"Richard Cranium" wrote in message
om...
Frank Gilliland wrote in message
. ..
In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

Bull****.

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.

Umm, don't think so Dick. Most of the time
campers are made of fiberglass. While a whip
mounted where you said will perform, sometimes
most people don't want to drive around knocking
tree limbs down, hitting low bridges, unable to
go into garages & multi level parking lots.
That's why the suggestion for a shorter antenna,
like a Wilson mag mount or some other side or
mirror location for the antenna. If he mounts a
102 on the back bumper, a Wilson or a shorter
antenna mounted in a higher, better location will
out perform it.

Landshark


--
Hard things are put in our way,
not to stop us, but to call out our
courage and strength.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:53:01 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

Bull****.


This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

P.S. A 1/4 wave whip of thicker more conductive material can't be beat
by a shorter antenna, but my comment was about the common 102" SS
whip.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:59:06 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:53:01 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

Bull****.


This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

P.S. A 1/4 wave whip of thicker more conductive material can't be beat
by a shorter antenna, but my comment was about the common 102" SS
whip.

Using Mmana to simulate antennas;

The difference between a 5' and a 8' copper antenna is 0.3 dB

The difference between a 8' copper and 8' stainless steel antenna is
0.6 dB

(by the book) a 5' copper antenna will beat a 8' stainless antenna.

In , wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:53:01 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

Bull****.


This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

My "fat ass" has done this test more than once, more than twice.... If, in fact,
you do a PROPER test, eliminating ALL reasonable confounds and recording ALL the
data, you WILL find that the 9 foot whip just can't be beat, as my "fat ass" has
proven more than a DOZEN times before while teaching students how to map an
antenna field (which, BTW, was a lab demo for a number of different issues, not
just antenna types and field strength measurements).

P.S. A 1/4 wave whip of thicker more conductive material can't be beat
by a shorter antenna, but my comment was about the common 102" SS
whip.

Here's your assignment for tomorrow, Tnom:

Compare the resistive losses due to skin effect for a 1/4 wave vertical (27 MHz)
made of both stainless steel and solid silver wire of the same diameter. And I'm
going to help you out by reminding you to integrate the current distribution on
the antenna, and I'll even let you pick an arbitrary diameter and disregard the
taper. Show your work (and don't skip steps).






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

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

B*llsh*t.


Don't beat about the bush Frank... just say what you think ;~)


Brainbuster.