"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" wrote in message
...

If you're serious about decent peformance, stay away from glass
mount antennas for anything other than receive-only. They're worse than
useless for transmitting.

I think you better stick to the paintings. Anecdotal evidence is worse than
no evidence. Just because one manufacturer's antenna was junk doesn't mean
they all are. There does seem to be considerable variability in glass mount
antennas, though. Some people report good results, others horrible, and
little in the middle. Still, at 2.4G I'd personally be a bit suspicious of
glass mount.

However, OP has another problem. Nobody has mentioned feedline loss. The
wire carrying the signal to the antenna, even with a good SWR, can be a real
source of loss, especially at 2.4G. Cable which has a low loss at that
frequency is available, but it is expensive and hard to get. As someone
else has suggested, it may be better just to keep the antenna in the
vehicle.

I would also caution OP, presuming he is in the U.S., there are pretty
significant limitations to what he can do legally with WiFi. Besides power
limitations, there are a number of other limitations designed to protect
other users of that spectrum (including amateurs). WiFi is a tertiary user
of that spectrum, and you are REQUIRED not to interfere with the other
users. You are also required to accept interference from the primary and
secondary users.

Now the odds that you will be called on interference either way are pretty
small, but recognize that in general modifications, even something as simple
as an external antenna, are disallowed by the regulations.

...

In article ,
says...

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" wrote in message
...

If you're serious about decent peformance, stay away from glass
mount antennas for anything other than receive-only. They're worse than
useless for transmitting.

I think you better stick to the paintings. Anecdotal evidence is worse than
no evidence. Just because one manufacturer's antenna was junk doesn't mean

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You know nothing about me, nor my work environment, nor how MANY
undercover cars have had issues with glass mounts.

This didn't just happen on one vehicle. It was on several. And my
own personal experience with glass mounts (yes, I tried using them at
one time myself) was terrible.

The big problem with glass mounts is their lack of a decent ground
plane. They spew RF all over the interior of the vehicle they're being
used on, hence the interference that I and others have experienced.

Perhaps you're the one who had best stick to "painting."


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:13:22 -0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" wrote in message
...

If you're serious about decent peformance, stay away from glass
mount antennas for anything other than receive-only. They're worse than
useless for transmitting.

I think you better stick to the paintings. Anecdotal evidence is worse than
no evidence. Just because one manufacturer's antenna was junk doesn't mean

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You know nothing about me, nor my work environment, nor how MANY
undercover cars have had issues with glass mounts.

This didn't just happen on one vehicle. It was on several. And my
own personal experience with glass mounts (yes, I tried using them at
one time myself) was terrible.

The big problem with glass mounts is their lack of a decent ground
plane. They spew RF all over the interior of the vehicle they're being
used on, hence the interference that I and others have experienced.

Perhaps you're the one who had best stick to "painting."

Just curious. Do you recall how much the windows were tinted? I
suspect one of the many reasons for problems is the tinting medium
in/on the glass.

In article ,
says...

snippety

Just curious. Do you recall how much the windows were tinted? I
suspect one of the many reasons for problems is the tinting medium
in/on the glass.

Actually, yes, they were. And you're right -- Tinting which has
metallic content is one of the worst offenders.

I can't be certain whether the tint on these specific cars was
metal-bearing. I just know that I've always had problems with glass-
mount antlers, no matter if the window is tinted.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:21:12 -0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee
wrote:

In article ,
says...

snippety

Just curious. Do you recall how much the windows were tinted? I
suspect one of the many reasons for problems is the tinting medium
in/on the glass.

Actually, yes, they were. And you're right -- Tinting which has
metallic content is one of the worst offenders.

I used an on the glass mount on the rear window of my TA . Part of the
tinting has a metallic content, but was in the form of little circles
or dots. The rest of the window had a dark tint. The antenna worked
fine.

Prior to that I used one on a Thunderbird with no problems although it
did get out better on the TA.

I can't be certain whether the tint on these specific cars was
metal-bearing. I just know that I've always had problems with glass-
mount antlers, no matter if the window is tinted.

They have always worked well for me and generally you can tell by
looking at a tint whether it is metallic or not. They "look metallic"
with a silver tint. I've not seen any of the tan, green, or brown
tints that were metallic.

I ran a TM-D700 and a TM-V7A running 50 watts on 144 to these with no
problems. They didn't seem to mind the higher SWR on 440 and did well
there too.

I currently use a diamond mag mount with a colinear on top of a SUV
and that is a real performer.

73

Roger (K8RI)

Keep the peace(es).
Roger

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:28:13 -0500, "xpyttl"
wrote:

However, OP has another problem. Nobody has mentioned feedline loss. The
wire carrying the signal to the antenna, even with a good SWR, can be a real
source of loss, especially at 2.4G. Cable which has a low loss at that
frequency is available, but it is expensive and hard to get.

an alternative would be using TVSat 75ohm cable & connectors properly
lenght cut to mirror Z from source 50ohm to antenna (taking care of
cable velocity factor & unpair 1/4 multiple wave lenght proper cut);
this way is cheap ...
--
Seasons Greetings & Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
more than 3y - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"