Firestick 5/8 wave mobile ant.?
pete schwichtenberg
I have seen a number of firestick antennas that say they are 5/8 wave
antenns. I was wondering if this is true or bogus. They look the same as
the other firestick antennas. I found no matching unit on the antennas.
From past experience, I thought that all 5/8 wave antennas needed some
type of matching unit to correct the impedance match.
Does anyone know about this antenna?
They are all different lengths of firestick mobile antennas. Anyone
notice a difference in the signal if you are using one or know someone
who has one?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
=A0 Pete
ssb128n Transtar128 =
--------------------------------------------------------
Check out my personal start page for links to cbradio mods,
manaufacturers and info.
http://www.suresite.com/cgi-bin/psp.pl?ssb128n Click on CBRadio online
for updated info for newbies and not-so-newbies.
--------------------------------------------------------
Jsender104
They are supposed to be loaded to 5/8, big deal. A real 5/8 is usually
loaded to 3/4 for matching purposes. So a firestick is an antenna shorter
than 1/4 and loaded to 3/4. Over 1/2 of the electical length is loading.
Loading doesn't radiate very well and tends to be lossy. The only real 5/8
for CB is 22 feet long. If its shorter than 1/4 wave it might as well be
loaded to 1/4 making it appear electrically longer than 1/4 is only going
to add more loss to the antenna.
James
tn...@muck.net wrote:
>
> Name: 7 is greater than 9.rtf
> Part 1.2 Type: Rich Text Format (application/rtf)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
>
>
----------------------------------
Helectrictly wound antennas such as the firestick work well, but as for
the claims for the 5/8 wave firestick, impossibality, even base 5/8
antennas such as the Penatrator have a small shunt(ie inpeadance)in the
base, this includes the Golden Penatrator with beta match.
Even the Francis 1/4 wave mobile has a small capacitor load in the base.
James
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tn...@muck.net
Just as a loaded 1/4 wave antenna is less efficient than a full 1/4
wave, a loaded 3/4 wave is less efficient than a full length 3/4
wave.
Comparing the two keep in mind that a 3/4 wave antenna has more gain
than a 1/4 wave antenna. So when you compare a five foot 3/4 wave to
a five foot 1/4 the 3/4 wave wins.
Iv'e physicaly compared the two and found this to be true.
The 5/8 designation used by Firestik is to describe a lower angle
of radiation that gives their antennas the gain. A 5/8 wave
radiation pattern is similar to this.
Amor Powers
tn...@muck.net wrote:
> Comparing the two keep in mind that a 3/4 wave antenna has more gain
> than a 1/4 wave antenna. So when you compare a five foot 3/4 wave to
> a five foot 1/4 the 3/4 wave wins.
Dishing out a big bowl of hokum?
Amor Powers
One of The-Powers-That-Be
Lots of hot air
Amor Powers
All this bull about shortened wound whips being more efficient is
hilarious. Whether they call them 5/8 wave or any which wave. A standard
102 inch whip will conquer any of them with ease. The more windings
they have on them, the more resistance, which only leads to more heat
loss on transmit.
The possible exception is the case of the wound whip which is longer
than 102inches.
One superior commercially available wound whip which is an exception to
the wound whip blues is the SGC HF Mobile Whip (approx >US$300). This
antenna is made for HF Mobile or Marine Mobile operation, and companion
to the SGC Smartuner (which is a wonderful piece of gear and a joy to
use!).
The SGC whip is about 112inches long and dual resonant at 10 and 22 MHz,
using thick dual concentric copper foil windings. It is a very heavy
antenna, and will break a normal CB mount completely off the vehicle. It
requires a military-style mount system, with base series capacitance
tuning (or the Smartuner) to resonate on 27MHz, but gets a slightly
lower angle of radiation and is slightly more efficient than the
standard 102inch whip on CB.
Amor Powers
One of The-Powers-That-Be
Lots of hot air
END OF POST
======================================
keyword footer (see above) CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB
radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner
CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC
Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile
SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna
mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio
antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB
radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner
CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC
Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile
SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna
mobile SGC Smartuner CB radio antenna mobile SGC Smartuner
Jsender104
>Comparing the two keep in mind that a 3/4 wave antenna has more gain
>than a 1/4 wave antenna. So when you compare a five foot 3/4 wave to
>a five foot 1/4 the 3/4 wave wins.
How did you compare the 2. I tried a 3/4 wave vertical antenna once along
with a few of my friends and all found the same to be true. The damned
thing wouldn't even talk across town. This was in 1973. I later learned
why. While the 3/4 does have some gain over 1/4 wave the radiation angle is
so high that all the energy goes off of the end of the antenna. Unless your
are talking to airplanes this antenna is crap.
