An In-Use Look at a Beta Prototype of the Upcoming

Wellbrook Phased Array

By John Bryant, Summer 2008

I became acquainted with Andy Ikin, the guru of Wellbrook Communications five or six years ago when I
purchased one of the first of Wellbrooks extraordinary K9AY antennas to reach North America. I soon
wrote a rather glowing in-use review of the Wellbrook K9AY and have corresponded with Andy
sporadically ever since. I was very complimented when Andy asked me to join several other MW DXers
in the Beta test of a new broadband Wellbrook Phased Array. For Beta testing, Andy provided a two-
loop end fire phased array, essentially half of the upcoming four-loop commercial version. In the
commercial version, each pair of loops (with the shared control box) is a complete phased array with a
totally reversible pattern. The sketch below shows the arrangement of a 2-loop Array.

As you can see, the two twenty meter circumference loops were positioned exactly 40 meters apart. Please
note that the requirement for the 40 meter separation is fairly rigid as is the need to have the loops exactly
in the same plane. Although in the commercial version, Andy will provide a bit of adjustability with the
spacing (maybe to 35 meters?) the broadband delay line nature of this design makes both of these
requirements rather rigid. There is complete flexibility of the positioning of the two arrays in relation to
each other, however. (Refer to the Appendix to this article.)

I asked Andy to explain to me the difference between his design approach and the kind of phasing of two
antenna elements, popularized by the work of Mark Connelly and others, that many of us use today. He
provided me with this answer.

The phasing of two antennas has long been used by DXers to enhance reception;
primarily this is done to null an interfering station. The basic operation is to apply a
180 degree phase difference with equal amplitude on the station to be nulled. Whilst
this can be very effective, most such phasing schemes will only work over a very
narrow frequency band. This is because the antennas and phase shift network
changes with changes in frequency. Also incorrect feeder termination may cause
frequency-related phase and amplitude fluctuations.

A broadband phased array requires a completely different approach to the phasing

scheme described above.
 First, the broadband phasing system has to provide the correct resistive termination
to the antenna feeders, must use constant gain antennas and, ideally, should have
minimum of controls, with negligible interaction. More importantly, the phasing
scheme must not vary frequency i.e. the array front to back ratio should be relatively
constant over the MW band.

The Wellbrook Phased Array implements the above criteria, by using “phase
matched” loop antennas i.e. the antenna/amplifier propagation delay is matched to
within a few nano seconds across the MW Band. The antenna feeders have the
correct resistive termination. Combing the antennas in anti-phase plus a nominal
time delay line equal to approx. 80% of the spacing of the elements and this
maintains the correct antenna phase difference. Null steering up to over 50dB is
achieved by making the delay-line continuously variable and “fine adjusting” the
antenna amplitude balance. We also found it to be quite important that the phasing
Control Unit be isolated from any receiver impedance mismatch.

I also asked well known MW DXer Neil Kazaross to model one pair of the Wellbrook Array using
EZNEC software. Neil kindly provided a number of studies. Neil’s basic EZNEC response diagrams are
reproduced below. The horizontal model is sliced for 10 degree arrival angle

When I saw this, I was reminded of the response pattern of a perfectly terminated one wavelength
Beverage. They aren’t identical patterns, but they are quite similar. So, the commercial unit, set up with a
full complement of four loops and arranged classically with the two pairs at 90 degrees to each other
would essentially be like rotating this horizontal diagram through 360 degrees in four steps. My Beta unit,
with only two loops and the commercial unit operating with only two loops should give a response pattern
like flipping the horizontal diagram shown above back and forth, left to right.
Neil also pointed out that the combination of two loops in this fashion reduces the response (as compared
to a single loop) to high arrival angle signals. This is a good thing, since nearby interfering signals are
high arrival angle and much of long distance reception comes in at very low angles.

OKLAHOMA TESTS: SPRING 2007

Part of my Beta testing was measuring null depths or front-to-back ratios in real world situations. My
winter home in Oklahoma is a perfect location for that type testing because the state was settled so
recently (early 1900s) that most roads, highways and towns are on a 90 degree orthogonal grid. Hence, I
have a multitude of MW stations exactly to my north, south, east and west. Thus, it was relatively easy to
set up the array for measurement. I used my WinRadio G313e which can average signal strength over
several seconds and which can be set to very narrow bandwidth to eliminate much of strength variation
due to modulation. This article is not intended as a full report on those tests, but I should state that the
Array had deeper nulls than I’ve ever been able to achieve before.

