When Social Engineering Replaces RF Engineering
Once again, my inbox is filling with messages about the POTA PERformer. This time, the argument is no longer merely that the antenna “works.” The design is being presented as an award-winning reference antenna, almost as though ARRL recognition transformed an asymmetric quarter-wave vertical into a new RF standard.
It did not.
An award shows that a design succeeded within a judging process. Publication shows that an editor considered it interesting to readers. Neither replaces independent pattern measurements, efficiency measurements, common-mode-current measurements, or controlled comparisons with a proper reference antenna.
The central problem: “ARRL award-winning” is increasingly being used as though it were an RF certification. Recognition, popularity, and repetition are being allowed to stand in for measurement.
What “social engineering” means here
This is not about computer hacking or stealing passwords. It is about manufacturing authority through branding, repetition, visibility, endorsements, presentations, videos, testimonials, awards, and association with respected organizations.
The pattern is familiar:
- Give an old antenna arrangement a memorable new name.
- Present compromises as deliberate innovations.
- Publish attractive NEC plots.
- Quote impressive efficiency and gain figures.
- Collect successful activation stories.
- Get the design into clubs, videos, newsletters, contests, and magazines.
- Add “ARRL award-winning” to every subsequent description.
- Allow repetition to turn a claim into accepted knowledge.
None of those steps measures RF performance. A thousand people repeating a claim do not turn it into antenna physics. They only make the claim familiar.
What the ARRL recognition actually establishes
The PERformer received recognition in the 2024 QST Antenna Design Competition. ARRL announced the competition winners in the June 2025 issue of QST:
ARRL — Announcing the Winners of the 2024 QST Antenna Design Competition
The design later received a dedicated article in the September 2025 issue:
ARRL — The PERformer: A Portable, Elevated, and Resonant Quarter-Wave Antenna
A design competition may reasonably value portability, ease of construction, usefulness, presentation, originality of implementation, or appeal to operators. Those can all be legitimate qualities.
But the award is not peer review. It is not an independent gain measurement. It is not an efficiency certificate. It is not a common-mode-current test. It does not turn two radials into four, and it does not repeal conservation of energy.
Calling the PERformer “award-winning” is factually reasonable. Using the award to imply independent validation of every performance claim is not.
What the POTA PERformer actually is
The antenna is fundamentally a quarter-wave vertical with two elevated, resonant radials. Those radials are arranged asymmetrically rather than forming a complete, symmetric ground-plane system.
That does not make the antenna useless. It can be portable, resonant, relatively efficient, quick to deploy, and perfectly capable of making contacts.
It also does not make it revolutionary.
A quarter-wave vertical with elevated radials is old and well-understood. Using only two radials saves wire and deployment time, but it makes the current-return geometry less complete and more dependent on:
- the feed line and choke
- the mast and tripod
- radial angle and orientation
- soil conductivity and dielectric constant
- nearby equipment and conductive objects
- the operator and associated wiring
The tradeoff may be acceptable for portable operation. The mistake is presenting the compromise as though removing part of the radial system creates free gain.
Removing radials does not create free gain
An antenna cannot create additional radiated power simply because conductors were removed. Reducing the number of radials changes return-current distribution, radiation efficiency, feedpoint impedance, common-mode current, and the radiation pattern.
An asymmetric radial arrangement may skew the azimuth pattern. One direction can become stronger than the opposite direction. That creates a front-to-back difference, but a front-to-back difference is not automatically forward gain.
A simple example
Symmetric antenna: 0 dB forward and 0 dB backward.
Asymmetric antenna: −1 dB forward and −4 dB backward.
The asymmetric antenna now has a 3 dB front-to-back ratio. But it did not gain anything forward. It became weaker in both directions, with a larger loss behind it.
Strictly speaking, antenna gain is efficiency multiplied by directivity. Pattern redistribution can therefore create directional gain if efficiency remains sufficiently high. But that must be demonstrated against a suitable reference using equal accepted power. It cannot be inferred from a normalized plot that hides the absolute level.
Severns’ measurements do not support the expanded claim
Rudy Severns, N6LF, performed controlled experiments with vertical antennas and radial systems. His work is often quoted in support of the PERformer, but the conclusions are stretched beyond what he measured.
One well-known experiment compared sixty-four quarter-wave radials lying on the ground with four tuned, symmetric elevated radials approximately four feet above the ground on 40 meters. The measured difference was only about 0.1 dB at his test site.
That demonstrated that four properly implemented elevated radials could perform approximately as well as a large ground-mounted radial system in that experiment.
It did not demonstrate that two elevated radials equal sixty-four ground radials. It certainly did not demonstrate that removing radials creates forward gain.
Severns also compared one elevated radial with four elevated radials. The single-radial system developed an asymmetric pattern, but its gain toward the radial was still lower than the corresponding gain of the symmetric four-radial system. The signal behind the radial fell much further.
Pattern skew is not the same as improvement.
Removing radials can produce a deeper rear deficit without making the favored direction better than a proper symmetric reference antenna.
A good SWR does not prove a good antenna
One of the most persistent amateur-radio mistakes is treating resonance or low SWR as evidence of efficiency.
A 50 Ω resistor has an excellent SWR. It is still a terrible antenna.
A two-radial arrangement may produce a convenient feedpoint impedance close to 50 Ω. That does not prove that current is confined to the intended radiator and radials. Some return current may flow on the outside of the coax, the tripod, the mast, power wiring, control cables, or nearby conductive objects.
Without a strong feedpoint choke and an actual common-mode-current measurement, the coax may quietly become an additional radial. The antenna can then appear to work very well while the published geometry is not the complete antenna being tested.