As far as the 5/8 antenna goes, for the antenna to have anywhere near the
gain it is claimed it must be mounted over a groundplane that extends into
the far field. About the only practical way to do this is mounting it in a
saltwater marsh
SEAN FOLEY
jim, there are only two different 3/4 wavers currently made for cb use.
both are gamma fed and one uses a voltage feed with some type of altered
ground plane basket and the other uses ground planes at a downward slope to
help lower the radiation angle. both work very well on the air, and
everyone that i know that runs one / has run one has been overjoyed with
it's performance. the only problem is that they are obviously very tall.
the Jo Gunn is built well and will hold up well, even in Chicago winds.
the Avanti Sigma 4 / CTE copy is too wobbly and tends to break the vertical
from whipping around and bending. if in a low wind area, it works fine.
both need special attention to sealing all connections and the gammas, as
moisture and condensation WILL change the tuning. as for the actual gain
of a 5/8ths wave, i know that this is a hotly contested issue in the ham
groups, but from all of my different antenna installations, the old
penetrators still come up as being the best performer for function /
strength / reliability. they WILL beat a 1/2 wave Shakespeare into the
dirt and have no problem even with the old (and excellent) starduster type
1/4 wave. the starduster does work fabulous at tall heights though (at
least 50' to the hub). it's angle is so low that at lower mounting
heights, much of the signal is blocked and / or absorbed by TV's, if you
know what i mean. this is a common problem with Antronn's and the ground
plane kit also. doing long range ground wave tests, with all of the
aforementioned antennas mounted at the same height, the penetrator 5/8 will
always win if properly tuned and installed correctly. while i too have
been reading the other antenna NG's, performance is the bottom line over
theory. the gain rating might not be correct, but for overall performance,
the 5/8ths still wins in real world installations done correctly. Sean aka
Bigfoot
tn...@muck.net
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 01:32:13 GMT, tn...@muck.net wrote:
> Just as a loaded 1/4 wave antenna is less efficient than a full 1/4
>wave, a loaded 3/4 wave is less efficient than a full length 3/4
>wave.
> Comparing the two keep in mind that a 3/4 wave antenna has more gain
>than a 1/4 wave antenna. So when you compare a five foot 3/4 wave to
>a five foot 1/4 the 3/4 wave wins.
> Iv'e physicaly compared the two and found this to be true.
> The 5/8 designation used by Firestik is to describe a lower angle
>of radiation that gives their antennas the gain. A 5/8 wave
>radiation pattern is similar to this.
>
Somehow I knew this post would get some responses.
People used to think the world was flat, and some people
actually believe what they read in the newspapers.
I'm not telling you to believe in what I'm saying. I'm just
asking you to take a little time and effort to actually compare
the two antennas before you comment on them.
SEAN FOLEY
once again, you'll probably get no one to verify what is the truth. they
are all too lazy to actually do some mobile field testing. they don't
understand that a higher ERP does not mean that the antenna has more
USEABLE signal. the power radiated at the horizon, or at about 30* to 45*
is optimum. the quarter wave doesn't exhibit this in mobile use. by
altering the radiation angle and minimizing the losses (ie. larger
conductors with minimal inductance and heat transfer ) in electrically
shortened antennas, many antennas can beat a standard 102" whip.
especially when the signal is fluttering as you drive down the road due to
the uneven load that the radio is seeing. some people would rather promote
falsehoods and theories instead of having to learn the truth. it's just a
sign of laziness and complacency. technology is leaving the "old school"
by the wayside. Sean aka Bigfoot
Amor Powers
tn...@muck.net
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 01:58:33 -0700, Amor Powers <po...@bootlegger.net>
wrote:
>All this bull about shortened wound whips being more efficient is
>hilarious. Whether they call them 5/8 wave or any which wave. A standard
>102 inch whip will conquer any of them with ease. The more windings
>they have on them, the more resistance, which only leads to more heat
>loss on transmit.
>
>The possible exception is the case of the wound whip which is longer
>than 102inches.
>
>Amor Powers
>One of The-Powers-That-Be
>Lots of hot air
>
I expected a few responses from my post.
I only posted because I have a 102" whip and a 7'
Firestik mounted on quick disconnects. Instead of
talking about antenna theory I actually have taken the
time, the effort, and the expense to compare the two.
In the real world the Firstik wins by a hair. If you don't
believe me do the comparison.
P.S. People use to believe the word was flat
Bill Eitner
This is a very poor post Sean. The contradictions
make you look bad. Look this post over and you'll
know what I mean.
--
----------------------------------------
\ /
___ | ___
A
/ | \
-=[Bill Eitner]=- III
III
III
_________III_________
Bill Eitner
tn...@muck.net wrote:
Beware of information from "experts" (real or self-proclaimed). There is
antenna theory and there is antenna reality. We have yet to see a
vehicle
that simulates a lab. While theory is a good starting place...experience
is
the only place to end up. The best book on theory will produce the worst
antenna you could own.Some "experts" may "claim" 5/8 wave mobile
antennas
are not possible because they would need to be 23 feet high. They are
wrong! Physical length and ground wave performance are not the same. If
you
ever hear someone make that claim, ask them how a handheld CB can have a
1/4 wave antenna 8 inches long and 1/4 wave mobile antennas from 12-60
inches long in spite of the fact that a physical 1/4 wave is 108 inches.
