Rewinding the stainless steel for silver-plated copper coils on the JPC-7 and JPC-12 antennas

Portable antennas (verticals, loaded dipoles) typically use coils on the lower HF bands to make them electrically "larger" - but what about losses in those coils?

While it's "traditional" to use copper wire wire for these coils, there are a number of modern offerings that use stainless steel - and both types have their cheerleaders and detractors, so what's the deal?

Figure 1: The JPC-12 vertical in the field.

Note:  This post refers to previous entries on this blog about the JPC-7 and JPC-12 antennas that are relevant to this discussion, namely:

• JPC-7 loaded dipole antenna - link.
• JPC-12 portable vertical antenna - link.
  

While some details in this article are specific to these antennas, the general observations may be applied to any HF antenna using loading coils.  I have not (yet?) done A/B field tests with antennas using different (stainless vs silver plated/copper) coils and/or simulation - perhaps a topic for a future blog entry?

* * * * *

In previous posts I have discussed the JPC-12 vertical and the JPC-7 loaded dipole:  To make either antennas usable at frequencies lower than their natural resonance, inductance is required (the "loaded" part) to achieve resonance at the desired frequency - and for their lowest operating frequency - 40 meters - it takes a fair bit of "loading", indeed.

For this, the JPC-7 dipole, which has a "coil-less" resonance of around 22 MHz, has two coils with adjustable taps - one for each element, a slider being used to adjust the amount of inductance:  Higher inductance = lower frequency.

The JPC-12 vertical - made by the same folks - unsurprisingly uses the exact same coil as the JPC-7 - and for the same reason:  To add inductance to make the electrically-short element - a radiator of approximately 150"(381cm) total length (resonant around 18 MHz without any added inductance and using the originally-supplied components) offer a semblance of a match on lower bands.

Having the coil in common, they also share the same trait:  Loading coils wound with stainless steel - and since, when running on a lower band like 40 meters - all of these coils run quite warm at nominal transmitter power (100 watts or so) there are definitely power losses in the coil - but how bad is it?

Wanting to answer this question, I ordered an extra coil from the seller from which I'd bought my JPC-7 and JPC-12 antennas and with that, and the three that came with the two antennas originally, I now had four - enough to do direct A/B comparisons on both antennas when I rewound two of them with silver-plated wire.

Why stainless?

These coils are wound with 1mm diameter (18 AWG) stainless-steel wire.  Fortunately, an austenitic (non-magnetic, as checked with a neodymium magnet) type of stainless steel is used:  If this wire been magnetic at all things would be much worse in terms of loss.  While the 1mm diameter stainless steel wire is very rugged, the fact that it is stainless steel means that its resistance is quite high compared to copper - in this case the end-to-end DC resistance is about 4 ohms - but the RF resistance, taking the "skin effect" into account, is likely to be very much higher.

Using Owen Duffy's online skin effect calculator (link) and assuming 1mm diameter, 316 Stainless, the 4 ohms of DC resistance translate as follows to RF resistance including skin effect:

• 3.5 MHz = 5.2 ohms
• 7 MHz = 7.2 ohms
• 14 MHz = 9.6 ohms
• 28 MHz = 13.6 ohms

These values would be for the entire coil, but since one uses slightly less than the full number of turns of the coil to resonate at 40 meters, the losses should be lower - but the message is clear:  The less of the coil that you need to use, the lower the loss.   The total length of 1mm wire is estimated to be about 180 inches (457cm) and  by comparison, copper wire of this same diameter and length would have a DC resistance of about 0.1 ohm - or, according to Owen Duffy's calculator, a skin effective resistance of 2 ohms at 28 MHz.

Why stainless steel, then?  Obviously, stainless steel won't oxidize/corrode like many metals - and it may be that in quantity, stainless steel wire is less expensive than silver plated/copper, but in this case I believe that there's another reason.  Other manufacturers of portable antennas (Wolf River, for example) advertise the use of stainless steel for their coils as well, extolling the virtues of the material in regards to its inability to corrode - but I'd be surprised if such corrosion is likely to be the main reason for a hypothetical copper coil's losses in an electrically-short antenna that would make it worse than stainless.

I suspect that, the "advantage" of a stainless steel coil is, in fact, related to the fact that it islossy.  As portable antennas - when used on the lower HF bands - are necessarily smaller than their full-sized counterparts, their radiation resistance will be commensurately lower and this means that the feedpoint resistance may be lower as well when fed with simple matching schemes such as a series coil.

