Take your angst and put it somewhere else.. your comments don't even
justify a reply..

Just remember this, I am a HAM, but I'll always be a CBer, as well. If
I see an opportunity to help, I'll take it. Methinks you could stand
to take some of your own advice and go back and read the posts made.

Jimmie wrote:
drivel clipped

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:35:20 GMT, sideband wrote:

Take your angst and put it somewhere else.. your comments don't even
justify a reply..

Just remember this, I am a HAM, but I'll always be a CBer, as well. If
I see an opportunity to help, I'll take it. Methinks you could stand
to take some of your own advice and go back and read the posts made.

Jimmie wrote:
drivel clipped

Wait ! Everybody cool your jets !!!! We finally get a legit
rec.radio.cb thread complete with information and passionate
beliefs.

It doesn't get any better than that. What more can one ask for?
More Dougay trash?

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:07:21 -0500, "M-Tech"
wrote in :

snip
Please explain how a poor "RF ground" can be corrected by increasing coax
length??


A given length of coax runs from the radio to the antenna mount. If
the shield is not adequately grounded (RF ground) then RF will crawl
onto the outside of the shield. When that happens your coax behaves
like an antenna, having resonant and non-resonant lengths. When that
happens, different lengths of the coax will put the antenna mount at
different phase angles, therefore changing the load impedance and SWR.
There are only two solutions: Provide a good RF ground to the antenna
mount (preferred), or change the length of the coax to 'tune' the
input impedance of the antenna.

That's all assuming your radio is fixed to a good RF ground.

Yeah, check-check. I'm with ya. I was just trying to ask(albeit,
sarcastically) who the hell would loop coax through their vehicle instead of
looking for a ground problem!!! I'm also assuming that if the above case
was true, you'd NEVER get enough of a ground to get a decent(say 2:1)swr
unless you have a few hundred feet in the trunk!!

I just always was told that if you have a swr problem, it won't be fixed by
changing coax lengths.

Also, why do people have negative comments about mag mounts? Mine works
fantastic. Maybe the paint on my Passat is thin:-)

Don
313

isn't a 1:1 swr reading a fallicy (sp?). not saying that your equipment
is relaying false readings but a 1:1 match in theory should be impossible.
i have the 1000 also and agree that it works well. on the other hand the
old 102" whip worked the falkland islands on 12 watts.

M-Tech wrote:
No. Not true. I run 6 feet on my 1000 mag. 1.1 swr's on channel 35.

Great antenna btw. I don't know if you can beat one for the
ease/money/performance.

Don

"Guntier C." wrote in message
...

I received and old wilson 1000 mag. mount and want to put it on my quad (4
magnet) mount. I hear that I need a 18 ft. piece of coax for a
counterpoise. Is that true? Any info appreciated.

Thanks,

G.C.

wrote in message
...


Very few mag mounts have an adequate "RF" ground, at least on 11
meters or lower. There isn't enough capacitive coupling to the
vehicle body. In some cases the length of the coax can matter, not
from a matching point of view, but as a counterpoise for the antenna.
I have seen mag mount installations where you could see the SWR change
just by moving the coax around.

Please explain how a poor "RF ground" can be corrected by increasing coax
length??

Don

He never said that a poor RF ground could be corrected by coax length.

He said in effect that the side effects of a poor RF ground could be
reduced by a specific length of coax.

He sure did. He said mag mounts have a poor ground. He said the length of
the coax can help by being "part of the ground plane"(counterpoise). I'm
simply saying you'd need a TON of coax to do that...and get a decent
swr(point of post).

Hence, length of coax(within reason, obviously)on a wilson 1000 mag mount
means diddly squat.

I'm I right, or wrong:-)

Don
313

Amen.

Don
313

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:35:20 GMT, sideband wrote:

Take your angst and put it somewhere else.. your comments don't even
justify a reply..

Just remember this, I am a HAM, but I'll always be a CBer, as well. If
I see an opportunity to help, I'll take it. Methinks you could stand
to take some of your own advice and go back and read the posts made.

Jimmie wrote:
drivel clipped

Wait ! Everybody cool your jets !!!! We finally get a legit
rec.radio.cb thread complete with information and passionate
beliefs.

