KISS Revisited? Not really - for KA4WJA

[Brian.D]

This post is directed at John, KA4WJA about how he tested the KISS.

Dear John... opps... not that Dear John!
Some time ago you tested the KISS and determined return loss a various frequencies. This was done on a different forum that is now locked to paying members only and the data was lost. Thankfully I copied it before that happened and posted in on my webpage.

What I am asking is how did you do the test and what Rigol test equipment did you use. I am trying to duplicate your test by using a NanoVNA but can not get results like you did. Curious to now did you string two KISS units together to form a dipole of sorts?

You also did you own DIY KISS and showed the return loss for that. Did you use the same test method as the commercial KISS?

Just curious. Thanks for any info you are willing to share.

Brian D
KF6BL

ps - For anyone interested in the data collected by John, it can be found in a document titled KA4WJA KISS-SSB Analysis.

[JPA Cate]

Brian, I haven't seen KA4WJA around here in a while, maybe send him a PM, too?

Ann

[Brian.D]

Thanks, Ann. I too have been noticing his absence.

[JPA Cate]

He may just be busy, seems his employment was changing locations.

Ann

[Brian.D]

I sent him a PM, Ann. I know he was busy as he mentioned that several times in replies to other questions.

[Jammer]

I would expect small differences in test configuration to produce large differences in results. KISS works because sailboats offer a low-noise receive environment and so QRP gets the job done, mostly.


It would be interesting to measure performance of the same KISS counterpoise on several different boats, or to measure various KISS assemblies with different "random" wire lengths on the same boat. I mean, you could get a completely different curve by rearranging the pots and pans in the galley locker with one of those things, or having crew move from one side of the v-berth to the other.


Return loss is interesting but the gold standard is rssi from a station a suitable distance away

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Return loss is interesting but the gold standard is rssi from a station a suitable distance away

Yes, but even this is inconclusive as the antenna radiation pattern can be affected by the nature of the counterpoise(KISS, etc), so reception at a single location may not be indicative of overall antenna system performance.

[Capt.Don]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I would expect small differences in test configuration to produce large differences in results. KISS works because sailboats offer a low-noise receive environment and so QRP gets the job done, mostly.


It would be interesting to measure performance of the same KISS counterpoise on several different boats, or to measure various KISS assemblies with different "random" wire lengths on the same boat. I mean, you could get a completely different curve by rearranging the pots and pans in the galley locker with one of those things, or having crew move from one side of the v-berth to the other.


Return loss is interesting but the gold standard is rssi from a station a suitable distance away

Originally I installed the KISS in a wire conduit that ran along the port side. Last year I moved it down the center in the bilge, closer to the water. It appears that our transmission is better.

In our case the KISS works well enough, was convenient, and reasonably priced.

[Brian.D]

All these points true because of so many variables to consider. However, initial test without getting things that can influence the test helps to create a metric to start by. I believe that John did that by comparing the KISS-SSB to his DIY KISS as a side by side test. Once on the boat he probably tried to ensure that both DUTs where arranged the same way. But no doubt a slight variation in placement had some influence over the results.

For me, knowing the method he used and the equipment to obtain the results might help me to try to somewhat duplicate the test. More out of curiosity than the science.

[SoonerSailor]

IIRC he did not have two of them to create a dipole. That to me would have been the best way to learn it’s RF characteristics and compare to a simple wire dipole. I believe he simply raised it as a vertical monopole against his network analyzer. Hopefully he is doing well and can illuminate us more thoroughly soon!

In my own test using a RigExpert AA-230 antenna analyzer, scanning it from 2 to 28 MHz against a radial extended along the ground, I found that return loss characteristics were almost identical to what a single wire of the same overall length in the place of the KISS tested as. While this does not totally define the RF characteristics, it does show that despite how it is marketed, it has no unique multiband resonance characteristics.

[Brian.D]

So instead of trying to capture the return lose on a single conductor (not coax) you used an additional random length connected to the ground post for that group of conductors (the KISS in this case) to make your measurement?

I had thought of that, but I would think having another wire on the ground side would influence the results, and not in a good way.

[SoonerSailor]

Originally Posted by Brian.D

So instead of trying to capture the return lose on a single conductor (not coax) you used an additional random length connected to the ground post for that group of conductors (the KISS in this case) to make your measurement?