What this means is that rather than somewhere "around" 50 ohms, the feedpoint impedance when using a very low-loss coil may be much lower, resulting in an "unacceptable" VSWR (e.g. >2:1) at resonance:  While this would actually imply greater efficiency due to lower loss, it's "inconvenient" to the user.  While a more versatile means of matching the antenna is possible (multiple coil/capacitors such as a simple antenna tuner or the use of an autotransformer) this complicates construction, operation and can increase cost.

Another method of dealing with low feedpoint impedances is to add series resistance to raise it to something closer to 50 ohms to make radios (and their operators)"happy" - but an ohmic resistance in the signal path means power loss, and power loss means heat!

How hot is it?

Figure 2: The original loading coil (lower) wound with stainless wire as seen with a thermal infrared camera.  After 60 seconds at 75 watts (on 40 meters) the coil temperature rose by 110F (61C) from the ambient 53F (12C) to about 166F (74F)! Click on the image for a larger version.

I've operated both the JPC-7 and JPC-12 antenna a number of times in the field on the "lower" bands of 40 and 30 meters at 100 watts, using both CW and SSB, and observed that in each case, the coil gets "hot".  As the coil forms are (apparently) molded nylon, this is nowhere near the likely softening point of more than 300F (150C) - and being open to the air to allow convective cooling, and using a mode where the duty cycle is intermittent certainly helps prevent a "meltdown".

As a test, I put both the original stainless steel and the rewound silver-plated coils in series on the JPC-12 vertical, putting a jumper across the coil not under test.  I then transmitted 75 watts into the JPC-12 vertical for 60 seconds and measured the temperature of the coil with an infrared thermometer and thermal camera, noting a temperature rise of about  110F (61C) - still not hot enough to risk melting the coil form, but certainly enough to dissuade one from running a 100% continuous mode like SSTV, RTTY or other digital modes on a hot day!  

The picture in Figure 2 - taken with a thermal infrared camera - shows the heat produced when testing with the JPC-12 vertical.  (Note:  During this test I swapped positions of the two coils to see if there was much difference in the current/heat of the stainless coil owing to differences in current distribution, but as expected, there was not.)  Similar results were observed when operating SSB and CW on the JPC-7 loaded dipole. 

At this point I should make something clear:  The reader should not presume that the use of a stainless steel coil is going to result in an antenna that doesn't work, but rather it implies a degree of loss of efficiency.  As I've made many contacts with both the JPC-7 and JPC-12 in their original form, I know that it's perfectly capable of usable performance - but how much better would it be if we were to address coil losses?

Also, once I had seen the loss in the coil, I couldn't "un-see" it and I had to do something about it.

Choice of wire

In order to minimize losses in an electrically-small antenna it is important to reduce resistive losses, the loading coil and reducing the generation of heat is a good place to start - and copper wire is an obvious choice.  Knowing that the wire used is 1mm diameter - about 18 AWG - there were a lot of choices:  I had some enameled 18 AWG wire already on-hand and I could easily have obtained some tinned 18 AWG "buss" wire as well.  Finding bare copper wire was a bit more difficult, but since we need only make contact on the ends and along the slider, there's no reason for the entire coil to be bare and thus be subject to oxidization:  If I needed to do so, I could wind the coil with enameled wire and then selectively remove the insulation along the path of the inductor's slider with fine sandpaper.

On a hunch, I did a search and quickly found on Amazon some 1mm (18 AWG)"Silver plated" copper wire of the same diameter described as being used for jewelry - a small spool costing about US$15 with more than enough wire to re-do three of these coils. ^{Footnote 1}

Figure 3: The coil - still with the stainless steel wire.  On the left end of the slider (the "top") of the coil can be seen the insulator. Prior to disassembly move the slider to the end opposite the insulator (maximum inductance) as shown.  When removing or installing the Allen screw, keep a firm grip on the end with the insulator to prevent it from rotating and damaging the insulator itself or the end of the rod that protrudes into it. Click on the image for a larger version.

The use of silver-plated wire is traditional in RF devices as it has the advantage over copper wire in that as it oxidizes, the result (e.g. silver tarnish) is still a conductive substance, much better than copper oxide - and compared to bare copper it is less (chemically) reactive overall - plus the coil looks very nice!

Rewinding the coil:

The coil form itself - with molded grooves - is quite rugged and lends itself very well to being rewound by hand.  Using a silver-colored "Sharpie" I noted where the original coil's windings started and ended.  I would also recommend taking a photo of it - particularly if you are rewinding the coil of a JPC-12 vertical and do not have a second coil as a comparison.

