Blast from the past...........102 SS whip
 

From:
Subject: mobile antenna design performance
Date: 2000/03/24
Message-ID: #1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References:




Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Complaints-To:
Organization: Group One News Network, report abuse to:

MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:11:12 EST
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb



Snip
The only real gain is from your wallet. The 102" SS is cheaper than
the other antennas that outperform it.

Well Well Well...... I do believe there Mr. Mystery Man, seeing how
you appear to be trolling for all of my posts and disagreeing with
everyone of them, regardless.... that I'll never be right with you.

I'm an equal opportunity corrector. You needed correction, so you
got it.

Of
course, you didn't ask the question, OR provide any answere, so I'll
let any self displayed ignorance speak for itself.

I believe I have answered the question quite well. At least more
accurately. Perhaps you forgot to read my answer. I will post
it here once again.
*************************************
All things being equal:

1.Top loaded antennas perform marginally better than base loaded

2.Taller antennas (less loading coil) perform better than shorter

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.

5. A higher antenna mount works better than a lower mount.

6. A free and clear antenna mount works better than an obstructed one.

7. A more substantial RF ground works better than a minimal ground.

8. A vertical antenna performs better than a diagonal (windblown).

Number 5, 6, & 8 are the most important factors in the performance of
an antenna.


Now if any one could come up with a formula that includes all of
these factors then we would be able to answer your question. There
is no formula. However we can say this.
The best mobile antenna is a thick stiff nine foot whip that is
silver coated and mounted on top of the roof with multiple radial
grounding points.
No one is going to use the antenna above in the real word, so one
might draw the conclusion that in the real world we might substitute a
102" stainless whip for the best real world performance. WRONG.
The 102" is made of stainless. Stainless has only 3% the
conductivity of copper. This alone will stop the 102" stainless from
being the top performer. Subtract also the fact that the 102"
stainless bends over in the wind and is also a relatively thin
antenna.
So what is the best choice? It appears that for a realistic
antenna, it is a mildly loaded top or center loaded antenna made
of thick conductive materials. There are a few of these ugly looking
antennas around. They do work marginally better than the
102" stainless and have the benefit of being shorter. These
antennas can get as short as five foot and still equal or
outperform the 102" stainless.

Percent conductivity of materials, based on copper being the standard
of 100%

Aluminum 65%
Brass 28%
Chrome 74%
Gold 71%
Iron 17%
Silver 106%
Steel 10%
Stainless 3%
**************************************
If, and I repeat, *IF* you did any reading (and paying attention)
before you spewed, You might get something right. Why don't you go
back and read my reply and look at the gain I claimed for a 102"
(that's a quarter wave on the 11 mtr band) whip before you TRY to
correct me? THEN...

That is not what you claimed. I will quote you.........

"At the risk of getting flamed (who am I kidding, it's inevitable),
the best *overall* antenna is the 102" SS whip."

Does not the SS stand for stainless steel? If you are NOW saying that
a 102" whip can outperform a loaded antenna then I will agree. But
you were referring to something else.


you can come back and TRY to give a reply to the
question raised in the post.

I believe that I have done that.

I don't think that the poster asked for ANY of what you offered.
(which was NOTHING btw)

I think most readers of these posts would prefer accuracy. Therefore
corrections should be made when someone is in error.


Signed... Mr. Mystery Man, formally known as tnom

wrote:
*************************************
All things being equal:

1.Top loaded antennas perform marginally better than base loaded

2.Taller antennas (less loading coil) perform better than shorter

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.

5. A higher antenna mount works better than a lower mount.

6. A free and clear antenna mount works better than an obstructed one.

7. A more substantial RF ground works better than a minimal ground.

8. A vertical antenna performs better than a diagonal (windblown).



Have you ever opened a book?

