Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 05:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default Supposed comparison of Mobile HF Antennas in November QST

wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

I've considered putting a tuner on my Bugcatcher for 80 meters, but
haven't. The thing is so narrow there that the alternative is two taps
for the phone portion of the band.


That would more more for impedance matching rather than the
loading coil itself. I have no real problem with that. I've often used
simple L network tuners for matching mobile antennas.
The system I have a problem with is using the tuner as the
loading coil itself. It's usually a disaster as far as efficiency.


Okay, I got it, it makes sense that "tuning the coathanger" approach
would be bad.

Maximum current is at the coil, and often that coil will be
surrounded by body metal. Not good.. Poor current distribution
through the whip, and low overall efficiency. Not good..
If they left out bugcatchers in the test, no wonder all those
tuner fed things looked so good...
If your antenna acts very "high Q", that's actually good.
It means it's probably a pretty decent radiator.
I'd be more worried if it acted overly broadbanded, or low Q.
You won't lose much if you use a tuner for Z matching in your
case.


I've been pleased so far. I worked some CA QSO party from the middle of
PA on 20 meters with it, and all I could hear I could work (100 watts)
Florida, the midwest, and all the typical 20 meter paths from here too.

40 meters received good signal reports. I worked South Carolina, the
Outer Banks, Virginia. Maine Not enough to make a definitive statement,
but it doesn't not work. No QSO's on 80 yet, but the next evening I take
it out, I'm giving it a try.

It is narrow, but that's only been a big problem on 80.
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 11:17 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 702
Default Supposed comparison of Mobile HF Antennas in November QST


"Michael Coslo" wrote in message I've been pleased so far.
I worked some CA QSO party from the middle of
PA on 20 meters with it, and all I could hear I could work (100 watts)


While you can not work a station if you can not hear it, that is no way to
compair an antenna. I have an off center fed antenna up 45 feet and a
tribander up 57 feet. I can hear more on the beam than I can on the OCF .
I can probably work all I can hear on either antenna. It is I just hear
beter on the beam on the bands it is cut for.


  #3   Report Post  
Old October 30th 07, 08:14 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default Supposed comparison of Mobile HF Antennas in November QST

Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message I've been pleased so far.
I worked some CA QSO party from the middle of
PA on 20 meters with it, and all I could hear I could work (100 watts)


While you can not work a station if you can not hear it, that is no way to
compair an antenna. I have an off center fed antenna up 45 feet and a
tribander up 57 feet. I can hear more on the beam than I can on the OCF .
I can probably work all I can hear on either antenna. It is I just hear
beter on the beam on the bands it is cut for.


Its not meant to be a definitive test of the antenna, but I have used
some antennas where that was not the case, Hopefully this is not the
sort of group where one has to take their antenna to a range before they
are allowed to comment on it, good or bad.

I used it, and didn't have trouble making contacts. Others can determine
if it works or not according to their own guidelines.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 30th 07, 01:13 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 757
Default Supposed comparison of Mobile HF Antennas in November QST

On Oct 29, 11:51 am, Michael Coslo wrote:


It is narrow, but that's only been a big problem on 80.


I've seen some on 80 where the people would tune them
at driving speeds because the leaning back of the antenna
would detune far enough to be a problem. :/
They didn't have a wide enough bandwidth to really get
both positions with a good match. Good performing
antenna though.
How well mine does depends on the path, distance, etc..
On 40m, mine will beat my dipole which is at 35-40 ft
on paths over about 1000 miles or so late at night.
IE: Houston to Florida.
We tested that many times to make sure it was not
a fluke. I have no trouble on 80, but it also varies with
time of day, distance. It's probably at it's worst real early
in the evening to close NVIS range stations. But as it gets
later, it will usually get better and better once the band gets
stable and stretches out a bit. As usual, the longer the path,
the better it might do vs a med height dipole.
But I'm often pretty strong even to NVIS range stations.
Not uncommon to be over S 9.. Sometimes 10-20 over..
Course, all the guys on dipoles might be hitting them at
30-40 over.. :/ But no problem talking. And I've never run
an amp mobile.. Just 100w..
MK


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A comparison of the DA100E with the AmRad active antennas. [email protected] Shortwave 0 August 4th 05 03:23 PM
E-bay...Are we supposed to believe everything? Frank Bals Shortwave 6 March 20th 05 10:59 PM
Viking antennas by Childs Electronics ? Comparison ? Iowa883 CB 1 February 12th 05 04:46 AM
Comparison of three indoor active antennas Steve Shortwave 0 July 5th 04 07:42 PM
mobile antenna impedance comparison H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H Antenna 23 January 22nd 04 10:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017