BuckEye wrote:

As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any
loaded antenna.


Nope, sorry, that just isn't true. If you would have said
that
a full length 1/4 wave antenna will out perform a shortened
1/4
wave antenna, you'd have been right. But if the full length
and
shortened antennas are of different 'electrical' lengths,
then all
bets are off.
I do agree with the rest of your post. A shortened
antenna is
much more -practical- to use and a lot easier to live with...
'Doc

In , Neil Down
wrote:

snip
1/4 wave horizontal dipole 5.0 Lbs

Did you have some horizontal polarization on the receive antenna?






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

I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so
called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a
antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave
antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil,
or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore.
I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to
be the 108" antenna.



"'Doc" wrote in message ...


BuckEye wrote:

As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any
loaded antenna.


Nope, sorry, that just isn't true. If you would have said
that
a full length 1/4 wave antenna will out perform a shortened
1/4
wave antenna, you'd have been right. But if the full length
and
shortened antennas are of different 'electrical' lengths,
then all
bets are off.
I do agree with the rest of your post. A shortened
antenna is
much more -practical- to use and a lot easier to live with...
'Doc

Neil Down wrote:

Here is my data it should be as credible as yours



Distance 5 miles


102" whip 9 lbs on the meter

Predator 10k 8.5 lbs on the meter

Fat daddy base coil 7.5 lbs

Coat Hanger 1.5 lbs

1/4 wave horizontal dipole 5.0 Lbs


What was the input impedance (R and X) of each antenna at the
feedpoint? What was the SWR of each? Was the 1/4 wave dipole 1/4 wave
total, or 1/4 wave each side (making it a 1/2 wave dipole)? How long
was the coat hanger?

If you can't answer all the questions (Such as the input impedance),
that's OK.. But I'm just curious.. A dipole should have outperformed
the 102" whip. How was that dipole supported, anyway?

-SSB

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:10:42 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:

I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so
called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a
antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave
antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil,
or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore.
I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to
be the 108" antenna.


I don't know where Doc is heading for with his statement, but a
shortened antenna ( like the Xterminator) is 1/4 wave "electrically"

Velocity factor isn't a factor when you determine antenna length,
except certain antennas that are made from transmission line.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:19:03 -0600, Neil Down
wrote:

"BuckEye" wrote in
news:J3vnb.50652$HS4.232216@attbi_s01:

As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any
loaded antenna.
But in the real world a loaded antenna ( shortened ) mounted in the
center of the roof will work much better in ALL directions than a 1/4
wave whip mounted on the bumper, or the rear of the mobile. If the
long whip was mounted on the left back side, the best direction will
be to the right front, whereas a center mounted antenna on the roof,
even with its somewhat more loss will work better in all directions,
as the mobile would not have to be turned like a beam. So the point
is I prefer a good trunk mounted, or a center mounted antenna over the
1/4 whip.

Been there done that.


We are talking about the antennas being mounted in the exact same location
as to which one is better Pay attention

Plus a loaded antenna mounted in the center of the roof will not work
much better than a 1/4 whip mounted on the bumper in ALL directions.
It will be inferior in some directions, but it will superior in at
least one direction.

sideband wrote in
.com:


I know you're using a fake name, and that's OK in my book. I'm just
trying to figure out what the parameters of the test were so I can put
weight to your measurements.

Thanks.

-SSB


They were similiar to tnom's and un-repeatable.

"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:10:42 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:

I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A
so
called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a
antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4
wave
antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading
coil,
or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore.
I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it
to
be the 108" antenna.


I don't know where Doc is heading for with his statement, but a
shortened antenna ( like the Xterminator) is 1/4 wave "electrically"

Velocity factor isn't a factor when you determine antenna length,
except certain antennas that are made from transmission line.

Maby you can explain how a antenna is 1/4 so called " electrically 1/4 " if
it is not a 1/4 wave like a 108" whip.
If it has a coil in it it, and shorter than the 1/4 it is a loaded antenna
NOT a electrically 1/4 wave equivelement .
If that was the case then a very loaded antenna that was 12" tall NOT 8'
could also be called a 1/4 wave "electrically"
What makes then a antenna 1/4 wave "electrically", because it matches the
50 coax?


Velocity factor IS importment when cutting a element to the proper
length.
Typically a antenna element can range from .91 to .99 of the true open space
length.

Neil Down wrote:
sideband wrote in
y.com:


I know you're using a fake name, and that's OK in my book. I'm just
trying to figure out what the parameters of the test were so I can put
weight to your measurements.

Thanks.

-SSB


They were similiar to tnom's and un-repeatable.

I agree with George.

Here is a add from a supplier of the antenna.

SP-1000

HIGH PERFORMANCE TWIN 1/8" SQUARE COPPER WIRE COIL,
FREQUENCY COVERAGE 26-31MHz,
"SWR LESS THAN 1.5:1 1.5MHz SPREAD"
STANDARD 3/8" x 24 THREAD
OVERALL LENGTH 54" ( WHAT not a 1/4 wave only half the length )
Dam that makes it 1/8 wavelength in the physical length.
No where does it say 1/4 wave equivelement. The only thing that could be
called a 1/4 wave antenna is a is a 1/4 wave antenna.
Thats just another marketing tool to cause more confusion in the antenna
world.