It is also important to note that one end of the slider is insulated to prevent the shorting the unused turns of the coil itself - something that would surely reduce "Q" and overall efficiency:  It is important to reinstall the slider assembly in the same orientation as before to put the insulated end of the slider rod on the "top"(e.g. the side closest to the top of the vertical or end of the dipole).

When rewinding, first move the slider to the end farthest away from the end with insulator on the rod (e.g. the "bottom" of the coil, with the stud protruding) and cover the spring contact with a bit of tape to keep it with the slider body:  This moves the slider - and the contact spring - well away from the end of the wire that we are going to remove first.  Using an Allen wrench, carefully remove the screw holding the end of the slider bar with the insulator (e.g. the part at the top of the coil, with the female threads):  The end of the wire is tucked under the supporting post and the screw itself goes into the brass slug at the center of the coil with the M10 threads used to assemble the rest of the antenna.  Keep tension on the hardware with a finger as you undo this to minimize the possibility of it being launched across the room.

Figure 4: This shows the end of the new wire looped around the screw and the post tightened down to hold it in place as it is wound. A blade screwdriver is used to push the wire into the groove below the slider boar to keep it from jumping out of the slot. Be sure to start the wire in the same place as the original coil. Click on the image for a larger version.

At some point, the coil of stainless steel wire will unwind itself rather forcefully when it slips out from under the screw (it may be a good idea to wear glasses) as it is under a fair bit of spring tension:  Even if you are prepared for this to happen, it can be startling!  At this point be sure that the contact spring is still on the slider block:  If it is not, look for and find it now!

With the tension released, remove the other end of the slider bar.  At this point, carefully remove the slider bar from the insulated end so that you have just the support post and set the rest of it aside.  At this point you'll have a loose coil of stainless wire to set aside.

Take the end of the new wire and using a pair of needle-nose pliers, bend a loop to go around the screw for the support post and using (just) the support post that was insulated for the slider, secure it in place, under the post.  Lay the wire in the groove and at the point where you marked the coil to begin, lay the wire in that groove and then push the wire into the shallow slot above which the slider moves to hold it in place.

Figure 5: As the wire is wound, keep pressure on the wire and coil form with a thumb while rotating the form itself, forcing the wire to drop into the molded slots.  Continue winding until you get to where you had previously marked the end of the original coil - but there's no harm if you add one extra turn. Click on the image for a larger version.

Keeping the wire under tension - and using a thumb as necessary to hold that tension and push it onto the form - tightly wind the wire onto the form, making sure that it drops into the wire slots.  When you get to where you marked the end of the coil (you can go one extra turn if you like!) push the wire into the slot again (to help hold it in place) and - leaving enough extra to go around the screw on the bottom of the coil - trim it off.  Before putting a loop in the end of the wire to go around the screw, again use a blade screwdriver to push it into the groove to help hold it into place.

At this point I temporarily wrap a the loose end of the coil with a bit of electrical tape to keep it from unraveling while I loosen the post at the top of the coil and align it carefully so that I can plug the slider bar back in and re-mount it and the other post at the bottom of the coil, torquing the screws firmly and being careful to prevent the post with the insulator from twisting as this is done.

Figure 6: The finishing end of the coil with the wire looped under the slider rod support and tightened down.  In this picture you can see how the wire has been pushed into the groove, under the slider.  To the left of the end of the wire can be seen the blob of adhesive used to lock the end of the coil into place. Click on the image for a larger version.

Now, the coil has been successfully re-wound.  While it may not be strictly necessary, I put a dab of "Shoe Goo" - a thick rubber adhesive - on the top and bottom 2-3 turns of the coil near where the wire drops into the slot and connects to the post to "glue" it into place, making sure that it doesn't jump out of its slot.  If you don't have "Shoe Goo" or something similar, some RTV ("Silicone") can work as can epoxy - but cyanoacrylate and polyurethane glues (e.g. "Super" and "Gorilla" glue, respectively) may not work very well - and "hot melt glue" are definitely not recommended as either will likely break loose their bonds across a wide temperature range and changing mechanical stress. 

The trick here is to bridge several turns of wire with the adhesive to lock them into place together as much as adhere them to the coil form.

Results

Figure 7: The coil rewound with silver-plated wire (upper), under the marker.  As can be seen, the temperature rose by about 3F (less than 2C) above the ambient temperature of 53F (12C) after 60 seconds of key-down on 40 meters at 75 watts. Click on the image for a larger version.