Further, I should comment on the testing of null depths in the real world. Even in an orthogonal world like
Oklahoma, it is very difficult to measure the maximum null depth achievable by an antenna. First, the
time of day is critical: only around solar noon, to ensure a groundwave-only steady arrival angle; secondly
the station to be nulled needs to be quite strong, but probably not too strong. If the theoretical maximum
null is, say, 40 dB, testing it on a station that is only 30 dB above the noise (5 S-units) shows nothing
about the maximum possible null: you null the 30 dB signal down to the noise floor and that is all you can
do. Thirdly, the stations tested need to be fairly closely clustered, geographically at the true backside of
the antenna and, of course, the test stations need to be spread across the dial, so that variation of the null
by frequency can be addressed. Finally, to achieve the maximum null, the test stations signal MUST NOT
be covering a co-channel station beneath it; the energy from that second or third co-channel signal will
“fill in” the null giving a too shallow null depth indication. With this latter concern, it becomes somewhat
obvious that testing for maximum nulls, even in the daytime, is very difficult even in the sparsely
populated RF environment of the American West; in dense RF environments such as the North American
East Coast or in Europe, achieving the theoretical null depths in the field must be close to impossible.

In the Oklahoma testing, the nulls on most signals with no audible co-channel station were in the 35 dB
range, but on strong signals, right down the bore of the Array, some F/B ratios were right at 45 dB. Extra-
ordinary! I should add that I did several similar tests at Grayland, Washington and could – consistently –
achieve 48 dB nulls on one of the Portland stations. My guess is that the ultimate nulling ability of this
array, under ideal conditions, is about 50 dB. The fact that the two-loop array was totally reversible also
proved rather handy, even though my main interests in the Spring of 2007 were only southward from
Oklahoma (Mexico.)

In Oklahoma, I also tried to emulate using the array under DX conditions in the evening. In two
evenings, I was able to look at the performance on each of the 117 or so 10 kHz. channels on the MW
band. I considered the antenna a success on a channel if there was a DXable difference between the two
positions of the 'Beam Reverse' switch on that channel..... So, the two different stations did not have to be
totally separated from each other (although they mostly were, say 75% of the time). As long as I was
satisfied that I could definitely ID two different stations, one at each of the switch positions, I declared it a
success. In reality, this allowed me to count a handful of situations where I could hear the same station at
both switch positions: one way, it was "studio quality" the other direction, I could still hear it, but a
second station was now clearly dominant. On an amazing percentage of stations there were two different,
totally clear stations. Just amazing. There was a second condition that I also considered effective: when
there was a dominant station in one direction and simply nothing in audio in the other. I considered the
antenna not to be effective if my ear could hear no real DXable difference in the two settings.

The first evening, I went through the 117 or so channels from 530 to 1700 in about an hour. There were
15 channels where my ear could find no difference between the two settings. About half of these were
graveyard channels with 100 or more small stations on them and they were just a mess, which ever
direction I turned the switch.... just a "furball." That was certainly not attributable to the antenna, but it
still wasn't a DXable difference. That first night, there were an additional dozen channels where there was
a clearly dominant station in one direction and no audio whatsoever in the other. An example of that
would be 1200 kHz., with WOAI in San Antonio on the south end of the array and NOTHING off the
north. WOAI has been the super-power dominant, clear channel station on that frequency since the late
1920s. Since it is in the center of the continent, 700 km or so to my south, there is very little else in the
US or Canada on that frequency. Whatever is there, is on the fringes of the continent and directional
away from WOAI (and me!) So, there were 12 channels like that.... that the antenna produced an excellent
null, but it was not DXable. Still, I counted that dozen in the successful column.... meaning hat the
antenna made a DXable difference on almost 90 percent of the channels in one night. FABULOUS!

The second night, I went back and invested a full hour in the 15 channels that had been classed “failures”
the previous night. With some tweaking on my part and changed propagation conditions, I could make
out a DXable difference on 11 of those 15. Five furballs had gone away in the intervening 24 hours, with
DXable stations on both ends. The only furball that just could not be resolved was 1490 kHz., the most
crowded channel in the Americas. In the second instance, one station, 50 kW KOKC (formerly KOMA)
in Oklahoma City on 1520 kHz., just would not null effectively. I could knock 10 or 20 db off of a 60 dB
signal, but it just wouldn't die on either night. Since it is about 100 km. directly to my south, it should
have been nullable. Who knows..... there are always a few mysteries with phasers, it seems. The final two
signals that were not nullable (5 to 10 dB) were 740-KRMG, Tulsa and 1170-KFAQ, Tulsa. Both are 50
kW, long-time clear channels with excellent antennas and ground systems. Most importantly, they were
exactly 90 degrees off the side of the array.... ya just can't beat the laws of physics entirely, I guess.

So, the 15 channels where the antenna was not DXably effective the first night was reduced to four. I’ve
really experienced such effective performance out of any antenna, not even the Wellbrook K9AY. Most
of all, nulling of stations to the side, 50 and more degrees off the centerline of the array was very
impressive. With the array erected due North-South, I was able to test nulling to the side EFFECTIVELY:
to my ENE, WHAS, Louisville, KY and WLW, Cincinnati, OH, to my WNW, KOA, Denver and to my
SE, WWL Orleans. All but Cincinnati were in the mid-800kHz. on the dial. Very impressive lateral
nulling, since these are each persistent pests on my night-time dial.

