear, "Sure, the HEX-BEAM® isn't cheap and it's not like my 'stacks' of mono-banders were... but it's the best antenna investment I ever made... had the big stuff... got tired of it all... this thing works!... 5 bands... single feed... and no problems!"

So far, we haven't found the right answer to making "cheaper." Instead we've tried to make "better" and hold the old prices in spite of increasing costs. Though we all are challenged by the present economic conditions, we don't want to take shortcuts with the HEX-BEAM® now (we have found that the shortcut is often the shortest route to the longest - and most expensive - way around). A copy of an old adage is still on the bulletin board beside my desk to remind me...

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."

Enough for now. This is much longer than I anticipated... thanks for reading.

73,

Mike T.

WHAT'S A HEX-BEAM®?

At the Dayton Hamvention and in recent months, there have been many questions and some confusion regarding what is and what isn't a HEX-BEAM®.

THE HEX-BEAM®'S BEGINNING

Some think the HEX-BEAM® Traffie Technology manufactures is a commercial version of a "generic" or "classic" design that has been in existence for several decades. This simply isn't true. The inspiration for the hexagonal beam with its W shaped elements came to me as a creative spark in the spring of 1992. The questions at the time were, "Why can't beams be tuned for best gains and best front to back? And is there a better way to utilize the energy present in an antenna's fields?"

THE NAME HEX-BEAM®

The name "hex beam" was used to describe the antenna during early "on the air" tests of the design. It was also used when the hexagonal beam was introduced at the Dayton Hamvention in 1993. To the best of our knowledge, the HEX-BEAM® is the original hexagonal beam, so the "hex beam" name was registered as a Trade Mark with the United States Patent Office. It should be noted that this mark is not issued if prior use by others of the mark, or similar mark, is found. This is especially significant with a Word Mark for it covers the words themselves and not just a style or form. This makes it the most difficult, but also the most important type of Trade Mark to obtain.

THOUGHTS/CONCLUSION

During the almost two decades that have passed, consideration has been given to providing an inexpensive or "economy" version of the HEX-BEAM® for the price conscious buyer. Each time we have concluded that "cheaper" isn't always cheaper - remembering the old adage: "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten". Instead, the focus has been on further improvement of the original design, while still making HEX-BEAM®s as affordable as possible.

We hope that those who have in good faith purchased our products, or intend to do so, can see through the present confusion and misstatements of the facts regarding the HEX-BEAM®, realizing that not everything called a "hex beam", is really a HEX-BEAM®. The HEX-BEAM® is made the way it is for many reasons - some that are obvious immediately when used for the first time, and others that are realized later. We are very pleased to find that many HEX-BEAM®s are still in use after 10+ years. HEX-BEAM®s are found in some of the harshest environments known and have survived desert heat, Antarctic cold, and winds in excess of 140mph.

73,

Mike T.

UPDATE

The previously mentioned "obvious immediately" was recently experienced at the 2008 New England ARRL Convention in Boxboro, MA, on August 23 and 24. The HX-5Bi, which has been traditionally used at the W1A Special Event Station, was compared with a well known remotely tuned 3 element Yagi-Uda which was also set up this year. Those who had never seen the HEX-BEAM® in a comparison like this were very surprised to see the tiny 2 element HEX-BEAM® performing on par with the much larger 3 element Yagi-Uda. This was especially "eye opening" to those who had considered the HEX-BEAM® to be a rather mediocre performing 2 element design. Both antennas were essentially at the same height above ground and fed with equal lengths of identical cable. The antennas were approximately 150 ft. apart. An Elecraft® K3 Transceiver was used for instantaneous A/B comparisons.

Congrats to Chet Cramer of Fenton, MI, recipient of the 6M HEX-BEAM® at the Orlando, 2008, show!

HOLD IT! STOP! WAIT A MINUTE!

My recent post on this site concerning our "time of reflection and consideration" has some folks running scared and thinking they need to order spare parts for their HEX-BEAM®s that aren't broken. Others feel we're desperate to "sell", "get out", etc.

YES, we would like to see someone with the means and ability bring the HEX-BEAM® and its technology to the next level.

NO, regarding someone just "running with it" and leaving our many customers "hanging". We intend that your present and future needs would be met.

At present we enjoy, and plan to continue, building HEX-BEAM®s as we have thus far, using the time-proven, custom built approach that has worked so well. We believe the HEX-BEAM® is one of the most durable and best performing beams built today and don't regret giving it the best we can. Since we have almost 15 years and well over $1M invested in this effort, we aren't interested in just "walking away".