As expected, the use of lower-loss wire for the coil results in a dramatic reduction of generated heat which no doubt corresponds with an improvement in overall antenna efficiency - The "after" picture (Figure 7) of the coil using the thermal camera after 60 seconds of transmission on 40 meters with 75 watts shows the difference.  As in Figure 2, the original stainless steel coil is on the bottom, but it is the one that is jumpered, putting all of the RF energy into the upper (silver-plated) coil, instead.

Touching the coil immediately after the 60 second key-down, the loss-related heating of the coil wound with silver-plated wire was barely perceptible - a far cry from the original stainless-steel wound coil that was  "hot"!

Electrical comparison

For capacitors and inductors, one measurement of their departure from the ideal is their "Q"(e.g. "Quality Factor") and for inductors, the majority of this is likely to be the radio of the inductive reactance of the coil (X_L)to its ohmic resistance.  I decided to measure the unloaded "Q"(Q_u) of the original stainless steel loading coil and the rewound silver-plated coil.  To do this I used a NanoVNA and the method described in W7ZOI's article "The Two Faces of Q"(link) under the section called "Measuring Resonator Q":  I used both methods (#1 using parallel L/C and #2 with L/C in series) to determine the "Q".

Using method #1, for the "C_c" capacitors I used two 1pF NP0 capacitors in series each (0.5pF) which resulted in a 35-45dB through loss at resonance.  I put a high-quality 27pF silver mica capacitor in parallel with the coil under test and measured the -3dB response of the resonance curve.  In this test I set the variable inductor to the mark indicating tuning for 40 meters (around 22 uH) which, with the 27pF capacitor, yielded a resonance in the area of 6.6 MHz for each of the two coils being tested

Assuming that the Q of the series silver mica capacitor (C_o) is 1000 (a mediocre value - it's probably a bit higher) the results were:

• Original stainless steel coil unloaded Q:  47
• Rewound coil (silver-plated wire) unloaded Q: 199

I then used method #2 (with L/C in series) and got:

• Original stainless steel coil unloaded Q:  47
• Rewound coil (silver-plated wire) unloaded Q: 221

At the risk of being accused of "cherry picking" my results, I'll note that for high "Q" values and where the value of C_o is quite small, method #1 is less forgiving in terms of variances and minor losses in the test fixture, so we'll use the value from method #2.  The reader should also note that with a higher Q, deficiencies in the test measurement and effects of the coil itself will result in lower than actual Q_u(e.g. you will not get an erroneously higher value of Q) so it is likely that even the higher reading from method #2 on the silver-plated coil is, itself, a bit conservative.

Note:  During testing I observed that just laying the coil on my wooden workbench lowered the Q of the silver-plated coil significantly (15-20%) so all readings were taken with both coils held about 12"(25cm) above it.  I think that there is likely some effect of free-space capacitance that is reducing the reading so I suspect that the "actual" Q_u of the silver-plated coil is higher, still.  This same effect was extremely small with the stainless steel coil, further indicative of its lower Q_u.  

Comment:  It's worth mentioning that with higher "Q" coils, the physical aspects of the coil itself - namely the ratio of the length versus diameter, spacing between turns, material of the coil form, increasingly affect the Q - both for reasons of geometry (which can affect the amount of wire needed) and less obvious parameters such as distributed capacitance, etc.

Taking these Q_u measurements at face value, we can calculate the approximate "R"(resistive) loss of the two coils using the general formula:

• Q = X_L  / R

Or the more general form, knowing the inductance:

• Q =  2πf L / R
  

And rewriting this equation for R we get:

• R =  2πf L /Q

So, for a frequency of 6.6 MHz and an inductance of 22uH, X_L is approximately 912 ohms, so for each of the two coils the apparent "R" value - which would be a combination of conductor loss and skin effect resistance we get:

• Original stainless steel coil:  R= 19.4 ohms
• Rewound coil (silver-plated wire):  R=4.1 ohms

The reader should be reminded that for ideal components, at resonance the reactance of the inductor is losslessly canceled out by the reactance of the capacitor so what we are left with - the value "R" mentioned above - will be the ohmic (conductor loss + skin effect) losses of the materials.  This also means that the "R" value will be added to the feedpoint resistance - and the effect of this "R" value is to lose power as heat as we will see below.  It is not lost on me that these values appear to be far higher than those obtained from Owen Duffy's calculator. 