>
Anyone interested in this should look in DejaNews for rebuttals.
I effectively countered this argument months ago. My counter
plus any other general statements are included.
Dale Powell
the actual length of the antenna. You cannot load it to make it shorter
and still call it a 5/8. Maybe you are doing what many CB'ers have been
fooled into thinking is correct, unwrapping all the wire from the
antenna and measuring the length that one is still believed my many
backyard "CB Wizards",
Dale Powell
Bill Eitner wrote:
>
> SEAN FOLEY wrote:
> >
> > once again, you'll probably get no one to verify what is the truth. they
> > are all too lazy to actually do some mobile field testing. they don't
> > understand that a higher ERP does not mean that the antenna has more
> > USEABLE signal. the power radiated at the horizon, or at about 30* to 45*
> > is optimum. the quarter wave doesn't exhibit this in mobile use. by
> > altering the radiation angle and minimizing the losses (ie. larger
> > conductors with minimal inductance and heat transfer ) in electrically
> > shortened antennas, many antennas can beat a standard 102" whip.
> > especially when the signal is fluttering as you drive down the road due to
> > the uneven load that the radio is seeing. some people would rather promote
> > falsehoods and theories instead of having to learn the truth. it's just a
> > sign of laziness and complacency. technology is leaving the "old school"
> > by the wayside. Sean aka Bigfoot
>
> This is a very poor post Sean. The contradictions
> make you look bad. Look this post over and you'll
> know what I mean.
> ----------------------------------------
> \ /
> ___ | ___
> A
> / | \
> -=[Bill Eitner]=- III
> III
> III
> _________III_________
Bill, he likes to elicit an audience of the unknowing. Almost anyone
who has been around radio for awhile knows what works best.
Dale Powell
tn...@muck.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 01:32:13 GMT, tn...@muck.net wrote:
>
> > Just as a loaded 1/4 wave antenna is less efficient than a full 1/4
> >wave, a loaded 3/4 wave is less efficient than a full length 3/4
> >wave.
> > Comparing the two keep in mind that a 3/4 wave antenna has more gain
> >than a 1/4 wave antenna. So when you compare a five foot 3/4 wave to
> >a five foot 1/4 the 3/4 wave wins.
> > Iv'e physicaly compared the two and found this to be true.
> > The 5/8 designation used by Firestik is to describe a lower angle
> >of radiation that gives their antennas the gain. A 5/8 wave
> >radiation pattern is similar to this.
> >
> Somehow I knew this post would get some responses.
>
> People used to think the world was flat, and some people
> actually believe what they read in the newspapers.
>
> I'm not telling you to believe in what I'm saying. I'm just
> asking you to take a little time and effort to actually compare
> the two antennas before you comment on them.
The 5/8 wave vertical has the lowest angle of radiation of all
verticals, period, end of discussion. You're trying to tell us that
your (scientific) test (probably with a Uniden 510) proves that solid
engineering and research going back many years is wrong? Broadcast
engineers and communications professionals all over the world have been
laboring under misapprehension that they were insalling the most
efficient groundwave radiators? Ok.
Andy Moss
SEAN FOLEY wrote:
>
> once again, you'll probably get no one to verify what is the truth. they
> are all too lazy to actually do some mobile field testing. they don't
> understand that a higher ERP does not mean that the antenna has more
> USEABLE signal. the power radiated at the horizon, or at about 30* to 45*
> is optimum. the quarter wave doesn't exhibit this in mobile use. by
> altering the radiation angle and minimizing the losses (ie. larger
> conductors with minimal inductance and heat transfer ) in electrically
> shortened antennas, many antennas can beat a standard 102" whip.
> especially when the signal is fluttering as you drive down the road due to
> the uneven load that the radio is seeing. some people would rather promote
> falsehoods and theories instead of having to learn the truth. it's just a
> sign of laziness and complacency. technology is leaving the "old school"
> by the wayside. Sean aka Bigfoot
I disagree, Sean. When you shorten a quarter-wave antenna the radiation
angle goes up, not down. Therefore, the useable gain must be less.
Some antennas that *can* reduce the angle of radiation, at the expense
of overall gain, are the continuously loaded ones like the Firestick.
That's not to say that a continuously loaded antenna is the best mobile
antenna though.
--
Andy Moss
"Whose woods these are I think I know...."
tn...@muck.net
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:36:56 -0800, Dale Powell <pow...@polarnet.com>
wrote:
>tn...@muck.net wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 01:32:13 GMT, tn...@muck.net wrote:
>>
>> > Just as a loaded 1/4 wave antenna is less efficient than a full 1/4
>> >wave, a loaded 3/4 wave is less efficient than a full length 3/4
>> >wave.
