[My Ham Radio Journey] wanted to see if a “common person” (in his words) could build an effective vertical ham radio antenna. If you look at the video below, the answer is apparently yes.

He started with a 24-foot fishing rod and a roll of 22 gauge wire. The height of the antenna wire is just over 20 feet long and he has several ground radials, as you might expect for a vertical antenna.

You also need a toroid to make an unun for the feed point. The details of how he mounted everything will be useful if you want to experiment with making your own version.

Vertical antennas have plusses and minuses. One advantage is they have a low angle of radiation, which is good for long distance communication. It is possible to make arrays of vertical antennas, and we are surprised we haven’t seen any of those lately.

In the end, it looks like the antenna works well. With the 4:1 transformer, the SWR on all the ham bands is within range of the radio’s tuner.

We recently saw a fishing pole antenna that used no wire at all. If you want portable and fishing isn’t your thing, try a tape measure.

We’re not very far into the AI revolution at this point, but we’re far enough to know not to trust AI implicitly. If you accept what ChatGPT or any of the other AI chatbots have to say at face value, you might just embarrass yourself. Or worse, you might make a mistake designing your next antenna.

We’ll explain. [Gregg Messenger (VE6WO)] asked a seemingly simple question about antenna theory: Does an impedance mismatch between the antenna and a coaxial feedline result in common-mode current on the coax shield? It’s an important practical matter, as any ham who has had the painful experience of “RF in the shack” can tell you. They also will likely tell you that common-mode current on the shield is caused by an unbalanced antenna system, not an impedance mismatch. But when [Gregg] asked Google Gemini and ChatGPT that question, the answer came back that impedance mismatch can cause current flow on the shield. So who’s right?

In the first video below, [Gregg] built a simulated ham shack using a 100-MHz signal generator and a length of coaxial feedline. Using a toroidal ferrite core with a couple of turns of magnet wire and a capacitor as a current probe for his oscilloscope, he was unable to find a trace of the signal on the shield even if the feedline was unterminated, which produces the impedance mismatch that the chatbots thought would spell doom. To bring the point home, [Gregg] created another test setup in the second video, this time using a pair of telescoping whip antennas to stand in for a dipole antenna. With the coax connected directly to the dipole, which creates an unbalanced system, he measured a current on the feedline, which got worse when he further unbalanced the system by removing one of the legs. Adding a balun between the feedline and the antenna, which shifts the phase on each leg of the antenna 180° apart, cured the problem.

We found these demonstrations quite useful. It’s always good to see someone taking a chatbot to task over myths and common misperceptions. We look into baluns now and again. Or even ununs.

Ideally, if you are going to transmit, you want a properly-tuned resonant antenna. But, sometimes, it isn’t practical. [Ham Radio Rookie] knew about random wire antennas but didn’t want a wire antenna. So, he took carbon fiber extension poles and Faraday tape and made a “random stick” antenna. You can check it out in the video below.

We aren’t sure what normal people are doing with 7-meter-long telescoping poles, but — as you might expect — the carbon fiber is not particularly conductive. That’s where the tape comes in. Each section gets some tape, and when you stretch it out, the tape lines up.

We aren’t sure how these poles are constructed, but the video claims that the adjacent sections couple capacitively. We aren’t sure about that as the carbon fiber won’t be very conductive, but it probably isn’t a very good insulator, either. Then again, the poles may have a paint or other coating along the surface. So without seeing it, it is hard to say what’s coupling the elements.

He admits this is experimental and there is more work to do. However, it seems cheap and easy to setup. The hardest part is tapping an M10 hole in the end cap to allow things to mount.

We suppose you could make your own tubes, but it hardly seems worth the trouble. If you cut or drill this stuff, you might want to take precautions.

As far as hobbies go, ham radio tends to be on the more expensive side. A dual-band mobile radio can easily run $600, and a high-end HF base station with the capability of more than 100 watts will easily be in the thousands of dollars. But, like most things, there’s an aspect to the hobby that can be incredibly inexpensive and accessible to newcomers. Crystal radios, for example, can be built largely from stuff most of us would have in our parts drawers, CW QRP radios don’t need much more than that, and sometimes even the highest-performing antennas are little more than two lengths of wire.

For this specific antenna, [W3CT] is putting together an inverted-V which is a type of dipole antenna. Rather than each of the dipole’s legs being straight, the center is suspended at some point relatively high above ground with the two ends closer to the earth. Dipoles, including inverted-Vs, are resonant antennas, meaning that they don’t need any tuning between them and the radio so the only thing needed to match the antenna to the feed line is a coax-to-banana adapter. From there it’s as simple as attaching the two measured lengths of wire for the target band and hoisting the center of the antenna up somehow. In [W3CT]’s case he’s using a mast which would break the $8 budget, but a tree or building will do just as well.

The video on the construction of this antenna goes into great detail, so if you haven’t built a dipole yet or you’re just getting started on your ham radio journey, it’s a great place to get started. From there we’d recommend checking out an off-center-fed dipole which lets a dipole operate efficiently on multiple bands instead of just one, and for more general ham radio advice without breaking the bank we’d always recommend the $50 Ham series.