RadioBanter - View Single Post - Jay's I-10k or Wolf's .64 antenna

Dennis #12 · December 5th 08, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hall

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:23:52 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Steveo
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
I'm can't say that his antennas
are junk -- they might be outstanding antennas, but since I have never
seen or tested one I can't say one way or the other. What I -can- say is
that when it comes to marketing, Jay's "facts" leave a lot to be desired.

I've had one for a couple years and can honestly say it's well built,
and works very well. They're not cheap -$- tho.

I don't doubt it. But since you have one, does it meets all the other claims Jay
has made? Have you had 100mph+ winds lately? Did you have RFI that went away
after installing this antenna?

On those two points, while I don't have first hand knowledge, Jay,
having the fortune of living near the Mojave, has a lot of space to do
some unorthodox testing. His 100 MPH wind claim comes from a test
where he mounted one of his antennas in a truck and drove it at 100
MPH (Which is the same as the wind blowing at 100 MPH). I remember
reading about the tests when they happened.

The other claim about RFI is also legitimate. If you replace an
antenna such as an Antron 99, which has poor RF decoupling and
creates a strong near field radiation pattern, with a standard 5/8th
ground plane style antenna, in most cases RFI will be reduced. This is
nothing unique about Jay's antenna, but it is a true characteristic of
the basic design.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

I had the opportunity to frequently communicate with Jay when he was first getting into the business. His initial goal was to come up with an "as good as or better than" replacement for the discontinued 5/8 wave Hygain Super penetrator base station antenna. And he did! Then he started improving his product's design by trial and error testing, (Extensive and exhausting testing regarding a lot of time in automobiles with portable field strength meters). When he started delivering his first antennas, he had a policy of free replacement of any parts that failed , either from high winds, lightning, high power, etc... He then incorporated those heavier duty parts into all new antennas he made to eliminate those 'weak links'. This process continued to improve the product over time to where I believe he has earned the right to make some boisterous claims about his product based on his field success; rather than some engineer's mathamatical determination of theoretical antenna gain VS an isotropic source. He might not be a graduate engineer, but in my opinion he certainly deserves credit for being smart, hard working, and honest.

Dennis #12