Now if any one could come up with a formula that includes all of
these factors then we would be able to answer your question. There
is no formula. However we can say this.
The best mobile antenna is a thick stiff nine foot whip that is
silver coated and mounted on top of the roof with multiple radial
grounding points.
No one is going to use the antenna above in the real word, so one
might draw the conclusion that in the real world we might substitute a
102" stainless whip for the best real world performance. WRONG.
The 102" is made of stainless. Stainless has only 3% the
conductivity of copper. This alone will stop the 102" stainless from
being the top performer. Subtract also the fact that the 102"
stainless bends over in the wind and is also a relatively thin
antenna.
So what is the best choice? It appears that for a realistic
antenna, it is a mildly loaded top or center loaded antenna made
of thick conductive materials. There are a few of these ugly looking
antennas around. They do work marginally better than the
102" stainless and have the benefit of being shorter. These
antennas can get as short as five foot and still equal or
outperform the 102" stainless.

A common choice that was overlooked was the 102"
whip made out of fiberglass with copper wire embedded
in it. Due to the lower velocity factor (how fast radio
frequency energy travels though a substance), the
fiberglass version of the 102" whip can actually be 6"
or so shorter than its stainless counterpart. Due to the
shorter length and thicker outer material, it's also
more rigid (stays straighter when the vehicle is in motion).
In practical terms, it doesn't need a spring to achieve
resonance in the CB band, and can usually be shortened
an additional 4" or more depending on where in the
spectum the operator most often operates. For example,
the fiberglass whip (Radio Shack part number 21-905)
is usually 2 to 6 inches shorter than the stainless version
to begin with. It doesn't need a spring. And when
shooting for resonance (lowest SWR with highest field
strength) on Channel 40, it can usually be shortened
an additional 4 inches. If you shorten it from the bottom
instead of the top, the rigidity is improved. So, the end
product very often ends up a full foot shorter than the
108" stainless whip and spring combination as well as
being cheaper because there's no need to pay for a
spring. Not having a spring makes the setup look
nicer and stay straighter too.

Over the years I've taken a number of the 21-905
whips, shortened them 4 inches or so from the bottom,
and coated them with a thin coat of Varathane to
prevent splintering of the fiberglass over time. The
end result looks great, lasts until it gets smacked
low enough and hard enough to break it, and per-
forms very, very well. To outperform it, an antenna
would have to be a closer match to 50 ohms resistive
and have a lower angle of radiation. Few are capable
of that--and none are cheaper or easier to obtain.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-=[Bill Eitner]=-
http://www.cbtricks.com/~kd6tas

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 25 Oct 2003 02:02:24 +0100, "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
*************************************
All things being equal:

1.Top loaded antennas perform marginally better than base loaded

2.Taller antennas (less loading coil) perform better than shorter

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.

5. A higher antenna mount works better than a lower mount.

6. A free and clear antenna mount works better than an obstructed one.

7. A more substantial RF ground works better than a minimal ground.

8. A vertical antenna performs better than a diagonal (windblown).



Have you ever opened a book?

Have you ever made sense?

All the above can be gained by a many books. One of
those books was the book of common sense.

Do you have that book?

"Bill Eitner" wrote in message
...

Now if any one could come up with a formula that includes all of
these factors then we would be able to answer your question. There
is no formula. However we can say this.
The best mobile antenna is a thick stiff nine foot whip that is
silver coated and mounted on top of the roof with multiple radial
grounding points.
No one is going to use the antenna above in the real word, so one
might draw the conclusion that in the real world we might substitute a
102" stainless whip for the best real world performance. WRONG.
The 102" is made of stainless. Stainless has only 3% the
conductivity of copper. This alone will stop the 102" stainless from
being the top performer. Subtract also the fact that the 102"
stainless bends over in the wind and is also a relatively thin
antenna.
So what is the best choice? It appears that for a realistic
antenna, it is a mildly loaded top or center loaded antenna made
of thick conductive materials. There are a few of these ugly looking
antennas around. They do work marginally better than the
102" stainless and have the benefit of being shorter. These
antennas can get as short as five foot and still equal or
outperform the 102" stainless.