It doesn't get any better than that. What more can one ask for?
More Dougay trash?

Hell Jim, every measurement made using ANY equipment could be a fallacy if
taken out the correct(to disprove)decimal point:-)

I'm just saying (for my own comparative measurements) on my Dosy meter I've
tuned my 1000 for 1:1 on 35 and I KNOW it talks nice:-) I'm SURE it's not
because of the 1:1 measurment, but because of the antenna....and I'm doing
it without 18' of coax....just 6'.

I also talk all over, from Alaska to Turkey from my mudduck mobile here in
pa:-)

Don
313
"jim" wrote in message
et...
isn't a 1:1 swr reading a fallicy (sp?). not saying that your equipment is
relaying false readings but a 1:1 match in theory should be impossible.
i have the 1000 also and agree that it works well. on the other hand the
old 102" whip worked the falkland islands on 12 watts.

M-Tech wrote:
No. Not true. I run 6 feet on my 1000 mag. 1.1 swr's on channel 35.

Great antenna btw. I don't know if you can beat one for the
ease/money/performance.

Don

"Guntier C." wrote in message
...

I received and old wilson 1000 mag. mount and want to put it on my quad
(4 magnet) mount. I hear that I need a 18 ft. piece of coax for a
counterpoise. Is that true? Any info appreciated.

Thanks,

G.C.

Jim:

No, a 1:1 match isn't a fallacy... but it's extremely rare. It IS
possible to have a 50 ohm output impedance on the radio, a coax cable
that is actually 50 ohms impedance, and an antenna that presents a 50
ohm impedance at its feedpoint. Possible, but highly unlikely...

For example, the 1:1 I'm seeing on the meter in my Pete is probably
1.03:1 or something... but the meter I'm using doesn't have that kind
of resolution.

1.03 is close enough to 1 to say, ok.. good enough.. especially
considering the fact that anything under 2:1 will be just fine.

-SSB

jim wrote:

isn't a 1:1 swr reading a fallicy (sp?). not saying that your equipment
is relaying false readings but a 1:1 match in theory should be impossible.
i have the 1000 also and agree that it works well. on the other hand the
old 102" whip worked the falkland islands on 12 watts.

M-Tech wrote:

No. Not true. I run 6 feet on my 1000 mag. 1.1 swr's on channel 35.

Great antenna btw. I don't know if you can beat one for the
ease/money/performance.

Don

"Guntier C." wrote in message
...

I received and old wilson 1000 mag. mount and want to put it on my
quad (4 magnet) mount. I hear that I need a 18 ft. piece of coax for
a counterpoise. Is that true? Any info appreciated.

Thanks,

G.C.

jim wrote:

isn't a 1:1 swr reading a fallicy (sp?). not saying that your equipment
is relaying false readings but a 1:1 match in theory should be impossible.
i have the 1000 also and agree that it works well. on the other hand the
old 102" whip worked the falkland islands on 12 watts.

M-Tech wrote:

No. Not true. I run 6 feet on my 1000 mag. 1.1 swr's on channel 35.

Great antenna btw. I don't know if you can beat one for the
ease/money/performance.

Don

"Guntier C." wrote in message
...

I received and old wilson 1000 mag. mount and want to put it on my
quad (4 magnet) mount. I hear that I need a 18 ft. piece of coax for
a counterpoise. Is that true? Any info appreciated.

Thanks,

G.C.





cheers on the spell check guys :)
50 ohm impedance on all points may be fine but inherent loss on the
connections makes it impossible to achieve perfect matching. closest
thing i've seen is hardline connections on some of the navy test
equipment (CASS) that i've worked with. that was up in the gigahertz range.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:22:03 GMT, sideband wrote
in :

Jay:

Thanks for your input.. A couple of things, though..

If the coax is being used as a counterpoise, it's not part of a
capacitive grounding system.

The capacitive ground comes from the metallic base/magnet mount to the
vehicle body, not from the coax.


That was an issue when I did the mag-mount tests a few months ago. As
it turns out, the coax can provide plenty of capacitive coupling to
the vehicle, even more than the mag-mount under certain conditions.
But neither of them provide much coupling, not nearly as much as would
be needed to compare with a properly mounted base.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---