>> > Comparing the two keep in mind that a 3/4 wave antenna has more gain
>> >than a 1/4 wave antenna. So when you compare a five foot 3/4 wave to
>> >a five foot 1/4 the 3/4 wave wins.
>> > Iv'e physicaly compared the two and found this to be true.
>> > The 5/8 designation used by Firestik is to describe a lower angle
>> >of radiation that gives their antennas the gain. A 5/8 wave
>> >radiation pattern is similar to this.
>> >
>> Somehow I knew this post would get some responses.
>>
>> People used to think the world was flat, and some people
>> actually believe what they read in the newspapers.
>>
>> I'm not telling you to believe in what I'm saying. I'm just
>> asking you to take a little time and effort to actually compare
>> the two antennas before you comment on them.
>A 5/8 wave designation on a vertical antenna represents one thing only,
>the actual length of the antenna. You cannot load it to make it shorter
>and still call it a 5/8. Maybe you are doing what many CB'ers have been
>fooled into thinking is correct, unwrapping all the wire from the
>antenna and measuring the length that one is still believed my many
>backyard "CB Wizards",
If this is so then a K-40 and a Wilson 1000
are not 1/4 wave antennas.
Dale Powell
The mentioned mobile antennas (and all other mobile antennas) are 1/4
wave antennas. They are 1/2 of the classic 1/2 wave antenna, the other
half being the groundplane of the car body. The 1/4 wave vertical can
be electrically shortened in any number of ways, and it would then
become an "electrically shortened 1/4 wave antenna". The inherent
advantage to a true 5/8 wave vertical is the lowest angle of radiation
of any vertical, providing a good groundplane is provided. This only
holds true if the antenna is of the proper length, approx. .625
wavelength.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Powell Electronic QSL Card
Short Circuit since 1972
Ham Radio op since 1984 - AL7KB
"RADIO FROM CENTRAL ALASKA"
remove #"s in address to reply
/ /
/ /
/________________________________/ CQ DX-DE AL7KB
/ | /
/ | /
/ | /
|
/ \ 2 towers
/ \ 75 meter Delta loop @ 80 ft.
/ \ 40 meter 3 element KLM Yagi @ 85 ft.
|_____| 10-15-20 3 element Gem Quad @ 60 ft.
| | 1400 ft. Beverage pointed at USA
| | Kenwood TS-450S
| | Homebuilt 4CX1000
|_____| Heathkit SB-1000
| | Assorted CB gear
| | Collins R-390A
| | Hammurland SP-600
| | PRO-2006
Etc.
AT&T Globalyst 630 100 MHZ Pentium
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Powell
antenna will offer a lower angle of radiation than the 5/8 wave
vertical, he is right, of course. A Colinear configuration for 27 MHZ
is not very practical, but it could be built. It would be a very large
antenna indeed. Colinears are practical and common on VHF and above,
where the wavelength is short enough to build these antennas without
getting too large. They offer increased gain, and a lower angle of
radiation than a single antenna would.
Rick McCally
In article <01bcbd8d$12c26760$27fe...@bigfoot.realworld.com>, "SEAN FOLEY"
<big...@xsite.net> wrote:
>once again, you'll probably get no one to verify what is the truth. they
>are all too lazy to actually do some mobile field testing. they don't
>understand that a higher ERP does not mean that the antenna has more
>USEABLE signal. the power radiated at the horizon, or at about 30* to 45*
>is optimum. the quarter wave doesn't exhibit this in mobile use. by
>altering the radiation angle and minimizing the losses (ie. larger
>conductors with minimal inductance and heat transfer ) in electrically
>shortened antennas, many antennas can beat a standard 102" whip.
>especially when the signal is fluttering as you drive down the road due to
>the uneven load that the radio is seeing. some people would rather promote
>falsehoods and theories instead of having to learn the truth. it's just a
>sign of laziness and complacency. technology is leaving the "old school"
>by the wayside. Sean aka Bigfoot
>
Wrong......
From personal experience, I know that 102" whip is the best performing ant.
I've used all the "best" antennas, Wilson 5000, the Penetrator, etc., etc.,
and I keep coming back to the old standby. Mounted on the headache rack of
my pick-up truck, the whip is sometimes a burden, but it always talks
further,
stronger, and hears better than any of the other antennas.. Further, you can
run virtually any amount of power thru 'em....For $14 you simply cannot beat
it.
Have Fun
Rick
Bernard Cormier
In article
<405DD2B80B02B2EA.AC58873C...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, Ri...@McCally.com says...
>
>
>Wrong......
>From personal experience, I know that 102" whip is the best performing ant.
>I've used all the "best" antennas, Wilson 5000, the Penetrator, etc., etc.,
>and I keep coming back to the old standby. Mounted on the headache rack of
>my pick-up truck, the whip is sometimes a burden, but it always talks
>further,
>stronger, and hears better than any of the other antennas.. Further, you can
>run virtually any amount of power thru 'em....For $14 you simply cannot beat
>it.