A common choice that was overlooked was the 102"
whip made out of fiberglass with copper wire embedded
in it. Due to the lower velocity factor (how fast radio
frequency energy travels though a substance), the
fiberglass version of the 102" whip can actually be 6"
or so shorter than its stainless counterpart. Due to the
shorter length and thicker outer material, it's also
more rigid (stays straighter when the vehicle is in motion).
In practical terms, it doesn't need a spring to achieve
resonance in the CB band, and can usually be shortened
an additional 4" or more depending on where in the
spectum the operator most often operates. For example,
the fiberglass whip (Radio Shack part number 21-905)
is usually 2 to 6 inches shorter than the stainless version
to begin with. It doesn't need a spring. And when
shooting for resonance (lowest SWR with highest field
strength) on Channel 40, it can usually be shortened
an additional 4 inches. If you shorten it from the bottom
instead of the top, the rigidity is improved. So, the end
product very often ends up a full foot shorter than the
108" stainless whip and spring combination as well as
being cheaper because there's no need to pay for a
spring. Not having a spring makes the setup look
nicer and stay straighter too.

Over the years I've taken a number of the 21-905
whips, shortened them 4 inches or so from the bottom,
and coated them with a thin coat of Varathane to
prevent splintering of the fiberglass over time. The
end result looks great, lasts until it gets smacked
low enough and hard enough to break it, and per-
forms very, very well. To outperform it, an antenna
would have to be a closer match to 50 ohms resistive
and have a lower angle of radiation. Few are capable
of that--and none are cheaper or easier to obtain.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-=[Bill Eitner]=-
http://www.cbtricks.com/~kd6tas

-------------------------------------------------------------------


DON NOT put more than about 100 watts into one of those RS fiberglass whips!
They work well at low power...........but are not made for high power
applications.
Train

*************************************
All things being equal:

1.Top loaded antennas perform marginally better than base loaded

2.Taller antennas (less loading coil) perform better than shorter

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.

5. A higher antenna mount works better than a lower mount.

6. A free and clear antenna mount works better than an obstructed one.

7. A more substantial RF ground works better than a minimal ground.

This is true but I have seen installations that were actually OVERGROUNDED
and hurt performance.

8. A vertical antenna performs better than a diagonal (windblown).

Number 5, 6, & 8 are the most important factors in the performance of
an antenna.


Now if any one could come up with a formula that includes all of
these factors then we would be able to answer your question. There
is no formula. However we can say this.
The best mobile antenna is a thick stiff nine foot whip that is
silver coated and mounted on top of the roof with multiple radial
grounding points.
No one is going to use the antenna above in the real word, so one
might draw the conclusion that in the real world we might substitute a
102" stainless whip for the best real world performance. WRONG.
The 102" is made of stainless. Stainless has only 3% the
conductivity of copper. This alone will stop the 102" stainless from
being the top performer. Subtract also the fact that the 102"
stainless bends over in the wind and is also a relatively thin
antenna.
So what is the best choice? It appears that for a realistic
antenna, it is a mildly loaded top or center loaded antenna made
of thick conductive materials. There are a few of these ugly looking
antennas around. They do work marginally better than the
102" stainless and have the benefit of being shorter. These
antennas can get as short as five foot and still equal or
outperform the 102" stainless.

Percent conductivity of materials, based on copper being the standard
of 100%

Aluminum 65%
Brass 28%
Chrome 74%
Gold 71%
Iron 17%
Silver 106%
Steel 10%
Stainless 3%
**************************************

So.....Why has there not been a SS 102 with a heavy silver plate?
K-40 was using silver plating in their load coils in the 70's
and that hasn't changed as far as I know.
Train

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:54:32 GMT, "Train" wrote:

*************************************
All things being equal:

1.Top loaded antennas perform marginally better than base loaded

2.Taller antennas (less loading coil) perform better than shorter

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.

5. A higher antenna mount works better than a lower mount.

6. A free and clear antenna mount works better than an obstructed one.

7. A more substantial RF ground works better than a minimal ground.

This is true but I have seen installations that were actually OVERGROUNDED
and hurt performance.

How are why would that occur?


8. A vertical antenna performs better than a diagonal (windblown).

Number 5, 6, & 8 are the most important factors in the performance of
an antenna.