The ohmic loss mentioned above is not going to be the only source of loss in a real antenna system:  In the case of a vertical, the "ground" losses (ohmic loss of radials, dirt, etc.) and with any antenna, the materials from which it is constructed (wire, telescoping rods which are themselves stainless steel, any balun being used, etc.) will come into play - and for an "electrically small" antenna such as either the JPC-7 or JPC-12 on 40 meters, will dominate and probably be the main points of loss besides the coil.

This goes to show how - in either case - doing anything to physically "embiggen" the size of the antenna - such as making the elements longer (adding drooping wires to the loaded dipole, adding a tophat to the vertical) will reduce the amount of inductance needed and increase the radiation resistance - both things that will contribute to improved efficiency. 

With the stainless coil, it gets worse the lower you go!

Out of curiosity I re-did the Q measurements using a 270pF silver mica capacitor - which lowered the resonant frequency to about 2.2 MHz - and got the following results using method #2: 

• Original stainless steel coil unloaded Q: 29
• Rewound coil (silver-plated wire) unloaded Q: 277

Given the lower frequency and lower skin-effect losses I fully expected the loaded Q to be slightly higher - which is true for the silver-plated coil - but initially I did not expect the Q to go down on the stainless steel coil so I re-did the measurement using method #1 and got about the same results (to within a few percent) - but in retrospect, I realized that this was to be expected.

As Q_L can be defined as being the ratio between inductive reactance ( X_L) and skin effect and ohmic resistance (R), if "R" remains pretty high and X_L lowers with frequency, the "Q" will be lower:  Since the resistance of the stainless steel wire is so high to begin with, it figures significantly in the reduction of Q and thus the losses incurred.

In perusing the forums in the back-and-forth discussions about stainless steel versus silver-plated coils, people have observed a "hotter" coil at the lower frequencies.  At first glance, this makes sense since lower frequency = "more coil" = more lossy wire - but the fact that - at least at HF - the Q of the stainless coil goes down significantly with frequency makes it even worse!

Testing with the JPC-12 vertical and JPC-7 loaded dipole.

As noted earlier, the rewound coil was initially tested on the JPC-12 loaded vertical on 40 meters - mostly because it uses only a single coil and at that time I had rewound only one with silver-plated wire.  While I was at it I decided to see if I could detect any difference in the current flowing through the coil at a given RF power output related with the use of the original (and lossy) stainless steel coil and the silver plated coil.  Again, figure 7 shows this rewound coil with a thermal infrared camera just after a 60 second key-down at 75 watts, the temperature rise being just 3F (<2C).

Let us now consider the measured resistive losses of the coil (let's say 20 ohms for the stainless coil, 4 ohms for the silver-plated one) at 75 watts - the power at which we observed the temperature rise.  As we know the approximate current to be expected (about 600mA at 20 watts as measured with a known-accurate thermocouple-type RF ammeter) we can calculate the apparent losses at 100 watts which would equate to about 40 watts for the stainless coil and 5.7 watts for the silver-plated coil.  What this means is that nearly half of the power is lost in the stainless steel coil - but this still represents less than 1 "S" unit of loss. ^{Footnote 2}

Note:  Judging by the ratio of the temperature rise between the two coils (3 degrees F for the silver-plated coil and 110F for the stainless) we would expect far greater difference in power loss between the two coils (more than 30-fold difference, so I'm likely missing something here).

Once I had two silver-plated coils and two stainless steel coils, I could do a direct comparison on the JPC-7 loaded dipole. The JPC-7 is more or less a pair of JPC-12 vertical on their sides, fed with a balun - but rather than having the ground (radial) system to "push" against when radiating RF, it - being a dipole - used both elements against each other and the "ground" under - unlike the vertical where the ground/radial participates directly in current flow - is somewhat less affecting of the impedance, although the proximity of the ground does have the effect of lowering feedpoint resistance and resonant frequency.  (As we are concerned only with "feeding" the antenna, we will ignore the antenna pattern.)  

With the original stainless steel coils, the feedpoint resistance at resonance is "close enough" to 50 ohms to keep a radio without a tuner happy (it's actually lower than 50 ohms as noted below) - but consider that this means that each half of the dipole is closer to 25 ohms, the two being in series with each other:  With two coils' losses now in the mix - and the fact that a given loss of a coil in a 50 ohm circuit as a percentage was about half that of the same amount of resistance in a 25 ohm circuit - the losses are arguably worse, but "split" between the two elements.