My last test in Oklahoma was comparison testing the two-loop array against what my current favorite
unidirectional antenna: a broadside phased array of two BIG EWEs, about 28' x 60', both pointed south,
nulling to the north themselves and separated by about 350 feet. These units were phased against each
other using a fairly new Misek-Lankford phasing box. The Misek design takes a conventional L-C
approach to phasing and is both very effective and easy to operate. I had planned this to be my ultimate
antenna for Mexico and I figured that it would be about as good as I could ever get. Of course, the real
estate necessary for that array (about 80’ x 400’) is not available to many DXers at their home QTHs;that
much acreage isn't that easy to obtain even at a campsite. Further, the two EWEs take four 30' masts and
a great deal of coax. Still, when I fire it up, I hear a whole lot of Spanish on the dial and not too much
else, when the phaser was set correctly.

Well, before I ended testing of the Wellbrook Array, I wanted to compare DXing performance of the two
arrays. I was able to do so for only two evenings. Nevertheless, the results were quite clear: they were
mostly indistinguishable, one from the other, as far as what I could hear to my south. There is a mild RF
amp in the Misek phaser and the Wellbrook ALA-100s loop elements are amplified, so the S-meter
readings were quite similar. More importantly, when I simply listened, they were usually identical.
However, there were four or five instances where a station to the south was audible on both antenna
arrays fairly equally, but.... from a qualitative point of view, one was preferable to the other. In each
instance, the array that "heard the signal better" was the Wellbrook Phased Array. So: the Wellbrook
required less wire, less coax, only two masts and much less expensive/shorter masts, at that. The again,
the instant reversibility of the Wellbrook Array was a real boon. Finally, the broadbanded nature of the
Wellbrook was ever so much more productive and easier to operate that the more narrowly focused Misek
unit. The best that I can tell, the Wellbrook delivers well more than half its ultimate nulling capacity right
across the band in a “set and forget” mode. Once in a great while (10 to 20 percent?) it is possible to
improve the null with a bit of careful tweaking, but usually this is unnecessary…. Completely at odds
with a conventional phaser that requires practically constant retuning as one moves across the dial.

That completed the Oklahoma portion of the Beta testing. The Wellbrook Phased Array had passed with
flying colors and I knew that I’d never again be using my phased array of over-sized EWEs at the home
place. The Wellbrook was smaller, easier to operate and at least as effective.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TESTS: SUMMER & FALL 2007
My second task, along with Guy Atkins of suburban Seattle was testing the Array in the Pacific
Northwest in two venues: at our home locations which are each surrounded by 50 kW transmitters and at
the well known DXpedition site, Grayland, Washington on the open Pacific shore. In each location, we
DX Trans-Pacific medium wave signals that are available the latter half of the night and peak at local
dawn.

BACKGROUND: GRAYLAND
We have been DXing at Grayland for 18 years, using long “Beverage” antennas. The relationship of the
motel unit that we use to the Pacific shore governs the length of Beverages. There is about 600 feet of
open lawn and then 100 feet of dunes and high grass that separate the unit from the high tide mark and the
open Pacific. The lawn grows on compacted beach sand; the water table varies between 1 foot beneath the
surface in the winter and about 8 or 10 feet down in the summer and fall. The motel is due east of the
beach and the shore line runs very nearly north-south. Our standard set-up of Beverages is a 700 foot
long due West Beverage running to the high tide line (points the central Pacific and at Western Australia)
and a 800 to 900 foot long Northwest Beverage pointing more or less at East Asia. Grayland is on the
southern portion of the Washington coast with the closest AM transmitters about 20 miles away (two low
powered stations.) The some of the closest powerful stations are in Portland, Oregon, to our southeast,
about 200 km. away. The other pest stations are directly down the coast in San Francisco, 800 km or so
or in Seattle/Vancouver/Victoria to the NNE. Seattle is only 125 km. away while Vancouver is double
that.

In DXing Trans-Pacific signals from Grayland, what is wanted in antennas is a decent amount of gain, as
much signal to noise ratio as possible and, if possible, maximum rejection of unwanted signals over 180
degrees of azimuth from straight North to straight South. Since our Beverages are considerably less than
one wavelength, across most of the MW band, one would think that they would not be very directional.
However, there is almost always a significant directional difference between what we hear on the W and
the NW Bevs at the same time. There are differences in signal-to-noise on the two antennas almost all of
the time (listening to the same station, with much better S/N ratio for Japanese signals and often more
gain, for instance, on the NW Beverage.)