Now if any one could come up with a formula that includes all of
these factors then we would be able to answer your question. There
is no formula. However we can say this.
The best mobile antenna is a thick stiff nine foot whip that is
silver coated and mounted on top of the roof with multiple radial
grounding points.
No one is going to use the antenna above in the real word, so one
might draw the conclusion that in the real world we might substitute a
102" stainless whip for the best real world performance. WRONG.
The 102" is made of stainless. Stainless has only 3% the
conductivity of copper. This alone will stop the 102" stainless from
being the top performer. Subtract also the fact that the 102"
stainless bends over in the wind and is also a relatively thin
antenna.
So what is the best choice? It appears that for a realistic
antenna, it is a mildly loaded top or center loaded antenna made
of thick conductive materials. There are a few of these ugly looking
antennas around. They do work marginally better than the
102" stainless and have the benefit of being shorter. These
antennas can get as short as five foot and still equal or
outperform the 102" stainless.

Percent conductivity of materials, based on copper being the standard
of 100%

Aluminum 65%
Brass 28%
Chrome 74%
Gold 71%
Iron 17%
Silver 106%
Steel 10%
Stainless 3%
**************************************

So.....Why has there not been a SS 102 with a heavy silver plate?
K-40 was using silver plating in their load coils in the 70's
and that hasn't changed as far as I know.
Train


Just cover the S/S whip with copper braid. Copper is almost as good
as silver.

How can you shorten a fiberglass whip from the bottom??? I am interested in
trying it

snip
So.....Why has there not been a SS 102 with a heavy silver plate?
K-40 was using silver plating in their load coils in the 70's
and that hasn't changed as far as I know.
Train


Just cover the S/S whip with copper braid. Copper is almost as good
as silver.

Yes, and when you do this nothing shorter will beat it.

tnom,
Except to 'stir the pot' why would you want to drag
out this collection of out dated misconcepts? Mixing
a little bit of truth with a lot of old 'wive's tales'
is a sure way to spread confusion and mis-information.
In that respect you're doing a fine job...
'Doc

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:22:34 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
Except to 'stir the pot' why would you want to drag
out this collection of out dated misconcepts? Mixing
a little bit of truth with a lot of old 'wive's tales'
is a sure way to spread confusion and mis-information.
In that respect you're doing a fine job...
'Doc

Keep up with whats going on in this newsgroup. There has been an
antenna discussion for a week now.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:22:34 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
Except to 'stir the pot' why would you want to drag
out this collection of out dated misconcepts? Mixing
a little bit of truth with a lot of old 'wive's tales'
is a sure way to spread confusion and mis-information.
In that respect you're doing a fine job...
'Doc
Well, I guess I could of stayed with the standard material for
this group. The pedophilia stories, the name calling, the hobby
bashing negative dribble, But I chose different. I chose to
stay constructive and on topic.

I'm sorry you can't see that. The original message by me was to
point out that there are 5 foot antennas that will perform very good.



This was disputed, so I offered proof by posting the test.
I also offered a possible explanation of why a 102"SS
can be beat. You have the right to not believe that a 102
can't be beat but it is ridiculous for you to suggest that these
discussions are not what this group is suppose to be about.

There has been no name calling, no pede comments, no
gay comments, or anti CB rhetoric. What are you complaining
about?

You must of been so used to the former that you were caught off
guard when a real discussion came up. Remember that if everyone agrees
then there is no discussion.

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

Lancer,
I'm aware of that. It's too bad that most of
that discussion deals with misconceptions.
'Doc

"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:22:34 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
Except to 'stir the pot' why would you want to drag
out this collection of out dated misconcepts? Mixing
a little bit of truth with a lot of old 'wive's tales'
is a sure way to spread confusion and mis-information.
In that respect you're doing a fine job...
'Doc

Keep up with whats going on in this newsgroup. There has been an
antenna discussion for a week now.

This is much better than all the talk of gay sex.
All actually did was block 3 accounts and it all went away!
Train

"'Doc" wrote in message ...


Lancer,
I'm aware of that. It's too bad that most of
that discussion deals with misconceptions.
'Doc

Do a Google search for the antenna testing Brass did while at the Huntsville
NASA center. Very interesting reading.
Train

In , 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

Tnom reads newsgroup posts the same way he reads an S-meter.






-----= 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 Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your X-terminator
generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve antenna due to the
coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the pattern.

In , "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your X-terminator
generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve antenna due to the
coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the pattern.