SWR describes impedance mismatch at the measurement plane. It does not independently reveal radiation efficiency, pattern stability, ground loss, or common-mode current.
A NEC plot is not a field measurement
NEC is an excellent engineering tool when the model represents the real installation adequately. That qualification matters.
A clean model may contain an ideal source, perfect conductors, precisely tuned wires, fixed geometry, and a simplified ground model. A real portable installation may contain a telescopic whip, thin radial wire, a tripod, coax, a choke of unknown impedance, wet or dry soil, sloping terrain, a table, a battery, and an operator.
If those objects and losses are not represented, the software is analyzing a different antenna.
Normalized plots create another trap. When every pattern is scaled so that its own strongest direction equals 0 dB, a generally weaker antenna can look impressively directional. The graph shows pattern shape while concealing absolute gain.
A meaningful comparison requires:
- identical accepted feedpoint power
- the same frequency and installation height
- documented soil parameters
- feedline and choke modeling or measurement
- absolute gain rather than separately normalized plots
- confirmation through controlled far-field measurements
A model is a calculation based on assumptions. It becomes evidence only when the assumptions are disclosed and the prediction survives measurement.
Contacts are not antenna measurements
The PERformer clearly makes contacts. So do random wires, mobile whips, rain gutters, and dummy loads with enough leakage.
Successful contacts show that some RF was radiated and that propagation completed the path. They do not measure antenna gain.
PSKReporter, FT8 reports, signal reports, and POTA logs are influenced by:
- changing ionospheric propagation
- uneven receiver geography
- different remote antennas and receivers
- decoding thresholds
- fading and multipath
- time-of-day changes
- selection of stations that were successfully heard
If directional gain is claimed, measure the far-field pattern or use stable receivers at known bearings with rapid antenna switching and a simultaneous reference antenna. Do not ask the ionosphere to serve as an anechoic chamber.
How social momentum becomes “proof”
Once a design gains enough visibility, a feedback loop develops:
- The design receives an award.
- Videos cite the award as proof of performance.
- Clubs repeat the claims from the videos.
- Operators build the antenna and make contacts.
- Those contacts become testimonials.
- Vendors use the testimonials and award in advertising.
- New users assume the claims have already been technically validated.
- Criticism is dismissed because “thousands of operators cannot be wrong.”
Thousands of operators can successfully use a compromised antenna. That does not make the compromise disappear.
A portable design can be useful without being optimal. It can be popular without being new. It can win an award without establishing its claimed gain. Those statements are not contradictory.
What a proper reference design would require
If this arrangement is to be promoted as a standard portable vertical, it should be compared with at least four symmetric elevated radials, two opposite radials, two radials separated by 90°, one elevated radial, and a conventional ground-mounted radial system.
For every configuration, measure:
- feedpoint impedance
- accepted power
- common-mode current on the coax
- absolute field strength at several azimuths
- elevation pattern
- total radiation efficiency
- sensitivity to radial orientation
- sensitivity to height and soil
- repeatability across multiple installations
Perhaps the two-radial version saves several minutes of deployment while losing less than 1 dB in the wanted direction. That could be an excellent portable compromise. Perhaps it develops useful directivity under specific conditions. Perhaps the feed line becomes a major part of the antenna.
The purpose of measurement is to discover which explanation is true—not to select the most marketable explanation in advance.
In Summary
The PERformer is not a nonfunctional antenna. It is a conventional elevated quarter-wave vertical implemented with an incomplete and asymmetric radial system for portability.
It can work. It can be convenient. It can make thousands of contacts.
But those facts do not prove that removing radials creates gain, that two radials equal four, that convenient SWR proves high efficiency, or that an award converts a compromise into a technical standard.
The deeper problem is cultural. Amateur radio increasingly rewards presentation, repetition, and online reach more quickly than careful measurement. A memorable name travels faster than an efficiency calculation. A testimonial is easier to understand than uncertainty analysis. An award logo is more persuasive than a common-mode-current graph.
Final point: recognition is not validation. The antidote is not hostility toward experimentation; it is better experimentation—defined references, controlled variables, absolute measurements, published limitations, and conclusions that do not outrun the data.
Mini-FAQ
- Does the POTA PERformer work? Yes. A quarter-wave vertical with two elevated radials can radiate efficiently enough to make many contacts. “It works” does not validate every gain, efficiency, or directivity claim.
- Does removing radials create gain? Not automatically. It changes current distribution, efficiency, common-mode current, and pattern shape. A larger front-to-back ratio may come from a deeper rear loss rather than improved forward radiation.
- Do two elevated radials equal sixty-four ground radials? Severns’ widely quoted experiment demonstrated approximate equivalence between four tuned, symmetric elevated radials and sixty-four radials on the ground under specific 40-meter test conditions. It did not establish the same result for two radials.
- Does low SWR prove high efficiency? No. SWR describes impedance mismatch, not how much accepted power becomes useful radiation. Loss and unintended common-mode radiation can produce a convenient impedance.
- Does an ARRL award certify the RF claims? No. The award recognizes success within a competition. It is not an independent gain, efficiency, pattern, or common-mode-current certification.
- How should directional gain be demonstrated? Use equal accepted power, a suitable reference antenna, strong common-mode control, absolute field-strength measurements, multiple azimuths, and a stable test path rather than changing ionospheric reports.
Interested in more technical content? Subscribe to our updates for deep-dive RF articles and lab notes.
Questions or experiences to share? Feel free to contact RF.Guru via our RF.Guru contact page.