>
>Have Fun
>Rick
Break! Break! How about a radio check? This does not cut it out as been a
valid test to compare antennas. There is nothing like good calibrated
equipment to sink your teeth into.
--
NOTE: The header e-mail address is a e-mail blocker. ****
NOTE: To e-mail me use: corm...@nbnet.nb.ca ****
Bernard Cormier (Starman)
Moncton N.B. Canada
Have a nice day!
----------------
Dale Powell
comparison? A General Electric with LED S-Meter?
WB6CBJ
>
> I have seen a number of firestick antennas that say they are 5/8 wave
>antenns. I was wondering if this is true or bogus. They look the same as
>the other firestick antennas. I found no matching unit on the antennas.
>From past experience, I thought that all 5/8 wave antennas needed some
>type of matching unit to correct the impedance match.
> Does anyone know about this antenna?
>They are all different lengths of firestick mobile antennas. Anyone
>notice a difference in the signal if you are using one or know someone
>who has one?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>=A0 Pete
>ssb128n Transtar128 =
Hi Pete..
This topic KEEPS appearing in various discussion groups all over the
internet and has to be repeatedly stated... Firstly, NEVER assume that
purveyors of CB wares are going to be honest about the performance of their
merchandise. Secondly, a properly installed 5/8ths wave vertical will
outperform a 1/4 wave antenna....
H O W E V E R... you MUST have the physical aperture of that mechanical
length to realize the gain normally associated with the 5/8ths wave
antenna!!!!!...
PERIOD! P E R I OD !
PERIOD!
When you squeeze the 5/8ths antenna down to a smaller size you'll end up
with the performance of the shorter antenna... and getting progressively
worse as it shortens. Sean Foley knows this, so do many of us, but there
are enough out there that don't so this stuff keeps showing up and people
keep buying it. When you shorten that "5/8ths wave" antenna to, for
example, 5 feet, it ends up performing something less than a well-made 5'
antenna loaded to 1/4 wave resonance. The reason for the "something less"
is due to extra losses from all the added inductance you have to put in the
thing to get it to 5/8ths electrically. It's really a stupid idea.. You're
right about the presence of a matching unit needed for a 5/8ths wave
antenna. They are not resonant and need this to efficiently take power
from the feedline. The reason for the magic 5/8ths length is that the low
angle field strentgh increases with height UP TO the 5/8ths wave (physical
length) point then begins to deteriorate. But this length does not present
a good load to coax. What this Firestick does is electrically load it to
the 3/4 point which IS resonant (hence you see no matching scheme at the
base) and just tell you it's a 5/8ths. They go through all of this to try
to take advantage of the perception out there that 5/8ths wave is better
than 1/4. If this antenna really did what they say all of the
multi-hundred foot broadcast towers around the world could tear down their
giant expensive antennas, sell all that property, and put loaded 10 foot
poles on top of their studios.
If I sound forceful, forgive me, but I get tired of saying it. Also,
remember, some people out there may report that this short antenna performs
as well as the 5/8ths wave on the roof.. the commercial CB 5/8ths waves
have some significant shortcomings against an ideal 5/8ths installation.
They emit a fair amount of horizontally polarized energy (wasted power)
and they have no far-field reflecting medium which is essential to achieve
the ideal gain associated with an antenna that tall.
The references to this are far too numerous to mention and date back
to before almost all of us were born. There are some circumstances where
additional loading on a physically short antenna can increase performance.
But these are not to be found on CB.. they would apply only on the much
lower frequencies (fractions of a megahertz up to around 5mhz or so) when
the additional loading losses is more than compensated for by reduced
ground losses. But GAIN is way out of the picture here.. this would be
used to reduce already dismal losses in specific circumstances and there
would be no thought of pattern gain or lower radiation angle.
Save your money, use a $15 steel whip or a GOOD loaded (preferably
center-loaded) antenna thats as tall as you can get away with.
73,
Dennis
Dale Powell
Excellent post, Dennis.
--
------------------------------------
Dale Powell AL7KB
Ham Radio Op since 1984
Short Circuit since 1972
"RADIO FROM CENTRAL ALASKA"
Remove x from address to reply
-------------------------------------
Bill Eitner
WB6CBJ wrote:
>
> >
> > I have seen a number of firestick antennas that say they are 5/8 wave
> >antenns. I was wondering if this is true or bogus. They look the same as
> >the other firestick antennas. I found no matching unit on the antennas.
> >From past experience, I thought that all 5/8 wave antennas needed some
> >type of matching unit to correct the impedance match.
> > Does anyone know about this antenna?
> >They are all different lengths of firestick mobile antennas. Anyone
> >notice a difference in the signal if you are using one or know someone
> >who has one?
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> >=A0 Pete
> >ssb128n Transtar128 =
>
> Hi Pete..