I think he fudged the numbers. Like I said, if anyone has one of those
X-terminators in my area I'll be more than happy to run a test. In fact, I can
run it with a few other CB antennas I have laying around, including 102"
fiberglass and magnetic SS whips, a short center-loader from RS, a couple
helical dummy-loads, and I even think there's a rubber-ducky in the scrap heap.
And I can test them properly, mapping a field from my truck to just outside the
near-field, using an unmodified AM radio (unmodulated), no QD connectors, tuned
with an FSM, measurements for forward and reflected power, and DC voltage
measured at the radio during transmit. Hell, I'll even punch a hole in the roof
for this test!






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

Yes.
'Doc

tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.
'Doc

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:18:19 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.

Gain in relation to the 102" SS

Getting back to the misconception aspect....................

You said yes to "Can a shorter antenna show more gain than the
102" SS.

Now the final question. Where's the misconception I am spreading?

Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your X-terminator
generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve antenna due to the
coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the pattern.

I think he fudged the numbers.

I don't think he fudged the numbers, I think his readings were inaccurate
due to poor testing procedures.

Frank Gilliland wrote in message . ..
In , "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your X-terminator
generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve antenna due to the
coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the pattern.

I think he fudged the numbers. Like I said, if anyone has one of those
X-terminators in my area I'll be more than happy to run a test. In fact, I can
run it with a few other CB antennas I have laying around, including 102"
fiberglass and magnetic SS whips, a short center-loader from RS, a couple
helical dummy-loads, and I even think there's a rubber-ducky in the scrap heap.
And I can test them properly, mapping a field from my truck to just outside the
near-field, using an unmodified AM radio (unmodulated), no QD connectors, tuned
with an FSM, measurements for forward and reflected power, and DC voltage
measured at the radio during transmit. Hell, I'll even punch a hole in the roof
for this test!






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


damn....frank has radio antennas in his shop........imagine
that..........geez.......i thought frankie wasn't a ham or a cber and
didn't operate any radio equipment.........of course according to his
words.......but somehow he has radio antennas.........

damn....frank has radio antennas in his shop........imagine
that..........geez.......i thought frankie wasn't a ham or a cber and
didn't operate any radio equipment.........of course according to his
words.......but somehow he has radio antennas.........

I think Frank is not so frank. I think Frank is actually a oxyMORON.

In , (gw)
wrote:

damn....frank has radio antennas in his shop....

And why not? I work on a lot of radios. Makes sense to have a few antennas
around, don't it?

....imagine
that..........geez.......i thought frankie wasn't a ham or a cber and
didn't operate any radio equipment....

Was that -your- thought or somebody else's?

.....of course according to his
words....

Really? Where did I ever say that I'm not a CBer, or that I don't operate any
radio equipment? I didn't. Learn to read.

...but somehow he has radio antennas.........

Don't you have some fish to clean?







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

Can anyone tell me how to shorten a fiberglass whip from the bottom??? Is the
brass end just epoxied on??
Thanks
Buck

Buck,
Yes, the fibreglass rod is just glued into the base,
then the inner conductor is soldered to the base. I
assume it's epoxy but I can't say that for sure.
'Doc

wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:18:19 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.

Gain in relation to the 102" SS

Getting back to the misconception aspect....................

You said yes to "Can a shorter antenna show more gain than the
102" SS.

Now the final question. Where's the misconception I am spreading?

You are spreading the misconception that your tests are accuarte and the
results are repeatable.

'Doc wrote:



Lancer,
I'm aware of that. It's too bad that most of
that discussion deals with misconceptions.
'Doc

Doc;
Which misconceptions?

Frank Gilliland wrote:

In , "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your
X-terminator generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve
antenna due to the coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the
pattern.

I think he fudged the numbers. Like I said, if anyone has one of those
X-terminators in my area I'll be more than happy to run a test. In fact, I
can run it with a few other CB antennas I have laying around, including
102" fiberglass and magnetic SS whips, a short center-loader from RS, a
couple helical dummy-loads, and I even think there's a rubber-ducky in the
scrap heap. And I can test them properly, mapping a field from my truck to
just outside the near-field, using an unmodified AM radio (unmodulated),
no QD connectors, tuned with an FSM, measurements for forward and
reflected power, and DC voltage measured at the radio during transmit.
Hell, I'll even punch a hole in the roof for this test!