I had thought of that, but I would think having another wire on the ground side would influence the results, and not in a good way.

Yes, that is what I did.

In terms of absolute numbers at resonance points, it could not be relied on, but looking for multiple resonances in a qualitative sense, they would show up. In free air, they would be even more likely to appear than when the KISS is in the bilge coupling to the sea water, which would have a detuning effect itself, just as happens when a wire radial for a vertical antenna that lays on top of the ground.

The KISS had only one resonance point in my experiment, and that was very near to that of the equal length wire substituted as a control, and as predicted by any antenna calculation.

[Brian.D]

Thanks, Sooner

[ka4wja]

Quick Preface:

I originally was just trying to help my fellow sailors, and had no intention of debunking the KISS, but rather I only wished to show them how much better their HF comms could be without buying a KISS (heck, anything metallic can be used as an antenna ground, even no ground at all, will still work....which is the main reason these guys still get away with selling this over-priced piece of wire)...but, after years of arguing the same BS, over and over, I just gave up discussing the KISS, for very good reasons!

After that, I have bluntly just said it's snake oil (compared to no antenna ground at all, it probably can't hurt....but unlikely to help much, either)...and, let people spend their money and time as they desire.

So, I'm not going back into all of this again.....and, I can't believe anyone else wants to do this all again either.....nor, that some sailors still believes their marketing BS....but, oh well...

In a nutshell, if folks won't believe antenna current results (which, except for real far-field field-strength measurements showing the results of the entire antenna system, measures antenna currents are the accepted standard of performance), there is nothing else to say....but, I still tried anyway, tried to show how their primary marketing point (that it's "tuned" or "resonant") is just BS....but, still I got push-back....so, I am done...



Now, Brian, et al, in order to try and be a good sailor / mariner (where we all need to offer any assistance we safely can, to our fellow sailors / mariners)....in essence, in order to practice good seamanship here on the internet, I cannot ignore a polite request that I have the ability to help with....so here goes....


1) First off....why I haven't been around here too much....not that is anyone's business...

a) A friend sailing a sister-ship to my "Annie Laurie" (and a Cruiser's Forum private message), clued-me-in to this discussion....and again, I have no interest in going 'round-n-round with this, and I will not, but I'll offer some clarifications.

b) The good news is I'm okay....thanks for your concerns....

c) As I have been doing for many years now, I'm caring for elderly family which takes considerable time/effort, and in the past couple years --- considerably more time/effort.....but, in addition to the > a decade of caring for my now 101-year-old mother, the past 6 - 12 months has me also caring (part time) for one of my elder brothers who has recently been given a terminal prognosis, and is now receiving hospice care...

d) There are folks that choose to not be "connected" 24/7/365....as well as many that do not have "always on" internet available, and/or it is way too expensive....so, perhaps we should all understand this...

As well as remembering, if you don't see someone on-line for a while, maybe they just have more important things in their life than a website?

Now, I've been living without internet connectivity for long periods of time....sometimes just checking email once a week or two, and only going on-line / surfing the web once per month....to be clear, this is a personal choice...

And I was hoping to describe this (living without the internet) in a thread here on Cruiser's Forum, to show the fallacy that "everyone needs hi-speed 24/7 internet on-board", etc...

I also have spent many days / weeks at a time, just using HF radio (maritime and ham) and SW Broadcast, and some local/free/over-the-air broadcast TV for all my weather, news, entertainment, etc...putting my money where my mouth was....just like I did a couple years ago, when I made a video showing (in real-time...showing the time on my wristwatch as the video is being recorded) how easy and how quickly anyone should be able to walk on-board ANY boat with a properly installed HF radio, and within minutes being in contact with other stations (ham and maritime), AND access high-quality marine / offshore / hi-seas weather info/forecasts, within just minutes of walking on-board!!