We have always looked for “better” antennas to use at Grayland. It is almost impossible to properly
terminate the Beverages in the sand and they are a real pain to set up and take down for just two or three
mornings of DXing. Over the years, we have experimented with virtually the full suite of antenna
possibilities, always carefully A/Bing them against the Beverages. I have been terribly disappointed
several times, having found antennas that worked as well as short Beverages in Oklahoma, only to find
that they did not do so in the sand at Grayland. What was happening, I finally concluded, was the
difference responses of the antennas to the 100% sand ground at Grayland and the almost perfectly
conducting greasy iron oxide-rich red clay of central Oklahoma (one of the finest ground planes in the
world.) Anyway, I was particularly excited by the giant EWE (20'x60') or even two giant EWEs, phased,
that in Oklahoma kept up with and even surpassed 700 foot short Beverages. The EWE, perfectly
grounded and working over such a great ground plane, is a real star in Oklahoma. The performance of it
and it's cousins the Flag, Pennant and even K9AY were all a disappointment in the pure sand environment
of Grayland. For a while, I was also very excited about a special built 3' x 1" tuned/amplified ferrite rod
antenna which did "almost as well" as a Beverage in Oklahoma... It fell on its face at Grayland. Of course,
not only were the grounded loops working better in Oklahoma than on the sandy beach, but the Beverage
was working more poorly over the greasy conductive clay of Oklahoma; it performed AT ITS BEST in
the sand of Grayland. We even tried the much vaunted 1 meter square, multi-turn air core loop of a
generation ago; it was non-competitive on the beach.
 DXing Performance: Grayland, Mid-September
Attending: Guy Atkins and John Bryant
DXing comparisons were made for four consecutive mornings using the Australian and Japanese stations
that were available each morning for about two hours during the very early morning and dawn periods.
The Australian MW AM signals varied in strength from providing just threshold audio to a few signals
running almost S-9. There were 29 different Australian stations received and 6 stations from New
Zealand. About half of the stations were received on multiple mornings, making somewhere around 70
total test receptions. The distance to these stations averaged about 11,000 kilometers or 7500 miles. There
were 22 Japanese stations used, with many of them received on multiple mornings, making around 40
total receptions; as with the Aussies, these varied in strength from threshold audio to very strong signals.
The distances involved to the Japanese stations were about 7,500 km or 4,500 miles. During the vast
majority of the testing, there were virtually no differences of signal strength or signal-to-noise ratio
noted between the signals present on the appropriate Beverage and its adjacent Array. Both judgments
were non-numeric... simply based on the sound qualities of each signal and the amount the carrier rose
above the surrounding noise on the spectrum scope of the WinRadio G313e.

There were a few performance differences between the Wellbrook Arrays and the short Grayland
Beverages, though these affected only a few receptions. The major difference was the vastly superior
Front-to-Back ratio of the Wellbrook Array. I estimate that the true F/B ratio of the Array was somewhere
around 50 dB. Due to the difficulty of achieving a good ground for terminating the Beverage, its F/B ratio
was somewhere between zero and 10 dB. Since we were DXing Australian and Japanese stations on the 9
kHz. spacing and our regional American stations were on the 10 kHz. separation pattern, F/B ratio was
not a major issue at Grayland, except, potentially, for shedding the much awaited digital hash QRM.
We made one test of the usefulness of the F/B abilities of the Wellbrook that is worth relating: 670, KBOI
in Boise, Idaho has been a regional pest at Grayland for years. It is 50 kW, 24 hours and about 450
miles/700 km to the Southeast of Grayland (120 degrees azimuth.) Near dawn one morning, I tuned to
670 and pointed the due E-W Array eastward. Sure enough, there was KBOI at full throttle. I flipped the
switch to West and I soon IDed the station on that side of the switch, all by itself: KPUA, 10 kW in Hilo,
Hawaii, 2700 miles away, at 240 degrees of azimuth, and running 10 kW. It was a truly amazing
demonstration of F/B ratio and width of both front lobe and null, since each station was 30 degrees south
of the centerline of the array. I'm sorry that I didn't have time to pursue other Hawaiians to further
demonstrate this great capability.

Given urban noise, the increase of digital modes on MW and the heavy co-channel interference that most
of us suffer, I would imagine that the superb F/B ratio of the Array will be one of its most useful attributes
for most DXing situations and one of the primary reasons that the Wellbrook Array will likely become a
DXers' favorite.

Another difference between the two antenna types was the fact that the forward lobe of the Array was
somewhat wider than that of the short Grayland Beverages. This width difference was found by
comparing DX stations from Australia and Japan both on the NW antennas and those pointing West. For
instance, there was only a little difference between the signal strength of an Aussie on the W and the NW
Array while there was a much greater difference in the strength and S/N ratio between that same Aussie
signal on the West and NW Beverages. This comparison was made many times using both Australian and
Japanese signals. Clearly the forward lobe of the Array is wider than that of a short Beverage. This width
of lobe could be a real advantage to the Array in some circumstances and a disadvantage in others.... The
Azimuth for the Aussies was 240 to 250 degrees (West antennas at 270) and the Japanese was at 300
(antennas at 317.)

