In , wrote:

snip
This may shock and dismay some people, but I agree with you Frank. A
102" stainless steel (or fiberglass) whip properly mounted will beat
shortened and loaded antennas any day.

Best location would be dead center on the roof, but with a cab-over
camper you can't do that permanently, although you could use a
mag-mount antenna and place it on top of the camper when you have it
onboard.
snip

A repost of a ACTUAL test:

Your test doesn't mean crap, and I'll tell you why. For starters, your -first-
test (that you failed to mention) using -two- receivers came up with
inconsistent results for five different antennas tested on the transmitter:

Tentec: F, 3.1 s units
E, 3.05
A, 3
B, 2.85
D, 2.7
C, 2.65

Kenwood: F, 2.3 s units
E&B tied at 2.2
D-C tied at 2.15
A, 2.1

This tells me that something is -definately- wrong with your testing procedure.

The conditions of this test follow:

1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects

That could be an issue if one or more of the connectors were not clean, assuming
they didn't use the same connector;

2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume that they were
different. Regardless, what was the forward power with each antenna, and why was
that not listed?

3. All tested with a constant tone, constant power transmitter

Using....? An audio signal generator and a TRC-453? Was the radio modded? What
was the modulation percentage?

4. All used on a three magnet mount on the roof of a truck

Now there's a BIG problem -- improper grounding!

5. All tested from a parked vehicle that never moved during each test

How did the radio get power? Cigarette lighter? Six feet of 00-guage superflex?
Was the engine running? If not, was the battery voltage checked before and after
the tests?

6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.)

Save for the all-too-uncommon microburst, how is that significant?

7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver.

Why didn't you use two receivers for the second test?

8. The 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles.

Beam, schmeam. What was the resonant frequency of the antenna for the receiver?
What kind of match was on the receiver? Were all antennas tuned and tested on
the same freq?

9. A video camera and a 31" television was used to display
a (31" S- METER) and record the results.

Thirteen mile free and clear of obstacles.

At 13 miles, another issue you will have is radiation angle. I don't suppose you
measured that either, did you? Do you know why that is important? Because you
don't state the HAAT of the antenna for either the transmitter or the receiver,
nor do you state whether the 13/24 miles was flat. If you just wanted to get a
relative signal strength reading without the confound of HAAT, why did you
stroll 13 miles instead of only half a mile or so? All you needed to do was
clear the near-field, which most engineers consider to be six wavelengths for HF
(or 66 meters, a far cry from 13 miles where a lot can happen inbetween).

There are WAY too many issues with your test, and any or all of them could have
been a factor in your inconsistent readings. Looking back an those threads, it
appears that you already knew that, too.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----