> This topic KEEPS appearing in various discussion groups all over the
> internet and has to be repeatedly stated... Firstly, NEVER assume that
> purveyors of CB wares are going to be honest about the performance of their
> merchandise.
It's much better to assume that they are purposely being
DISHONEST when it comes to the performance claims of their
merchandise. (Hi, my name is Bill)
> Secondly, a properly installed 5/8ths wave vertical will
> outperform a 1/4 wave antenna....
Assuming the verticle element is physically long enough
to be a true 5/8 wave AND that the feeding/matching net-
work is efficient. Most hams and nearly all CBers can
do nothing but ASSUME their big 5/8 wave antenna is being
fed and matched efficiently. The issue of 3/4 wavelength
radials is a pressing one at this point as well.
> H O W E V E R... you MUST have the physical aperture of that mechanical
> length to realize the gain normally associated with the 5/8ths wave
> antenna.
Among other things. William Orr and Stuart Cowan have postulated
that to see the theoretical gain of 3 dB over a 1/4 wave ground
plane you must use 3/4 wave radials and wrap the coax into a de-
coupling coil right at the feedpoint (1). I myself have had good
luck using this technique when installing the Antron 99 using
it's optional de-coupling radials (which aren't even 1/4 wavelength
long). The benefit comes in the lowered angle of radiation. My
customers have been very satisfied with the results using this
technique. The only problem is that the lowered angle of radiation
increases RFI and TVI when the customer is using a modified (able to
achieve modulation percentages of over 100%) radio (and amp)--that
I have little control over.
(1) Verticle Antennas ISBN 0-933616-09-0; 1988; Pgs. 132 to 139.
> When you squeeze the 5/8ths antenna down to a smaller size you'll end up
> with the performance of the shorter antenna... and getting progressively
> worse as it shortens. Sean Foley knows this,
No he doesn't. He's getting ready to argue just this point.
He's ready to argue that electrically shortened antennas can
rival (if not beat) their true physical length counterparts.
I'm going to face him in that argument. I'd really rather
not go against Sean because we get along, but I can't let
him trod on what I know is true.
> so do many of us,
You'd better speak for yourself, as Sean doesn't agree.
> but there
> are enough out there that don't so this stuff keeps showing up and people
> keep buying it. When you shorten that "5/8ths wave" antenna to, for
> example, 5 feet, it ends up performing something less than a well-made 5'
> antenna loaded to 1/4 wave resonance.
It was never anything other than an electrical 1/4 wave.
> The reason for the "something less"
> is due to extra losses from all the added inductance you have to put in the
> thing to get it to 5/8ths electrically.
It's still nothing but an electrical 1/4 wave. Just realize
that it takes 21 feet of wire wound around a stick to re-create
an electrical 1/4 wave. 21 feet equals a 5/8 wave, but winding
it around a stick makes it an electrical 1/4 wave--nothing more.
> It's really a stupid idea..
No it's not. The helically-wound whips (Firesticks, Wilson Silver
Loads, etc.) ARE more efficient than their base or center-loaded
counterparts (2).
(2) The truth about CB antennas; C. 1971 Orr and Cowan. Pgs. 132-
133.
> You're
> right about the presence of a matching unit needed for a 5/8ths wave
> antenna. They are not resonant and need this to efficiently take power
> from the feedline. The reason for the magic 5/8ths length is that the low
> angle field strentgh increases with height UP TO the 5/8ths wave (physical
> length) point then begins to deteriorate. But this length does not present
> a good load to coax.
This is true.
> What this Firestick does is electrically load it to
> the 3/4 point which IS resonant (hence you see no matching scheme at the
> base) and just tell you it's a 5/8ths. They go through all of this to try
> to take advantage of the perception out there that 5/8ths wave is better
> than 1/4.
This is not true either. How it really works is that it takes
21 feet of wire wound around a stick to be the electrical equiv-
alent of a 1/4 wave. Since 21 feet of wire (when measured as one
verticle length) equals 5/8 of a wave it's easy to see the lie
that the manufacturer promotes.
> If this antenna really did what they say all of the
> multi-hundred foot broadcast towers around the world could tear down their
> giant expensive antennas, sell all that property, and put loaded 10 foot
> poles on top of their studios.
This is true. Can you see the analogy using AM broadcast frequencies.
> If I sound forceful, forgive me, but I get tired of saying it. Also,
> remember, some people out there may report that this short antenna performs
> as well as the 5/8ths wave on the roof.. the commercial CB 5/8ths waves
> have some significant shortcomings against an ideal 5/8ths installation.
> They emit a fair amount of horizontally polarized energy (wasted power)
This I don't understand. Perhaps what's meant is vertically-
polarized energy.
> and they have no far-field reflecting medium which is essential to achieve
> the ideal gain associated with an antenna that tall.
This also needs further elaboration.
> The references to this are far too numerous to mention and date back
> to before almost all of us were born.
You need to site some references to them anyway.