It would be interesting to see the 102" fiberglass against the S/S whip.

On 27 Oct 2003 19:18:25 GMT, "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:18:19 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.

Gain in relation to the 102" SS

Getting back to the misconception aspect....................

You said yes to "Can a shorter antenna show more gain than the
102" SS.

Now the final question. Where's the misconception I am spreading?

You are spreading the misconception that your tests are accuarte and the
results are repeatable.


My tests (plural) were made as accurate as any CB'er could do with
common equipment. Are you suggesting only professionals with
professional equipment and a test range or chamber test antennas? Are
you suggesting that we just read the book and leave it at that? My
tests were accurate enough to show a consistent gain ranking of the
antennas. Even though one test showed a different reported ranking
between two signal readers they were still repeatable in the sense
that each time the 102"SS was compared to others it fell short to
specific antennas each and ever time.

You seem to forget one thing. I originally tested the X-Terminator to
de-bunk it. I could not. I could of just kept my mouth shut. I am sure
others in this group would of done just that, but I decided to post
the numbers anyways. The numbers don't lie.

Where's the misconception? I never suggested a tolerance to the tests.
I was up front and detailed about the conditions. All I did is post
the numbers.

What's accurate?...........The gain ranking
What's repeatable?.............The 102" stainless being beat by some
shorter antennas.

Ther's no misconception.

Thanks Doc....I have a couple layine around...I might try to shorten one of
them

Lancer wrote:
It would be interesting to see the 102" fiberglass against the S/S whip.

With trees?

"(Scott Unit 69)" wrote:
You are spreading the misconception that your tests are accuarte and the
results are repeatable.

You're posting as Scott now. WTF is wrong with you?

wrote:
On 27 Oct 2003 19:18:25 GMT, "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:18:19 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.

Gain in relation to the 102" SS

Getting back to the misconception aspect....................

You said yes to "Can a shorter antenna show more gain than the
102" SS.

Now the final question. Where's the misconception I am spreading?

You are spreading the misconception that your tests are accuarte and the
results are repeatable.


My tests (plural) were made as accurate as any CB'er could do with
common equipment. Are you suggesting only professionals with
professional equipment and a test range or chamber test antennas? Are
you suggesting that we just read the book and leave it at that? My
tests were accurate enough to show a consistent gain ranking of the
antennas. Even though one test showed a different reported ranking
between two signal readers they were still repeatable in the sense
that each time the 102"SS was compared to others it fell short to
specific antennas each and ever time.

You seem to forget one thing. I originally tested the X-Terminator to
de-bunk it. I could not. I could of just kept my mouth shut. I am sure
others in this group would of done just that, but I decided to post
the numbers anyways. The numbers don't lie.

Where's the misconception? I never suggested a tolerance to the tests.
I was up front and detailed about the conditions. All I did is post
the numbers.

What's accurate?...........The gain ranking
What's repeatable?.............The 102" stainless being beat by some
shorter antennas.

Ther's no misconception.

The misconception is that you don't need to look at the book. How do you
know what to llok for if you don't read the book? Your test results are not
repeatable by anyone else, there fore they are invalid. The misconception
is also that your measurements were accurate. Fudging numbers on an s-meter
is "keyclown science".

On 28 Oct 2003 00:24:47 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

wrote:
Ther's no misconception.

Nope. Just a bunch of hoo ha, and arguments about field strength
meter readings.

I'm gonna buy an X-terminator, and compare it in the real world
application. If it's near as good as the 108"er, I'll be happy.

Thanks for the tip. Tnom.

If you get the opportunity to swap the 108" SS with the X-Terminator
feel free to report the results. One way or the other.

I'd love to see someone else do a test. Be forewarned. If your results
are in favor of the X-Terminator you'll get flack for reporting the
results. Your test will be examined and will be deemed as being
flawed.

If your test shows the 108" SS as the superior antenna then the
obvious will happen. Your post will be accepted as legit and there
will be no argument over the results. Even though the test parameters
were the same.