{fyi, now-a-days / for the past decade or so, you of course DO need MF/HF-DSC to signal maritime stations, both ship's at sea and/or coast stations, for initial signaling before establishing two-way contact via SSB Voice....but, as I've been writing about MF/HF-DSC for almost 2 full decades now, and the GMDSS (and, hence Maritime DSC) has been with us all now for > 23 years, when I write/speak of HF radio / SSB radio on-board, I'm of course writing/speaking of MF/HF-DSC-SSB-Radiotelephones, and I do hope we've all put the old "we don't need no sticking DSC" crap behind us....I mean the USCG doesn't even maintain an SSB Voice radio watch anymore, it's HF-DSC for all initial signaling, before moving to SSB Voice for two-way Voice comms...}

Of course, I'm fairly certain that, if you're a sailor that cannot do without streaming Netflix every evening, etc. etc., then you're not likely the target audience for a factual / informing thread (nor my real-time videos) on HF comms anyway....but, I digress!


So, I haven't the time, nor mental fortitude at this moment, to go through all of this again! Not to mention, this has ALL been proven years ago, so why bring this all up again?

But, if you allow me to be brief, here are a few details that seem to be ignored...


2) I honestly cannot believe this "KISS" stuff is still going on....but I don't have much time, so here are just a few brief things that might help explain things a bit.

a) For ~ 100 years, the principles of RF, etc....especially in this situation of antenna ground systems / Marconi-type antenna systems....has all been well understood....and the physics of RF and radio communications has not changed in the past 100 years! (scientists and engineers working for universities and companies...RCA, Motorola, GE, Harris, Rockwell, Marconi, MIT, WPI, Princeton, Northwestern, etc. etc....have studied and worked on these things for decades and decades!!! and, I've studied and used/tested these things myself for ~ 50 years...) but, I guess that means nothing if someone want's to make some money by taking advantage of some laypersons looking for an easy way....even when you remind them that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", they just want the easy way, even if doesn't actually work...

b) A fellow sailor and Cruiser's Forum member (Chip, "sonner sailor"?), tore it open to show you all what's inside it!

c) And, quite a few others have remarked that it performs "just like a wire....the same length of the KISS"!


d) And, I proved this is BS snake oil, years ago!

--- I proved the mediocre performance of this thing, with actual antenna current measurements (using my Delta TCT-n and Tek O'scope), comparing the KISS to my existing direct sea water antenna ground connection, as well as compared to a quick-n-dirty DIY counterpoise that I made out of scrap wire in < 5 minutes....antenna current measurements are THE standard of assessing feed-system / ground system / etc....

Although since I used more "old-school" test gear (that I use in MF and HF comms / broadcasting) it doesn't have fancy image storage, etc....so, all I could provide in proof was my own word, that the KISS gave less than half (actually ~ one-third or less) of the antenna current of the direct sea water antenna ground provided, as well as even less than my home-brewed/DIY counterpoise... and, I guess few believe anyone's word these days...you know, if you cannot post picture or video "proof" nobody believes the facts these days....so, these results were simply ignored...(ironically, anyone can buy a cheap device, falsely make some random scans of something/anything, and fraudulently post a few fancy, hi-res images and have everyone believe them, but someone speaking about decades and decades of facts / engineering / physics, along with their own decades of personal knowledge, experience, expertise, etc., is not believed.....quite frankly, this is the primary reason why I gave up discussing the KISS years ago! It just isn't worth it anymore...)

--- I also proved this with actual on-air signal strengths (with multiple stations over many days)....(and, I suspect the reason that few believe this, is that since an HF monopole antenna system can work [and one on a boat surrounded by sea water, can work well] even without any antenna ground / without any counterpoise at all...so, most just think my test results are flawed, etc....or they just didn't care to hear the truth that they could build their own counterpoise (a sort-of DIY type of KISS) for ~ $5 (or for free!), that would work as well as, or better than, the $150+ KISS-SSB-Ground....

--- Also, many years ago....good ole' Gordo (Gordon West) proved direct sea water connection antenna ground to be superior to a capacitively-coupled antenna ground of (the old wives' tale) 100 sq ft of conductive copper, etc. inside the hull....and, hence interpolating the KISS to also be far inferior to a direct sea water connection antenna ground...(but, here again, he had no "proof" other than his word, so some guys foolishly dismiss his results...)


--- I also did actual real-world in-situ "resonance" [sic] tests (inside my boat), with the KISS in different positions / configurations in the lazarette, etc.....but, few cared...and/or some thought they were "inaccurate" as they were in fact done on-board a boat, non-scientific, etc...