While I didn't have the opportunity to use the thermal infrared camera to measure the temperature rise of the stainless coils on the JPC-7, they both got rather hot to the touch after key-down at 75 watts, indicating a roughly comparable amount of loss as did the original stainless steel coil on the JPC-12 vertical:  As with the vertical there was little change in temperature of the silver-plated coils.

Using a NanoVNA and minimal coax length  ^{Footnote 3} I set up the JPC-7 as per the the manufacturer's instructions on 40 meters:  From the feed point there were two mast sections, the coil and then the telescoping rod on each side.  Carefully setting the coils and the element lengths to yield the lowest "R" value (e.g. at resonance), I then noted the "feedpoint" resistance at resonance (where reactance, or "J" = 0) using the stainless steel and then the silver plated coils:

• Stainless steel coils:  38 Ohms (1.32:1 VSWR)
  
• Silver plated coils:  15 ohms (3.4:1 VSWR)

It's worth noting that these "feedpoint" readings were taken with the supplied 1:1 balun inline along with a short length of coaxial cable so the above readings are NOT precisely those of the actual feedpoint resistance:  There is likely a bit of loss and transformation occurring in the aforementioned set-up so the absolute numbers above may not reflect the actual feedpoint resistance itself.  I also observed that on the JPC-7, the (normalized) 2:1 VSWR bandwidth was lower with the silver-plated coil - an expected effect with higher Q resonator coils.

Note:  On higher bands (e.g. 20 meters and up) the feedpoint impedance was much closer to 50 ohms with either coil and it's likely that nothing special will need to be done to keep a radio "happy".

One might be tempted at first to think that because of the higher VSWR,the silver plated coil constituted an antenna that was "worse" - but that would be wrong - this actually indicates the opposite.  What this measurement shows us is that the apparent total resistanceof the two silver plated coils at 40 meters was 23 ohms less(about 11.5 ohms for each coil) than that of the silver plated coil - and this increased resistance is what accounts for the power being lost as heat.

This realization still leaves us with the problem that if we take away much of the loss of the coils we lowerthe feedpoint resistance which means that we can end up with a rather high VSWR - of over 3:1 - meaning that many radios won't be particularly happy with the situation without throwing a tuner into the mix.  This leaves us with several options:

• Pretend we didn't see this and continue using the stainless steel coils.  This is an obvious choice and I can attest that both the JPC-7 and JPC-12 antennas do work pretty well despite the loss of the coil, but personally, I can't "un-see" the lossy nature of these coils, so that's not an option for me.  As a "portable" antenna is all about compromise of performance, I prefer to minimize the deleterious effects of as many aspects of this "compromise" as I reasonably can.
  

• Use an antenna tuner.  Placing a tuner at the antenna is the preferred choice as it will minimize mismatch losses that will result if the tuner is placed at the far end of the cable feeding the antenna (e.g. in the radio.) Whether the magnitude of mismatched loss of the cable when the tuner is placed at the distal (radio) end of the feedline to match the lower-loss silver-plated coil is worse than using no tuner at all with the stainless steel coil cannot be easily answered without knowing the properties of the coax used and how a specific tuner works under the impedance conditions that it might see.
  

• Rework the balun.  The JPC-7 has a 1:1 balun (one that isn't very balanced - but that's another topic) but it is clear that you could  choose a balun that inherently provides a suitable transformation - but more than one such balun would be required to cover all bands.
  

• Autotransformer.  A tapped autotransformer used to be a common "thing" many years ago for matching short verticals (e.g. mobile installations) to deal with the low feedpoint resistances at resonance - often well under 20 ohms for a low-loss coil.  These devices seem to be less common these days, but if you look carefully they may still be found on the surplus market - namely the Atlas MT-1 and Swan/Cubic MMBX, both of which offer selections of impedances that will easily yield 1.5:1 VSWR or better at any likely feedpoint resistance at and below 50 ohms.  I have tested the Atlas MT-1 (by putting two units back-to-back) and found a single unit to have about 0.2dB of loss on 40 meters which theoretically represents about 5% power loss.  (Useful articles about RF autotransformers may be found in the November 1976 issue of "Ham Radio" magazine - link and the December, 1982 QST - link.)

As mentioned previously, the losses of the stainless steel coil are "about an S-unit" on the lower bands so the user would have to weigh the benefits of the potential losses incurred by matching a silver-plated coil and additional matching versus just using the stainless steel coil and getting a more convenient match and just "eating" the losses.