wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 25, 12:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Huh!

And, you didn't even realize the rest of us were only getting about 50%
efficiency of a full size antenna, out of our shortened? (vs. the 98%
Vincents seems to be!)

Too bad, you could have shared back with us then and looked like a
superstar--instead of a fibber!

Oh well, I am sure you will be "right on it" next time ...

JS


Fibber? Where do you come up with this BS..Do you want me to
take a picture of it? Crap, you better get your head out of your
kazoo if you want me to talk to you.
I give you the benefit of the doubt by even discussing
it with you, but you start your usual smart ass remarks,
and basically pull a "Telemon".. I don't need to prove
anything to you. I could care less really. My mobile antenna is
as good as it can be, for the physical restraints, and
it got to that point at least 3-4-5 years ago..
I'm not going to run a hat on my mobile, and I accept
that loss in performance. That why I run a long 5 ft stinger
whip.
I don't feel the need to "reinvent" stuff and be a radio superstar.
I have better things to do with my time. 98% efficient? Over
what ground? Have they compared to a fully top loaded
vertical? A coax fed dipole is about 98% efficient.. :/
Must be one heck of a radial system is all I can say..
What does this look like on the back of that truck?
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/fd3.jpg
I got your fibber hanging..
That antenna started out as a 6 ft 20m hamstick
I got for free.
But I used it on 40m, by adding a 5 ft stinger.
Worked very well overall.
Then I stripped all the windings off and installed the
larger coil you see in the picture.
The other 5 ft version I have is the same , except it's coil
is mounted about 2.5 feet above the base, instead of 5,
and the helical windings at the base, and even some above
the large coil are still intact. The antenna works quite well.
But my antenna with no helical windings is more
efficient. But thats more due to coil location,
than less efficient coil loading.
I don't know who you think you are, but I was doing
what you are doing now, in 1988. That's when I
built that partly helical "plastic bugcatcher".
Many others were doing the same in 1958 I'm
sure...
If I had a digital camera handy, I'd already have a
picture waiting for you. You can tell by looking at
it, I've used it for years on end. It's about 19 years
old, and has thrashed many a tree branch.
I play mainly on 80 and 40 meters mobile.
Go do some testing there, and get back to me.
This 10m testing on a mobile doesn't mean too
much to me.. It's easy to get high efficiency on
that band. Most any "wonderstick" will do.
Lets see this thing kill on 80m where the likelyhood
of ground loss overiding the coil loss kicks into play.
The low bands are the real test of a short vertical.
I saw one mention that elevating this antenna will
improve the performance. Heck, elevating most
any kind of vertical or GP will improve performance..
That antenna is not special in that regard..
It really surprises me that you seem to think this
is some kind of new technology.. What, you
live in a cave?
MK


Seems like I have seen a lot of Ham STIKS lately that were use to construct
homebrew antennas.

Jimmie