> There are some circumstances where
> additional loading on a physically short antenna can increase performance.
> But these are not to be found on CB.. they would apply only on the much
> lower frequencies (fractions of a megahertz up to around 5mhz or so) when
> the additional loading losses is more than compensated for by reduced
> ground losses. But GAIN is way out of the picture here.. this would be
> used to reduce already dismal losses in specific circumstances and there
> would be no thought of pattern gain or lower radiation angle.
> Save your money, use a $15 steel whip or a GOOD loaded (preferably
> center-loaded) antenna thats as tall as you can get away with.
The $15 steel whip will easily outperform ANY center-loaded whip.
If you have to use a loaded whip use a helically wound whip (3).
(3) The truth about CB antennas pgs. 132-133.
> 73,
> Dennis
If you want more info on the references cited here feel free
to contact me at: kd6tas@earthlink,net.
73
Mr Fixit
Dale Powell <pxo...@polarnet.com> wrote in article
<341C8C...@polarnet.com>...
> WB6CBJ wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have seen a number of firestick antennas that say they are 5/8
wave
> > >antenns. I was wondering if this is true or bogus. They look the same
as
> > >the other firestick antennas. I found no matching unit on the
antennas.
> > >From past experience, I thought that all 5/8 wave antennas needed some
> > >type of matching unit to correct the impedance match.
> > > Does anyone know about this antenna?
> > >They are all different lengths of firestick mobile antennas. Anyone
> > >notice a difference in the signal if you are using one or know someone
> > >who has one?
> > > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > >=A0 Pete
> > >ssb128n Transtar128
=
> >
> > Hi Pete..
> > This topic KEEPS appearing in various discussion groups all over
the
> > internet and has to be repeatedly stated... Firstly, NEVER assume that
> > purveyors of CB wares are going to be honest about the performance of
their
> > outperform a 1/4 wave antenna....
> > length to realize the gain normally associated with the 5/8ths wave
> > PERIOD! P E R I OD !
> > PERIOD!
up
> > with the performance of the shorter antenna... and getting
progressively
there
> > are enough out there that don't so this stuff keeps showing up and
people
> > keep buying it. When you shorten that "5/8ths wave" antenna to, for
> > example, 5 feet, it ends up performing something less than a
well-made 5'
less"
> > is due to extra losses from all the added inductance you have to put in
the
You're
> > right about the presence of a matching unit needed for a 5/8ths wave
> > antenna. They are not resonant and need this to efficiently take power
> > from the feedline. The reason for the magic 5/8ths length is that the
low
> > angle field strentgh increases with height UP TO the 5/8ths wave
(physical
> > length) point then begins to deteriorate. But this length does not
present
it to
> > the 3/4 point which IS resonant (hence you see no matching scheme at
the
> > base) and just tell you it's a 5/8ths. They go through all of this to
try
> > to take advantage of the perception out there that 5/8ths wave is
better
> > multi-hundred foot broadcast towers around the world could tear down
their
> > giant expensive antennas, sell all that property, and put loaded 10
foot
> > poles on top of their studios.
Also,
> > remember, some people out there may report that this short antenna
performs
> > as well as the 5/8ths wave on the roof.. the commercial CB 5/8ths waves
> > have some significant shortcomings against an ideal 5/8ths
installation.
> > They emit a fair amount of horizontally polarized energy (wasted
power)
achieve
> > the ideal gain associated with an antenna that tall.
back
where
> > additional loading on a physically short antenna can increase
performance.
> > But these are not to be found on CB.. they would apply only on the much
> > lower frequencies (fractions of a megahertz up to around 5mhz or so)
when
> > the additional loading losses is more than compensated for by reduced
> > ground losses. But GAIN is way out of the picture here.. this would be
> > used to reduce already dismal losses in specific circumstances and
there
> > would be no thought of pattern gain or lower radiation angle.
> > Save your money, use a $15 steel whip or a GOOD loaded
(preferably
> > center-loaded) antenna thats as tall as you can get away with.
> > Dennis
>
> Excellent post, Dennis.
> --
> ------------------------------------
> Dale Powell AL7KB
> Ham Radio Op since 1984
> Short Circuit since 1972
> "RADIO FROM CENTRAL ALASKA"
> Remove x from address to reply
> -------------------------------------
>
>
coming up. Suggestion: Save this posting and simply 'cut & paste' the next
time it comes up. (as you know it will) Much less frustrating.
Mr Fixit
tn...@muck.net
>> This topic KEEPS appearing in various discussion groups all over the
>> internet and has to be repeatedly stated... Firstly, NEVER assume that
>> purveyors of CB wares are going to be honest about the performance of their
>> merchandise. Secondly, a properly installed 5/8ths wave vertical will
>> outperform a 1/4 wave antenna....
>> H O W E V E R... you MUST have the physical aperture of that mechanical
>> length to realize the gain normally associated with the 5/8ths wave
>> antenna!!!!!...
>> PERIOD! P E R I OD !
