On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
+ On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
+ wrote:
+
+You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
+performance if mounted in the proper location...
+
+ It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
+ antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
+ be beat by some shorter antennas.
+
+ Let the games begin.
+
+Mounted properly the 102" is king.
+
*****

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

Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
operating bandwidth of the antenna.

james

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
+ On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
+ wrote:
+
+You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
+performance if mounted in the proper location...
+
+ It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
+ antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
+ be beat by some shorter antennas.
+
+ Let the games begin.
+
+Mounted properly the 102" is king.
+
*****

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

Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
operating bandwidth of the antenna.

james

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 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.

WOW! 40 something posts on this thread without swearing.

40 something posts without name calling.

40 something posts without perverse comments

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

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 =----

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:40:30 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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&

You didn't debunk anything. The only thing you did was unnecessarily
swamp the issue with your dribble and conjecture.It does nothing
to prove that a 102'' Stainless Steel whip will outperform the
X-Terminator. If you really wanted to prove it you'd run the test.
You don't because it would upset your thinking on antennas.

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

I said you might have cooties, I said you are dishonorable, but I
never resorted to name calling.

* I can now officially call you a name because you falsely accused me
of name calling. The truth can now be said. You are a liar.

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

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:42:48 -0500, wrote:

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 is overfive feet tall.

^ corrected post ^

108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db


I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using
a small 2 pill on low.