We realize however, that "we" can only do so much and not everyone appreciates, or is willing to pay for, the time and expense involved with making parts step by step and pre-assembling an array piece by piece. To most, if not all our customers, a finely crafted, durable, insulator or spreader arm is part of the enjoyment and satisfaction of owning a HEX-BEAM®. Also, many want a beam that goes together quickly, requires no tuning, and works right the first time. Our happiest customers believe as we do -- "cheaper isn't always cheapest" and "bigger doesn't always mean better". Still, we would like to see the HEX-BEAM® made more affordable without sacrificing quality, so owning and enjoying the benefits of a HEX-BEAM® could become a reality to those who now feel they can't afford one...yet. Our question was, and is, what should the next step be?

It does seem to us that this endeavor has become "bigger" than "we" are and we would like to hear from the right someone or group of 'someones' who sees the potential of this technology, and would continue forward with the same, or an improved, level of quality as found in the present HEX-BEAM® product line. Also, of perhaps greater importance, are the pending proprietary improvements and developments resulting from our work thus far. The HEX-BAM®, as it now exists, is a fine antenna. Much has been done. But, much more can be done. Much more should be done. The HEX-BEAM® "at its best" isn't "out there" yet! Please contact me directly if you or your company is interested.

Sincerely,

Mike T.

April 2006 marks the beginning of our 15th year with the HEX-BEAM®. For us, it is a time of reflection and consideration.

Looking back, the arrival of the creative spark for a hexagonal beam was a very exciting time. We remember the moment and the many long, but enjoyable hours of testing and developing what is now known as the HEX-BEAM®. We had expected a somewhat compromised beam and a rather modest level of performance with the tiny hexagonal configuration, but it wasn't long when it became obvious that the HEX-BEAM® was very "quiet" and "got through" when other beams could not. Also, the expected "compromises" didn't exist and many of the problems found in existing arrays were eliminated. It really did work -- often better than much larger conventional designs.

Today, the HEX-BEAM®'s performance, durability and other benefits are widely known and well established. HEX-BEAM®s are now in virtually every state and many countries around the world. The HEX-BEAM® has gone from a creative spark to a proven product with an established market. Now it's time for the next step. That step is bigger than we are.

I would be pleased to hear from that someone or group of 'someones' who sees the potential of this technology and would continue forward with, not only the present HEX-BEAM® product line, but also the pending proprietary improvements and developments resulting from our work thus far with the controlled field concept.

If you are interested in the acquisition of this business and the associated technology please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Mike Traffie

Re: Installation Comments

Hex-Beams are now in use in various parts of the world. Those who have installed and are using Hex-Beams as recommended, report that our specifications are, if anything, conservative. Recently, we have been made aware of a few instances of disappointing performance with H-Bs.

In one instance, a much larger tri-bander was installed just below an HX-5Bi. Another has a large 11 element, HF array 12-14 ft. below a 40M HEX-BEAM®. In the third, compromised performance is reported when an HX-5Bi is compared with a trapped tri-bander. In this instance, both antennas were reportedly at 65 ft., which is 25-30 ft. above the recommended height for the HX-5Bi!

Other antennas, a building itself, or its roof (especially if metal), can act as an elevated: ground. Even wooden structures containing pipes, ducts, wires, etc., can affect performance. The effect is generally minimal, but if V.S.W.R. changes during beam rotation or compromised performance (especially in a certain direction) is experienced, these possibilities should be considered.

The HX-5Bi (and any HEX-BEAM® w/20M) is optimized for a working height of 40 ft. above "average" ground. Generally speaking, with HEX-BEAM®s, higher isn't better. When a HEX-BEAM® w/20M is installed at the "usual" Yagi height of 65 to 70 ft., its overall performance is compromised -- sometimes severely. While using the stacked pair at our test site once a given band is open, the single lower HX-5B at 30 to 35 ft. usually outperforms the upper HX-5B at 80 to 90 ft. by 5 to 12 dB. Its performance is often equal to or greater than the stacked pair! At gray-line the upper antenna sometimes has the edge (5-6 dB+/-). With QSB/multi-path propagation, the pair is generally better (10-12 dB +/-). With higher angle paths, (such as mid-stateside) the upper antenna can be up to 20dB down from the lower HX-5B.