| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
best type and location of antenna(s)
I've got an older ford crewcab with a radioshack ssb cb radio. What
would be a good antenna setup for this rig. I will be hauling an overhead camper on occasion. Twin mirror mounts apeal to me. What is going to get me the best all round performance? Thanks |
One, single, large antenna on a properly grounded mount will work
better then any attempt at co-phase on any vehicle not 8.5 feet wide. At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time. rab wrote: I've got an older ford crewcab with a radioshack ssb cb radio. What would be a good antenna setup for this rig. I will be hauling an overhead camper on occasion. Twin mirror mounts apeal to me. What is going to get me the best all round performance? Thanks |
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. |
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****. -----= 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! =----- |
Okay guys I know next to nothing about mounting an antenna so bear
with me...A single stainless steel 102" antenna mounted in the middle of my roof is the best setup? How long and what type of coax? 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****. -----= 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! =----- |
Just buy yourself a Wilson 2000 or 5000, and you will be pleased with the
results. Do not let the "experts" here yank you around. A 102" whip is a pain in the ass. It will hit everything above you , trees, garages , etc. The Wilson comes with coax. Good luck. t "rab" wrote in message om... Okay guys I know next to nothing about mounting an antenna so bear with me...A single stainless steel 102" antenna mounted in the middle of my roof is the best setup? How long and what type of coax? 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****. -----= 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. 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. |
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. |
snip
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. snip A repost of a ACTUAL test: The antennas: 108" SS whip 7 foot Firestik 5'4" X- Terminator double coil The conditions of this test follow: 1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects 2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better 3. All tested with a constant tone, constant power transmitter 4. All used on a three magnet mount on the roof of a truck 5. All tested from a parked vehicle that never moved during each test 6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.) 7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver. 8. The 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles. 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. 108" SS 5.2 s-units Firestik 5.3 s-units X-Term 5.4 s-units Thirteen mile in the middle of the woods test 108" SS 3.3 s-units Firestik 3.7 s-units X-Term 3.9 s-units Twenty four mile free and clear of obstacles. 108" SS .25 s-units Firestik 1.3 s-units X-Term 1.5 s-units |
How long and what type of coax?
Any length will do... 50 ohm coax. |
|
snip Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain of the antenna huh. I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just posted the numbers. You can draw your own explanation. The coil antenna is very ugly. I would opt for a antenna with slightly less antenna gain but with a more pleasant gain for the eyes. Ultimate antenna gain isn't everything. |
|
|
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. |
|
snip
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. You hit the nail on the head. Many/most just assume that a 1/4 wave antenna will beat a shorter antenna. They look no further. They read the theory and take the theory as the way things work in the real world. Simple theory isn't always realized in the real world. A quarter wave will only beat a shorter antenna if all the antenna variables are the same except for the length. In the real world our 1/4 wave antenna is a thin SS whip. It can not beat a inch thick 1/4 wave copper antenna. It can't even beat some properly designed 5 foot antennas. |
In , wrote:
snip 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. snip A repost of a ACTUAL test: Your test doesn't mean crap, and I'll tell you why. For starters, your -first- test (that you failed to mention) using -two- receivers came up with inconsistent results for five different antennas tested on the transmitter: Tentec: F, 3.1 s units E, 3.05 A, 3 B, 2.85 D, 2.7 C, 2.65 Kenwood: F, 2.3 s units E&B tied at 2.2 D-C tied at 2.15 A, 2.1 This tells me that something is -definately- wrong with your testing procedure. The conditions of this test follow: 1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects That could be an issue if one or more of the connectors were not clean, assuming they didn't use the same connector; 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? 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? 4. All used on a three magnet mount on the roof of a truck Now there's a BIG problem -- improper grounding! 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? 6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.) Save for the all-too-uncommon microburst, how is that significant? 7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver. Why didn't you use two receivers for the second test? 8. The 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles. Beam, schmeam. What was the resonant frequency of the antenna for the receiver? What kind of match was on the receiver? Were all antennas tuned and tested on the same freq? 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). 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. -----= 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! =----- |
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! =----- |
In , lancer wrote:
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; According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment yourself! -----= 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! =----- |
lancer wrote:
On 21 Oct 2003 12:24:22 -0700, (Citizens For A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote: wrote: snip Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain of the antenna huh. I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just posted the numbers. You can draw your own explanation. Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the test better than using Smith charts LOL. How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart? How about a polar plot then. Or do you think a 31" S-METER is the definitive measurement? LOLLOLOLOL |
Your test doesn't mean crap, and I'll tell you why. For starters, your -first- test (that you failed to mention) using -two- receivers came up with inconsistent results for five different antennas tested on the transmitter: Yes it did yield a inconsistency but the inconsistency was brought about by very close results judged by real people. Something you should expect in the real world. The second test (31" S-meter) was like a slow motion replay. It gave me the ability to take more of the human factor out. Regardless of the inconsistency it was still shown that a 1/4 wave SS antenna could be beat by a shorter antenna. This was consistent with BOTH receivers. Tentec: F, 3.1 s units E, 3.05 A, 3 B, 2.85 D, 2.7 C, 2.65 Kenwood: F, 2.3 s units E&B tied at 2.2 D-C tied at 2.15 A, 2.1 This tells me that something is -definately- wrong with your testing procedure. The conditions of this test follow: 1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects That could be an issue if one or more of the connectors were not clean, assuming they didn't use the same connector; They all used brand new connectors 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? They were all adjusted for a SWR null before the test. 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. 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. 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. 6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.) Save for the all-too-uncommon microburst, how is that significant? Your microburst? The one that occurred when I posted this test? 7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver. 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. 8. The 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles. Beam, schmeam. What was the resonant frequency of the antenna for the receiver? What kind of match was on the receiver? Were all antennas tuned and tested on the same freq? 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. 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. 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. |
Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the test better than using Smith charts LOL. How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart? How about a polar plot then. Or do you think a 31" S-METER is the definitive measurement? LOLLOLOLOL The definitive measurement is the one that goes directly to the source. A S-meter is gets closer to the source than any polar plot. |
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; According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment yourself! No Frank. You said that. Lancer does not disagree. Therefore there would be no reason for me to tell him to get off his ass and determine the truth. You should get off your ass and determine the truth. |
snip
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). Not needed. I know the truth because I have used the antennas. Here's your assignment for tomorrow. Get off your fat ass and test the antennas. |
lancer wrote:
On 21 Oct 2003 12:24:22 -0700, (Citizens For A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote: wrote: snip Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain of the antenna huh. I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just posted the numbers. You can draw your own explanation. Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the test better than using Smith charts LOL. How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart? From personal experience, the longer antenna -seems- to work better. Maybe it's the more broadbanded part, maybe it's the power handling capability without frying a load coil, or both. What sucks is the tree pruning, with the long one. To answer the OP, forget the twin talkers, they're too close to each other. -- http://NewsReader.Com/ 50 GB/Month |
In , wrote:
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; According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment yourself! No Frank. You said that. Lancer does not disagree. Therefore there would be no reason for me to tell him to get off his ass and determine the truth. I see.... the truth doesn't matter just as long as he agrees with you. You should get off your ass and determine the truth. Like I said, I already have. YOU need to get off YOUR fat ass and find out why your results were so inconsistent. -----= 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! =----- |
In , wrote:
snip 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). Not needed. I know the truth because I have used the antennas. You assume that nobody else has done any testing for themselves. You are wrong. Here's your assignment for tomorrow. Get off your fat ass and test the antennas. Once again --- and try to comprehend it this time --- I already have. -----= 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! =----- |
Radioman wrote:
How long and what type of coax? Any length will do... 50 ohm coax. I hear the coax length police are in town.. -- http://NewsReader.Com/ 50 GB/Month |
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 |
In , wrote:
Your test doesn't mean crap, and I'll tell you why. For starters, your -first- test (that you failed to mention) using -two- receivers came up with inconsistent results for five different antennas tested on the transmitter: Yes it did yield a inconsistency but the inconsistency was brought about by very close results judged by real people. Something you should expect in the real world. The second test (31" S-meter) was like a slow motion replay. It gave me the ability to take more of the human factor out. What "human factor"? Are these 'humans' incapable of reading a meter? How much judgment does it take to look at the meter, see that the little needle is pointing to xx.x, then write it down? Regardless of the inconsistency it was still shown that a 1/4 wave SS antenna could be beat by a shorter antenna. This was consistent with BOTH receivers. Your results are moot BECAUSE of your inconsistancies -- they demonstrate that you didn't know what the hell you were doing! Tentec: F, 3.1 s units E, 3.05 A, 3 B, 2.85 D, 2.7 C, 2.65 Kenwood: F, 2.3 s units E&B tied at 2.2 D-C tied at 2.15 A, 2.1 This tells me that something is -definately- wrong with your testing procedure. The conditions of this test follow: 1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects That could be an issue if one or more of the connectors were not clean, assuming they didn't use the same connector; They all used brand new connectors That doesn't mean anything. 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.) Save for the all-too-uncommon microburst, how is that significant? Your microburst? The one that occurred when I posted this test? 7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver. 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. 8. The 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles. Beam, schmeam. What was the resonant frequency of the antenna for the receiver? What kind of match was on the receiver? Were all antennas tuned and tested on the same freq? 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. 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. 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. -----= 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! =----- |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , lancer wrote: 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; According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment yourself! I'd love to do that, might be a good winter project. |
On 21 Oct 2003 14:06:51 -0700, (Citizens For
A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote: lancer wrote: On 21 Oct 2003 12:24:22 -0700, (Citizens For A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote: wrote: snip Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain of the antenna huh. I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just posted the numbers. You can draw your own explanation. Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the test better than using Smith charts LOL. How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart? How about a polar plot then. Or do you think a 31" S-METER is the definitive measurement? LOLLOLOLOL Sure a polar plot would be fine, plot a 8' stainless antenna and a 5' copper antenna and post the results. |
In , Lancer
wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , lancer wrote: 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; According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment yourself! I'd love to do that, might be a good winter project. Then we would have more numbers to compare with Tnom's. And winter would be an excellent time to do it because of the ground conditions (you get snow, don't you?). -----= 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! =----- |
On 21 Oct 2003 22:27:50 GMT, Steveo
wrote: lancer wrote: On 21 Oct 2003 12:24:22 -0700, (Citizens For A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote: wrote: snip Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain of the antenna huh. I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just posted the numbers. You can draw your own explanation. Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the test better than using Smith charts LOL. How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart? From personal experience, the longer antenna -seems- to work better. Maybe it's the more broadbanded part, maybe it's the power handling capability without frying a load coil, or both. What sucks is the tree pruning, with the long one. To answer the OP, forget the twin talkers, they're too close to each other. As a rule they do, I think Tnom was just trying to point out that the construction is also important. |
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. |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:38:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Lancer wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , lancer wrote: 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; According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment yourself! I'd love to do that, might be a good winter project. Then we would have more numbers to compare with Tnom's. And winter would be an excellent time to do it because of the ground conditions (you get snow, don't you?). Very seldom, we had snow on the ground for a couple of days last year. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com