DXing Performance: Queen Charlotte Islands, Mid-September

Attending: Guy Atkins, Walt Salmaniw, Chuck Hutton, Bruce Portzer and John Bryant
The DXpedition trip to the Queen Charlottes was a real joy, both for DXing and to rub shoulders with the
wonderful Haida indigenous culture. However, the Wellbrook's record of performance on the Charlottes
was mixed and really quite confusing. The Wellbrooks only operated properly about half the time. This
was no real fault of the antennas, just the confusion of five DXers operating 6 or 7 Beverages and then
trying to share two very adjustable Wellbrooks. When they were operated properly, I found that they
equaled the Beverages much of the time. Three of the seven mornings, I found myself using the
Wellbrook as the antenna of choice, but the choice was very close. Until after Chuck and Bruce left, no
one but me used the Wellbrooks very much. Whether this was from frustration (the earlier mis-
connections) or the pressure of too much DX coming in on antennas that were tried and true (the
Beverages) or whether they unexplainably saw differing result, I just don’t know.

There seemed to be one important and surprising difference between the Array and the Beverages at QCI,
that several of us, including me, saw: the Wellbrook did not do well at all at the extreme beginning of
sunset DX and end of dawn DX. In the years that many of us have DXed directly from the beach on either
side of North America, we have noticed DX starting to come in much earlier before sunset than it does
just inland (in the case of East Coast North Americans DXing Europe) or staying in much later after
sunrise as West Coasters DX Asia or DU at dawn from the Pacific beaches. The prevailing theory to
account for this thirty to ninety minute extension of the DX opening is that extremely low angle DX is
refracted from the edge of darkness far beyond the shore and reaches DXers at the shore, but does not
penetrate inland. Some of us visualize it as very weak quasi-groundwave. Who knows if this is the proper
explanation? In any case, there is this extension of the DX window that seems to occur only at the beach
itself.

At the QCI DXpedition, we were fortunate enough to hear over forty European stations in the early
evenings, as well as hundreds of Asian stations in the early mornings, so we were able to experience both
the evening and morning beach-related extensions of the DX window. Well, what we noticed there was
that the Beverages received this early and late extension much sooner than the Wellbrooks. Several of us
noted this difference over several DX sessions. After thinking a while, that lag or delay actually seemed to
make sense to us. Although two phased delta loops (the Wellbrook) do have better low angle response
than a single delta, they still are probably less sensitive to extreme low arrival angle signals than are
Beverages.... So, it might “make sense” that we would detect those early signals first on the Bevs at sunset
and last on the Bevs at dawn.

DXing Performance: Grayland, Late October

Attending: John Bryant
The main purposes of my second fall trip to Grayland was to reconfirm our earlier finding that the
Wellbrooks did as well as the vaunted Grayland Beverages and to reconfirm the early loss of signal by the
Wellbrooks after dawn, noted for the first time in the Queen Charlottes.

I spent about ten hours spread over two mornings carefully A/Bing the Wellbrooks against the two
Beverages. The two Beverages were both our standard BOGs, with the westerly one 700 feet long and the
Northwesterly one at 900 feet. The two Wellbrook arrays paralleled the Beverages but were separated by
40 to 60 feet. Happily, a few Australians were in for each morning, so there were test targets for the
Westerly antennas. The Northwesterly group had plenty of low strength targets from Japan, the Koreas
and China.

Despite the fact that I can measure the relative strengths of signals numerically (to the dB) with the
WinRadio 313e, such measurements were not useful in these tests. In general, the Beverages moved the
S-meter further to the right than did either beta Wellbrook. Further, one of the two Wellbrook Beta-
generation controllers has about 8 dB more (useless) gain than the other. All of the comparisons were
made strictly on the quality of the received signal. This was particularly easy with weak, almost threshold
signals and a good antenna switch: easy to determine which antenna allowed you to comprehend the most
words, or easy to identify which antenna eliminated the most splatter or IBOC hash and allowed that
particular weak signal DX through. Essentially, I shut my eyes and switched the antennas back and forth.
It was quite easy and, I believe, both accurate and relevant.

In that kind of comparison test, the Wellbrook Array was the favored antenna about five out of ten times.
About three or, more likely, four out of ten times, I could distinguish absolutely no difference in the two
antennas being compared. That leaves somewhere about 1 or 2 in ten tries where the Beverages were
slightly better.

I should add that in the instances where the Wellbrook was superior, it was attributable to one of two
things, both associated (I believe) with front-to-back ratio. On the 9 kiloHertz channels where the DX was
close-in to an American channel, the superior F/B of the Wellbrook often delivered more signal and less
splatter. There were other instances on the more open frequencies where the Wellbrook simply delivered a
signal with less hiss and band noise, despite the generally quiet RF environment of Grayland.

