102" whip
 

On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:

Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
with the whip ?


You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests
that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform
better than the 102" stainless.

*The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the
notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the
102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it.

********************************************
FIRST TEST

I have just completed another test of mobile antennas. Last time I
posted the results of the 7' Firestik compared to the 108" whip.
The Firestik won by a small margin. This time six antennas were
tested. They were kept anonymous to the signal readers until
after the figures were compiled. Each antenna was assigned a
letter. Here's the list:

108" stainless steel whip A
8' Francis Amazer B
7' Firestik C
6'6" Hustler top load D
5'4" X-Terminator double coil E
9' homemade 1" braid antenna F

A picture of these antennas and the mount
is located in (alt.binaries.pictures).
The file is called (antennas.jpg)
* The braided antenna is not shown.
It was included in the test after the picture
was taken.

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 the test
6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.)
7. All used two stationary receivers 14 miles away.

The analog S meter of a Kenwood and Tentec were used to
compile these numbers. These numbers were averaged after
numerous checks and rechecks to make sure the order of
best to worst was accurate. Here they a

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

Two things come to mind.
1. All these antennas are close.
2. Antenna E, easily the shortest, outperformed
or equaled everything except antenna * F

* ( antenna F is an impractical antenna. It consist of
a one inch wire braid covering a fiberglass rod 9'
tall)

***************************************

FOLLOW UP TEST

I won't dare say anything about the results. I'll just post the
numbers. Comments welcome.

The antennas:

108" 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. 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles.
9. A video camera and 31" television was used to display
a (31" S- METER) and record the results.

Thirteen mile free and clear test

108" 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" 3.3 S-units
Firestik 3.7 S-units
X-Term 3.9 S-units

Twenty four mile free and clear test

108" .25 S-units
Firestik 1.3 S-units
X-Term 1.5 S-units

102" whip
 

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:17:32 GMT, Lancer wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote in
retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field
wrote in :

: Professor wrote:
: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
: performance if mounted in the proper location...

What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?


Assuming this is a mobile install.....

A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance
feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but
its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the
heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!).

Frank;
A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?


Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall.


Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question...

Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here...

Thanks...


You're welcome, and we still have more if you want it.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

102" whip
 

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
:


No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.

Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout.


I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will
buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS
whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in
your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the
financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty
good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a
handout"?










----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

102" whip
 

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
:


What's my word based on? A test.

A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.

A test is better than no test.


The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy.


What's your word based on?
Consensus?

Common sense and the laws of physics.

Consensus and incomplete laws of physics


Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.


But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.

Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom? I am suggesting you make the
effort to research the reasons behind your results. The way it looks
now, you don't care about the reasons just as long as the results
agree with your opinion. That's not truth, tnom -- that's deception
(and it's a good thing you aren't selling these antennas because you
could be charged with the crime of misrepresentation and/or deceptive
business practices).


So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.


But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.

Why the results?

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

102" whip
 

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:53:53 -0500, wrote in
:

On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:

Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
with the whip ?


You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests
that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform
better than the 102" stainless.

*The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the
notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the
102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it.
snip


I debunked -your- tests a long time ago, tnom:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...54d79ae?hl=en&

Then, like now, you resorted to name-calling to back up your results.










----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

102" whip
 

On 28 Jan 2006 01:42:39 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
:


I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
better than any loaded antenna.

In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.

Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
such antenna exists, or is even possible.

The 102 is the best portable antenna you can buy, bottom line. (cheap too)

It takes a real CBer to drive around with one every day tho.


72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you incharge for
a few days !

Vinnie S.

102" whip
 

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"DrDeath" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
Snipped

The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have
that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102"
on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's
somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)

The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical
applications.

I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close
to center. I have to tie down for the drive through.

The 102?

Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and covered
it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch lift and the
big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive through the car
wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this is not my daily
driver, not at 8mpg.

Get rid of the linear.

102" whip
 

On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:

Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
with the whip ?

Here's another antenna test post I dug out of the archives.

********************************************

I did this test a few years ago (minus the Wilson), at least as best
I could. The problem is that when swapping the magmounts the
position might change a little bit. If the position changes a little
bit then the measured field strength may change a little bit also.
Seeing how all of these antennas are very close to begin with
then you have to wonder if the results may be off just a little bit?

Anyway's, I did run the test and attempted to calibrate the results
in db's . The calibration may be off a little bit, but the order from
the best to the worst as I measured IS accurate.

Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
and measured even better antennas. Of these the
practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
overall antenna height

102" whip
 

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:04:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
:


No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.

Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout.


I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will
buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS
whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in
your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the
financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty
good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a
handout"?

I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.

102" whip
 

Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.

Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
suffering from salt poisoning.

I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.

Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom?

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?

I don't do charity, especially for you.