Thanks. I just wanted to prove to myself that I could make my own antenna
and see how well it worked. There are 2 reasons for the large coil. In
comparing a few antennas of roughly equal length, the ones with large open
coils tend to be more broad-banded. Larger materials also have less
resistive loss and more radiating are. The lower part doesn't really have to
be 1/2' copper pipe but it was the first thing I thought of. I'm going with
copper wire wrapped on pvc shortly.

Chris
"I Am Not George" wrote in message
m...
"Chris" wrote in message
ink.net...
Here are some pictures
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjohnson1379/


"Chris" wrote in message
nk.net...
I have constructed a homeade antenna that is mounted on a trunk-lip
mount
on
a Nissan Sentra. The bottom is 18" of 1/2" copper pipe with a 3/8"
theaded
adapter soldered in the bottom. There is a 9" long peice of pvc with a
2"
diameter 6ga. copper coil around it. Then there is 4" more copper pipe
with
a 3ft' stainless tip on top. The problem is that it would be too easy
to
bend the trunk with copper pipe. I thought about a spring but then the
whole
thing would bend too much when the trunk is opened. If I move the coil
down
below roof level, the SWR goes way up. I thought about using pvc for
the
lower part but I can't quite figure out how to construct it. I may
take
some
pictures of what I have. Stay tuned......



yes I agree you do nice work chris one question though the 6ga copper
coil and 1/2 in copper pipe are overkill for CB no need to go that big
unless you are running megawatts. Even with your illegal 100 w amp
you still only need a wilson or equivelent that would be much less
weight and problems. but may be you just like the look of it etc. the
heavy duty badass appearance kind of like car hood hold down pins on a
stock engine lol

Lancer wrote:
Chris; Nice looking antenna, large open air coils are more
efficient.
Some people see a large open air coil and think its all about power
handling capability.

rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

Huh......... A bent over 9 foot whip has a very noticeable Loss
compared to a efficient 4 or 5 foot vertical.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:15:27 -0400, wrote:


rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

Huh......... A bent over 9 foot whip has a very noticeable Loss
compared to a efficient 4 or 5 foot vertical.

Hi tnom;
Long time no see. Hope everything's been good with you.

Lancer wrote:
On 13 Jun 2004 13:29:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Chris; Nice looking antenna, large open air coils are more
efficient.
Some people see a large open air coil and think its all about power
handling capability.

rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid
is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

You don't have a clue to what you are talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/yq3gd

1) Broad Bandwidth does not mean an antenna is more efficient.

I didnt bring up bandwith someone else did

2) No one ever said a 4 ft antenna was more efficient than 9 ft one.

no you said the open air coils were more efficient

3) A 9 foot antenna "bent over" will more than likely be less
efficient than a properly designed 4 or 5 foot antenna.

the open air coil antenna is less efficient because the coil radiates
part of the power and that power is lost.

4) A stainless steel antenna is less efficient than a copper antenna
of the same length.

not if its electrically shorter than the stainless one

Now do you care to make another post and prove what a
stupid dumbass you are when it comes to antenna theory?

the only dumbass here is you lol

Lancer wrote:
On 13 Jun 2004 14:55:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Lancer wrote:
On 13 Jun 2004 13:29:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Chris; Nice looking antenna, large open air coils are more
efficient.
Some people see a large open air coil and think its all about
power
handling capability.

rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid
is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if
you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a
bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

You don't have a clue to what you are talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/yq3gd

1) Broad Bandwidth does not mean an antenna is more efficient.

I didnt bring up bandwith someone else did


You sure did, look back at your post.

2) No one ever said a 4 ft antenna was more efficient than 9 ft
one.

no you said the open air coils were more efficient

They are more efficient than a coil wound on a solid form.
Want to argue that point?

And an isotropic radiator is more efficient than an open air coil.
Want to argue that point?

3) A 9 foot antenna "bent over" will more than likely be less
efficient than a properly designed 4 or 5 foot antenna.

the open air coil antenna is less efficient because the coil
radiates
part of the power and that power is lost.

Wrong, the coil has very little radiation. The open air coil has
less
loss because the losses are less in an open air coil.
(resistive losses, capacitive coupling losses, form loss)
Do a search on coil Q

Care to argue that point?

"The open air coil has less loss because the losses are less in an
open air coil." thats like Twisty saying "its true because I said so"
lol. Care to argue that point?

4) A stainless steel antenna is less efficient than a copper
antenna
of the same length.

not if its electrically shorter than the stainless one

Electrically shorter? You meant physically shorter. I can take a 18
foot antenna and make it electrically shorter than 9 feet while
still
keeping it 18 feet long. dumbass

congratulations you have been reading the arrl handbook now what does
it say about losses from loading coils you should read that and get
back to us.

Now do you care to make another post and prove what a
stupid dumbass you are when it comes to antenna theory?

the only dumbass here is you lol

You have again proven you are a stupid dumbass that knows nothing
about antennas. Care to try again?


Give up assclown look at my original post and see how far away from
the point you have taken this thread in an attempt to pretend you know
something. you must be as frustrated as Steveo because he is posting
aerial pics of wa3moj's niegborhood lol

(I Am Not George) wrote:
he is posting
aerial pics of wa3moj's niegborhood lol

hehe

On 13 Jun 2004 17:16:09 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

loss because the losses are less in an open air coil.
(resistive losses, capacitive coupling losses, form loss)
Do a search on coil Q

Care to argue that point?

"The open air coil has less loss because the losses are less in an
open air coil." thats like Twisty saying "its true because I said so"
lol. Care to argue that point?

Sure, I explained why the losses are less in an open air coil,y ou
chose to ignore it. Grab a book and look up Q and see what it says.
You do know how to read don't you?

Don't bother getting back to us, your arguing just argue. I don't
have anymore time for your stupidity.