The small minority of signals where the Beverage outperformed the Array are also worth discussing. In
about half of these relatively few instances, there was just no evident reason, but performance of the Bevs
was just a little better. For the other half of those few instances, though, it appeared that the (probably)
slightly narrower front lobe of the Beverage was responsible for the improved performance. For instance,
KPUG-1170 in Bellingham, WA is NNE of Grayland about 200 km. That channel is also an active one on
the 9 kHz channel scheme. On Friday morning, I heard VOA-1170 Philippines doing battle with KPUG.
The next morning it was KBS-1170 from South Korea that was running both over and under regional
power KPUG. KPUG was about 45 degrees to the right of dead center of the NW antennas. The DX
signal was more prominent on the Beverage in both cases... The slightly narrower Beverage front lobe
shed a bit more of the KPUG signal and "let the DX through." So, for this location here, the narrower
Beverage view of the world did prove to be an advantage.... about 5 or 10 percent of the time. The rest of
the time, the Array was equal or better than the Beverage!

What about this deafness in the extended pre-sunset or post-dawn that we noted at the Queen Charlotte
DXpedition? Let me tell you, I was prepared to stay up all morning to quantify the performance of each
antenna to the bitter end. I was shocked to find that the deafness noted at QCI just DID NOT EXIST at
Grayland. In fact, the Arrays continued to outperform the Beverages right through until the bitter end, 90
minutes after sun-up!

Here are my results from both Friday and Saturday morning. Sun-up was at 1445. The "greater than"
symbol indicates that the first antenna performed better than the second.

FREQ STATION FRIDAY SATURDAY

594 Japan Array>Bev Array>Bev
738 China Array>Bev Array>=Bev
774 Japan Array=Bev Array=Bev
954 Japan Array>Bev Array>>>Bev
972 Korea Array>>>Bev Array>>>Bev
1287 Japan Array=Bev Faded Out
1566 Korea Array=Bev Array<Bev
Quit@1615UT Quit@1530UTC

I've given quite a bit of thought to what happened at QCI in those pre-sunset and post dawn minutes, but
I'm still mystified. The theory of the differing arrival angles just "made so much sense!" There are only
two physical differences between the situation at Grayland and that at QCI: First, QCI is pretty much right
at the edge of the auroral absorption zone. Secondly, our location at QCI was on a north-facing beach,
where here at Grayland, we and the beach face due west... so, the azimuth of the arrival of the signal,
relative to the beach, was somewhat different, though both approached over the ocean and hit the shore at
between 30 and 45 degrees, I think. What, if anything, either of these two facts have to do with what we
observed in the Queen Charlottes, I don't know. Someone definitely needs to do some more testing of the
Wellbrook vs. a good Beverage at Walt Salmaniw’s site in the Queen Charlottes. The Wellbrook Array
was outstanding during and long after dawn at Grayland, most probably in the early September trials and
very certainly those in late October.

The results of the second Grayland trip simply reconfirmed the findings of the first trip. The Wellbrook
Array took up far less real estate and performed as well or better than the Beverages. Where the
superiority of the Wellbrook Phased Array was VERY apparent was on the channels where the 9 and 10
kHz spacing coincide: 540, 630, 720, 810, etc. In most instances, the far superior F/B ratio of the Array
was very useful. Also, most of the IBOC noise apparent on the Beverages simply disappeared on the
Array. I’ll not be putting up Beverages again at Grayland.

DXing Performance: Orcas Island, WA, Mid-August to Mid-November

The first question to be addressed on Orcas Island was whether there were any problems with the
Wellbrook operating in an intense RF environment. Orcas sits at the top of Puget Sound, on the
Canada/US border, halfway between Vancouver and Victoria, BC. Greater Vancouver contains eight 50
kW, three 25 kW and one 10 kW MW transmitters, all about 20 miles of open sea from my antennas.
Victoria sports two 10 kW. stations that really seem more powerful. In a full season, I did not notice any
problems with overloading, etc. when using the lightly amplified Wellbrook…. It behaved exactly as it
should. Other DXers in even more intense environments may find differing results, but it darn sure
worked well for me!
During the Fall Season, 2007 in the Pacific NW, I also compared the Wellbrook Phased Array to my
“ultimate” home antenna: two giant EWEs (70' x 100' x 70') on Orcas Island. One of these EWEs points at
310 degrees toward the East Asian Coast and the other points at 260 degrees, toward Australia. I installed
the 2-loop Wellbrook Phased Array in parallel with the 310 degree Asian Giant EWE, but northwest of it,
so there was no real chance of interaction between the two.

