RadioBanter - best type and location of antenna(s)

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- CB (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/)

- - best type and location of antenna(s) (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/30100-best-type-location-antenna-s.html)

Frank Gilliland wrote:
I mounted mine dead-center on the roo-guard and tie it back. That way I
can still use it with my camper, and it doesn't snag on the brush like it
does when it's mounted on the rear bumper and tied forward.

Yep, just be careful while backing up. ;)

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

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.

I agree 100% Frank, you raise many many valid points as to why this test is
really bougus.

Which points? You don't have a clue what Frank even posted.

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
m:

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.

I agree 100% Frank, you raise many many valid points as to why this test is
really bougus.

Which points? You don't have a clue what Frank even posted.

Even if he doesn't, he should be able to recognize Tnom's subjectification of a
supposedly objective experiment, his inattention to detail, the lack of critical
information, and his failure (unwillingness?) to disclose his previous test and
it's contradictory results. That, in my book, is sufficient to conclude that
Tnom's tests are bogus. In fact, the results of the second test are almost -too-
good, skewed out of proportion with reality -- almost like he was reading the
S-meter backwards -- and extrapolation of those results suggest that the rubber
ducky is the most efficient antenna design, second only to the theoretical dummy
load! It doesn't take an engineer to see that much.

-----= 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! =-----

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?

No need

They were all adjusted for a SWR null before the test.

WTF is a "SWR null"? You used a bridge? If you did and they all "nulled", why
didn't you say so instead of saying that they all matched at 1.5:1 or better?

And they all had a 1.5 or better when nulled.

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?

A transmitter with no alc set for a constant low power carrier was
used.

A transmitter with swang and no limiter. Gee, what a suprise. Once again, what
was the modulation percentage? And knowing the radio is modified for swang, how
was the modulation percentage measured?

There was no modulation and there was no swang. The only swang
around here is yourself. You swang any which way in a attempt to make
a point.

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

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

Then at least they were all grounded similarity.

Yes... inadequately. With improper grounding at the base of the antenna, where
does part of your signal go (ESPECIALLY with mag-mounts)? Right off the coax! So
you weren't testing just antennas, you were testing antenna/radiating-coax
antenna systems.

I posted the parameters. A valid parameter is a mag mount.

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?

The vehicle was off without any reduction of battery voltage over the
very short period of the test.

You didn't say how the radio was powered. Was it measured at the radio during
transmit? If you used a cig lighter, you can drop a volt or two on key-up. If
the radio wasn't properly grounded, that will affect how much power goes out the
antenna just as much as SWR. And by 'properly grounded' I mean RF ground, not DC
ground. Well?

I don't have to say what the voltage was. I don't have to include how
it was powered. All I have to say is this. The battery wasn't
straining.The battery wasn't dropping voltage between antennas.

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

Because it was not needed. The ability to store and review the info
was more useful.

In other words, you wanted to avoid the confound of getting dissimilar results.

No. I wanted something similar to slow motion replay. I not only got
that but got the image magnified at the same time.

Everything was done on the same frequency. It doesn't matter what
frequency the receiving antenna was resonant on. All the received
signals were treated the same.

And not read from the meter, but 'judged' by you. Ok, Tnom.

Judged and reported by me. One who would actually spend the time to do
the test. What about you Frank? You are awful judgeMENTAL. You have
reached a judgement with no test at all.

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).

I just posted the numbers. They are typical of real world results.
It's to bad that you can't stand that 1/4 wave SS whip can be beat.

I don't know what "real world" you live in but it ain't the same one as me. I
have (and still do) use several different mobile antennas on several different
vehicles, and the 9' whip beats them all hands down.

If it is the Stainless Steel variety then PROVE IT !

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.

I'm sorry that you are upset. The numbers speak for themselves. If you
don't like them then get off your ass and run a test yourself.

I have, and I don't have to post fudged numbers to prove it. Anyone can just get
on the air and find out for themselves.

My numbers aren't fudged. They were just reported as is.

Tell me this. If the numbers were fudged why would I leave the
inconsistent results as is.

The only thing that is fudged is your mind. You fudge your thinking
and have ruled out ever being wrong.