--- So, I thought maybe if I just tested the darn thing on it own, to show that the darn thing simply does NOT have any resonances (as this lie seemed to be the largest part of their BS marketing), some might actually believe that their money is better spent elsewhere...(but, then some said this wasn't "real-world" enough, all-the-while ignoring the exact real-world test results posted right there for them, where they said those weren't scientific enough...Ugh!!)

But, most importantly I hoped that some of my fellow sailors who might actually wish to use (effectively use) HF comms on-board, that they would find a better / more effective antenna ground than the KISS!


e) And, I'd like to politely "push back" slightly against the statement that if I connected two of them together to "make a dipole", I'd have actually provided better/more usable data? Huh?

To be clear, yes that was what many wanted to see / what many still weirdly desire to see....and, I plainly and clearly stated that they were welcome to do those tests....but also commented that those results would simply show what resonances [sic] a KISS dipole would have....when in actuality what we were after is what resonances [sic] the KISS-SSB-Ground has/had, or more accurately does NOT have!

So, I tested the darn thing on its own....in many different configurations / positions (even more than when doing the tests on-board)....

It is these test results and those of the resonance tests when on-board (as well as the better results from my resonance tests of my random DIY counterpoise), are the ones that all these scans show!

Some show results when hanging in mid air, some strung up sloping, some laying on a plastic patio table, some laying on the ground, some straight out, some in one round "U" shaped coil, etc....and, then when on-board, some with the KISS as straight as possible in the lazarette (in a "L" or slight "U" shape....as well as coiled into a big "U" or "O" shape.....both sitting along the hull, below the waterline)....not sure which scans and how many of them are still on-line.....but, if they are all there, you can plainly see there are no real resonances provided by the KISS....and, you can also plainly see you can provide a better counterpoise (one that is more "tuned" / resonant than the KISS) with just some scrap wire!

I used my recently factory-aligned / calibrated Rigol DSA-815-TG spectrum analyzer, with new directional coupler, connectors, etc... (approx $3500 - $4000 at that time...and, now I have a newer, real-time RSA-3030N vector/spectrum analyzer), out in the open in the clear, away from other metallic structures, etc., and I did recal before and after each test...and in addition to standing away from the KISS and using a long stick to press the "store" / "print" button to store the scanned image, to keep my own body from "de-tuning" and/or effecting the resonances [sic] of the KISS, I also stood ~ 40' - 50' away from the KISS and analyzer and used 7x50 binoculars to observe the screen and make notes, before moving closer to press the store button, and observed no significant changes between the values whether 50' away or 5' away....(yes, I went to those extremes to try to eliminate the hassles of arguing the results, but that turned out to be a waste, as some even questioned this....)

I used a small machine screw to connect the KISS wire to the center-pin of an "N" connector adapter, and this adapter connected directly to the directional coupler, that itself was directly connected to the analyzer and tracking-generator (no coax was used, just microwave-swept N-to-N connectors), that way there is nothing that any layperson (or internet-expert) can rail against and say "well, you used xxx and that's why your numbers are what they are"....and, this was also my public reason for not wanting to test a "KISS dipole" [sic], since I was all but certain that someone would use that as a point to argue and say "well, if you just tested the KISS as it is designed to be used, you'd see how it works".....so, I did just that!

If we wish to find the resonance of a monopole or counterpoise, etc....then we test that....not two of them....

BUT....

But, perhaps you should all remember this....I did not do any of these tests to "prove" anything, nor to debunk the KISS....as it is/was clear to me that it was a ridiculous piece of snake oil...the reason I did these tests was to show my fellow sailors that they can do better, they can have a better HF radio system on-board!!!

Ironically, it seems that the "tests" I did, actually became "the story" (and weirdly, a controversial story, at that)....instead of the simple facts that they (my fellow sailors) can do better!!!!

Why did this happen? I haven't a clue.....but, I'm done with this...



EDIT: I just deleted a few paragraphs that were a bit of a rant....sorry about those....just fyi, there os a lot more that I could say/write here, but I don't think it wise.



Again, I don't have the time to go through all of this over and over...but, I hope I helped a bit.

73 and Fair winds,
John

[Brian.D]

Good to see you back, John.

All I was asking was what equipment you used to conduct your test, and how you connected the KISS to your test equipment. After reading that long dissertation about not wanting to revisit the KISS discussion (and I don't blame you), I came upon the equipment used and the process. This was really all I was looking for.

Wasn't looking for anything else. Thanks again.