Essentially my A/B comparisons were between the NW EWE and the NW array. My general impression
over the season was that the Array slightly outperformed the single giant EWE on weak Asian signals that
were out in the open. Adequate grounding of the EWEs is very important to their performance, as is the
reflective quality of the near field ground. Both are somewhat problematic on my solid rock mountainside
site, so I converted the NW EWE to a Conti Super Loop which operates independently from ground. The
change from EWE configuration to Super Loop may have produced a slight improvement of back-side
rejection on the lower portion of the band. In comparing the two antennas over about a week of DXing
Asian stations, the Array continued to be ever so slightly better than the Super Loop on single Asian
signals out in the open. Where the difference in the two antennas was striking was on 9 kHz channels that
were co-channel or only one kHz. off of regional 10 kHz. channels. Here the significantly superior F/B
ratio of the Array meant that there was usually really no comparison. The DX was always significantly
better on the Array. The same was true, of course, for most co-channel situations or when needing to shed
backside IBOC noise.

During the International MW phase of the testing, I did try phasing the two giant EWEs together using a
Misek phaser and comparing the result to that from the Array. In that situation, there was almost no
difference that my ear could detect between the two systems, almost all of the time. There were a few test
situations where one system out performed the other, but not many. The major difference – and very
important to me – was that the broadband design of the Wellbrook Array required little to no retuning
right across the dial, where the two phased loops, using conventional phasing, required almost constant
readjustment as one tried to hop around the band.

Being very internationally oriented and having access to beach-side DXing, I have not done domestic
MW DXing since early 1960, the last of my early stint in the MWDX hobby. However, it seems to me
that the Wellbrook Phased Array is particularly well-suited for domestic, co-channel DXing, especially in
its full blown four-loop configuration. Since the Beta test unit was limited to a two-loop array, I decided
to try to DX Alaskans to my Northwest for a couple of weeks to test the antennas. Most Northwestern
DXers have noted that Alaskans are particularly difficult to log from here, especially given the relatively
short distances involved. This may be attributable to the proximity of the auroral belt, or it might have to
do with the fact that almost all frequencies that have Alaskans on them also sport one or more stations in
Washington, Oregon or California. Over the years, I’d logged and QSLed 7 Alaskan Stations from Orcas,
primarily either in Anchorage or in the southern Alaskan Panhandle which extends down toward NW
Washington. These were generally, the easiest Alaskan stations to log at my QTH.

In just over a week of DXing, under good conditions, I added nine new Alaskans to my logbook. Over
half of these were in far western Alaska: Sand Point, Dillingham, Bethel, McGrath, and both stations in
Nome. In most cases, I compared the reception on the Wellbrook Array against NW giant EWE and
against the two EWEs phased together. I would not have received any of those nine new Alaskan stations
using the NW giant EWE by itself! On a station-by-station basis, I would have received most, but not all,
of the new Alaskans using the two giant EWEs and the Misek-Lankford phaser. HOWEVER, the
broadband design of the Wellbrook allowed me to bounce around the dial, checking for all needed
Alaskans in about the time that I could laboriously phase the pest stations on one channel with the EWEs.
I’ll not be taking down my two giant EWE/Super Loops. They cost too much and were far too difficult to
erect in the tops of carefully selected 90 foot Douglas fir trees; its always nice to have a second antenna to
try in tough situations. However, I’ll be using the Wellbrook Phased Array here on Orcas, as my primary
antenna, for the foreseeable future.

THE FOUR-LOOP ARRAY

In late November 2007, just as we returned to Oklahoma, I received a pre-production control unit and an
additional two ALA-100 head units so that I could test the full four-loop version of the antenna. Since I
expected to have little time for live DXing during our stay in Oklahoma, I decided to join the Graveyard
DX Community and test the array nightly over the next 6 months. Modern Graveyard DXing, as practiced
in North America, focuses on the six “local” or Graveyard MW Channels in North America (1230, 1240,
1340, 1400, 1450 and 1490) with the goal being to hear and record as many of the hundreds of “local”
stations as possible. The general technique used by most “Gravediggers” is using hourly timed recordings
made at the top-of-the-hour throughout each night. These recordings are then reviewed very carefully to
attempt to tease out station identification from within the muck or “gumbo” created by so many 1 kW.
non-directional stations broadcasting simultaneously on a single frequency. Most GY specialists use
directional antennas (EWEs, loops, etc.) or phasing to try to enhance part of the gumbo, while suppressing
non-wanted stations.

It seemed to me that difficult environment was perfect to use to assess the pattern shape, front-to-back
ratio and general null stability aspects of the Wellbrook Array. The 1450 kHz. map below, based on the
NRC Night Time Pattern Book (highly recommended), is an indication of the RF environment and my
success during the 6-month trial. Please note that there are 16 stations on 1450 within the 600 km/385
mile “Easily Heard” zone and 76 stations on 1450 kHz. within a circle of 1200 km/750 miles that should
have been possible, were they the only station on that channel.

