We are pleased to report that we have been hearing from a growing number of our customers whose HEX-BEAM®s have served them well for over a decade now. A few have wondered what sort of maintenance/service is required. If nothing is broken, the answer is... nothing. To those in high UV areas we have suggested rotating the fiberglass spreaders (and arm fittings) so that the spreader top goes down, hopefully adding another decade of useful life. We are very pleased to find that even when a mast/support has failed and the entire system has collapsed, the damage to the HB has been minimal, if any. We are grateful for, and yet humbled by, the many enthusiastic and positive comments we received at Dayton 2011 and otherwise. Thank you.

Though the truth always comes out in the end, questions continue to arise regarding our work with the HEX-BEAM®. The questions mainly concern what is a real hexbeam and what is called a "hexbeam." Many aren't aware of the vast differences between the two. Also, many aren't aware that the name hexbeam is a registered Trade Mark of Traffie Technology and some are using this Trade Mark or something similar to market their own products. Though we use the stylized form of the word hexbeam, the Trade Mark covers any form of the word(s). 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 concerning the HEX-BEAM®, realizing that not everything called a "hex beam," is really a HEX-BEAM®.

A few comments regarding the HEX-BEAM®.

WHERE FROM/SOME HISTORY

The hexagonal beam began with a creative spark—two W shaped elements placed tip to tip—a dipole element with a single parasitic utilizing tip coupling. Since it was ? usual size, we expected a small, somewhat compromised beam with a rather modest level of performance, but soon realized that it performed much better than expected and was very "quiet." Also, the expected compromises didn't exist and many of the problems found in existing arrays were eliminated. It worked surprisingly well—often better than much larger conventional designs. Reference antennas were a 3 element Yagi-Uda on a 1/3 wave length boom, a wide spaced 2 element Quad, and an LPDA. Though we later called this new design the "hexbeam," the name hexbeam didn't exist in the beginning.

It should be pointed out that, especially in the beginning, the "on air" performance of the actual HEX-BEAM® and modeled predictions did not agree. Though he hadn't used a real HEX-BEAM®, one well known, very capable, and highly respected 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." This simply was not, and is not, true, as is evidenced during these last two decades. Even today, one can only wonder why simulations, though better now with odd shaped elements, are often held as fact, rather than readily observable, measurable, and repeatable real-world performance which is what counts in the end.

REGARDING OPTIMIZING

Some, not aware of the extensive R&D done in the beginning, have asked about "optimizing" the HEX-BEAM®. It should be noted that "optimize" is a very ambiguous term, since optimum doesn't have the same meaning to everyone. 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 which suffers from the same problems.

It needs to be pointed out that when we realized the surprising performance level of the HEX-BEAM®, 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

We believe these goals have been met with the HEX-BEAM®.

REGARDING CONFUSION

The question is asked, "Is the HEX-BEAM® a "classic hexbeam" or is it an "improved broadband hexbeam"? Unfortunately, many don't realize that these aren't true hexbeams and 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. There seems to be a need to think it had to evolve somehow, or come from somewhere other than a "creative spark." So yes, there are questions and confusion. 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 real HEX-BEAM® is not a "New improved broadband hexbeam" as the term is used today. From the beginning it has already been a broadband design which has been refined or "improved"structurally over the years and has been, and at present is, an optimized broad-banded design, having somewhat differing design goals than this later G3TXQ version ... see above "design objectives 1-6."

Actual use or even 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 rearward nulls and broad 2:1 operating bandwidth.

REGARDING WHICH IS BEST

"Best" doesn't have the same meaning to everyone, but an antenna's gain is a very important factor. Especially when "getting through" counts. As far as we know, the real HEX-BEAM's? "on air" gain/size ratio is unequaled. This is especially apparent with the beam at modest heights and during low angle (DX) communication. This 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.). 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 rearward nulls, which often are more important than F/B alone. With our discovery and development 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.

Although it's not a true hexbeam, the antenna which Steve Hunt, G3TXQ later developed, had design goals that were somewhat different than ours. 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. Though larger in size, this G3TXQ version provides a somewhat lower overall VSWR than the HEX-BEAM®'s < 2:1. Also, though this version doesn't have the HEX-BEAM®'s deep rearward nulls or the same high level of peak F/B, it has a 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 rearward 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 one always wanted, but if it won't "be" for long, the initial delight soon disappears. Using cheap poles leads to disaster. Having no insulators, or melted insulators, when using high power, isn't nice either. And re-building antennas and climbing icy towers during winter just isn't fun! Though the hexagonal configuration itself goes a long way in minimizing/eliminating many of the problems found in conventional arrays, especially wire arrays, much more has been done to refine the original concept. As mentioned earlier, we are pleased to hear from customers who have been using their HEX-BEAM®s for a decade and more. 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 present 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 with the "i" (improved) series of HEX-BEAM®s. Also, we found along the way that sometimes seemingly little things 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 becomes 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 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, water tight, 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! 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 20th year of work striving to make the HEX-BEAM® be 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" with other large, expensive systems we hear, "Best antenna investment I ever made... 5 mono-banders... single feed... no problems... and this thing works!"

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."

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. To say it again, we are very pleased to find that even our early HEX-BEAM®s are still in use after these many years. HEX-BEAM®s are found in some of the harshest environments known and have survived desert heat, Antarctic region cold, and winds in excess of 140mph.

73,

Mike Traffie, N1HXA