Since there was not a simultaneous effort in parallel using

a “normal” antenna, there is really no way to say
definitively, just how many more stations the Wellbrook
Array allowed me to hear during the six month test. My
semi-informed gut feeling is that the Wellbrook Array
doubled or tripled my station count over the test period.
My listening pattern was to follow the “one-week per
channel” sequence used by the GY group and, within the
week assigned to, say, 1450 kHz., spend two days looking
North, followed by two days looking West, then South
with the least interesting direction being only given a one
day look that cycle. Over the six months, then, each
frequency received one month or about 350 TOH
recordings.

While there is no way to say just how many stations I gained by using the Wellbrook, I did learn a
number of things applicable to assessing this antenna. First and most importantly, in about 2000 recorded
top-of-the-hours over the six months and the logging of over 120 separate stations on the six
Graveyard frequencies, I did NOT ONCE hear a DX station off the back 180 degrees of the array, even as
a sub-dominant. That finding is quite amazing to me, especially since I set the Phase and Balance controls
once per week, and did not always remember to do that! In Graveyard DXing, the only short-coming (if it
is such) of the Wellbrook Array is the breadth of the front lobe. DXing on the Graveyard channel, with a
gazillion local 1 kW stations ringed around the horizon, sometimes the dominant on a particular recording
was almost 90 degrees off the pattern center. Having a narrower pattern would be better, but being given
up to 4 choices of different 180 degree front lobes is really quite fabulous in itself. Interestingly, I'm sure
that some of the energy from the backside was adding to the muck that often exists on these over-crowded
channels.... but never did the backside punch through, no matter the propagation... not once. That is
simply fabulous.

FINAL ASSESSMENT
The Wellbrook Phased Array is not a magic antenna nor is it likely to be the best antenna for every
imaginable situation found in MW DXing. However, in my judgment, it is a real step forward and
probably is the first of a new generation of phased array antennas designed for MW DXing. I particularly
look forward to using the full four-loop version of the array for active, real-time domestic (co-channel)
DXing, especially from the center of the Continent. There, the ability to rotate the near-equivalent of a
one-wavelength Beverage through a full 360 degrees ought to be truly awesome. While those of us
operating a four-loop array might wish for a narrower front lobe, the current design seems an excellent
design for most DXers. The wide front lobe will enable DXers to initially cover virtually the entire
horizon with a 2-loop set, while still taking advantage of the superb F/B ratio and the very deep and
stearable rear null. My guess is that most Wellbrook customers will start out with a two-loop version and
add the third and fourth loop only after several seasons.

Strong Points:
• More than adequate sensitivity
• Excellent F/B ratio with no requirement for grounding
• Broadband Design: almost a set-and-forget design for DXing the full band without adjustment.
This broadband capability may be particularly important for the growing number of DXers using
recording SDRs to “scoop up” wide swaths of the band for future careful review
• Relative small antenna size and low visual impact when compared to other MW antennas with
similar capability
• Ability to reverse the pattern 180 degrees with the flip of a switch. This was handier in real world
DXing than I ever imagined.
• Very broad front lobe and rear null (may also be a weakness, according to the situation.)
• Flexible layout of each pair of the four-loop version
• Commercially available (soon.) Although very ingenious members of the hobby can probably
replicate most, if not all of the capabilities of the Wellbrook Phased Array, those of us lacking
time or possibly the skills to do so will now have ready access to this type of antenna.

Weak Points:
• Rigid spacing requirement between the two Delta loops in each pair (35-40 meters.) This is
inherent in the broadband design of the array, but may be difficult or impossible for some DXers
to achieve in the direction desired.
• Very broad front lobe (may also be a strength, according to the situation.)
• Some DXers may prefer a fine tuning control or vernier knob on the Balance control.
• Cost. Given the weakening dollar and the very high cost of goods and services in Wellbrook’s
home economy (Britain), I fear that this antenna will be quite costly. I do believe that the basic
unit will sell as a control box and two ALA100 loop heads, then easily upgradeable to four loops
at a later date. That may help. Also, the design requirement that mandates all coax lead-ins be of
equal length can be a bit expensive, as well.

A final comment on the relative effectiveness of Beverages and the Wellbrook Phased Array: I'm still
convinced that the Beverage is, potentially, "the better antenna." At Grayland we are quite restricted in the
lengths and directions that we can run Beverages. We are also faced with an almost impossible task to
properly terminate (ground) the far end of the Beverages. The land is pure sea sand and, for most of the
times that we are there, the water table is fairly low. Also, there is not room to use a 1/4 wavelength wire
termination. I'm personally convinced that it is nearly impossible to get a good F/B ratio with a Beverage
at Grayland or similar sandy beach sites. However, if we could erect near-perfect Beverages in the 2000
to 2500 foot range at Grayland and properly terminate them, I remain convinced that they would
outperform any other antenna, period. Until that perfect seaside Beverage site comes along, with a
magical method of grounding at the far end, I’m gonna remember that a Wellbrook two-loop array is only
150 feet long and requires no grounding at all.

APPENDIX