>> PERIOD!
>.
I can not believe that the idea that a so called 5/8 th's wavelength
Firstik can outperform the same size quarter wave antenna. That is
until I actually compared the two. No wonder this topic keeps popping
up every once in a while. Could it true? Of coarse it is.
Don't bother talking about the subject until you have done the
comparison. Anybody can talk theory, but talk is cheap.
Non believers would still think the world was flat if it wasn't for
someone proving them otherwise.
P.S. the Firestik is a 3/4 wave antenna with a lowered angle of
radiation that looks simmilar to a 5/8 th's pattern. Hence the name.
And I am not affiliated with Firstik. The Francis 3/4 whips also will
outperform the 1/4 wave equivalents.
Bill Eitner
tn...@muck.net wrote:
>
> >> This topic KEEPS appearing in various discussion groups all over the
> >> internet and has to be repeatedly stated... Firstly, NEVER assume that
> >> purveyors of CB wares are going to be honest about the performance of their
> >> merchandise. Secondly, a properly installed 5/8ths wave vertical will
> >> outperform a 1/4 wave antenna....
> >> H O W E V E R... you MUST have the physical aperture of that mechanical
> >> length to realize the gain normally associated with the 5/8ths wave
> >> antenna!!!!!...
> >> PERIOD! P E R I OD !
> >> PERIOD!
> >.
>
> I can not believe that the idea that a so called 5/8 th's wavelength
> Firstik can outperform the same size quarter wave antenna. That is
> until I actually compared the two. No wonder this topic keeps popping
> up every once in a while. Could it true? Of coarse it is.
> Don't bother talking about the subject until you have done the
> comparison. Anybody can talk theory, but talk is cheap.
I've compared the two directly more than once, and the 1/4
comes out on top every time.
Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much more than talk.
WB6CBJ
Hi Bill...
Thanks for the feedback as well as inclusion of references!.. It's
fun to toss this around.
Your post was a nice compliment to mine. I disagree with only one
item on it.. and you were the second person (so far) to take me to task on it.
>> It's really a stupid idea..
>
> No it's not. The helically-wound whips (Firesticks, Wilson Silver
> Loads, etc.) ARE more efficient than their base or center-loaded
> counterparts (2)
I AGREE with your statement taken alone, but remember, what I said was
a "stupid idea" was putting all that extra wire into the antenna presumably
just to say it's a 5/8ths wave. I don't know how many feet of wire is in
the antenna.. don't care, point is, it won't perform any better than a full
length resonant 1/4 wave. As far as I knew, they may well have put enough
inductance into the thing to make it electrically 5/8ths wave long. If so,
there is plenty of loss there associated with an additional 180 degrees of
loading. What you're saying is that it's REALLY only a 1/4 wave helix. In
Pete's original post he never said how tall the antenna is physically or
how much wire is in it, I assumed it was electrically 5/8ths wave. But
the manufacturers are getting off easier by only making it a 1/4 wave
helix.. less expense for them.. and a marginally bigger lie, but who is
checking?
>. Sean Foley knows this,
>
> No he doesn't. He's getting ready to argue just this point.
>
> He's ready to argue that electrically shortened antennas can
> rival (if not beat) their true physical length counterparts.
> I'm going to face him in that argument. I'd really rather
> not go against Sean because we get along, but I can't let
> him trod on what I know is true.
Sean and I have discussed this IN PERSON at his shop in Chicago... he,
at least, DID know it. He may honestly perceive better perfomance from a
certain short antenna over a certain 5/8ths wave... BECAUSE those elevated,
3-radial, things suffer from not having ideal conditions associated with
the gain achievable by an antenna that tall.. noteably:
1. Poor decoupling from feedline (causing pattern distortion)
2. Inadaquate far-field ground plane at the proper height.
As soon as you raise the antenna above an ideal ground the pattern gets
complicated. Numerous lobes (and nulls) develop.. and the ideal strongest
lobe at low angles gets narrower and minor lobes appear at higher angles.
When you super-impose the fat, lower gain, pattern of the short whip over
this big base installation one would see that the deep nulls from the
5/8ths system will be filled in by the small antenna at some useful angles.
So, someone could see better performance to some places. We need to
decide on a "given" environment to comparing these things. A
surface-mounted (over good/excellent ground) 5/8ths wave antenna will
out-perform ANY single-element antenna that is shorter.. any day on the
same surface, and I'll stake a months pay on that. But anything else is
apples/oranges as far as I'm concerned.
Well Bill.. it's late.. 73 and we'll talk again!
Dennis
pete schwichtenberg
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I see this will always be
a hot topic. I, myself use a 102" whip and it works well for me. I
understand now that this is a topic that should be addressed to the
firestick company itself and I plan to do so, just to see what they say.
If I get a response, I will post it , so all can see.
Thanks again for the great informattion. I know alot of new cbers are
curious about these antennas and your posts helped immensely. This is a
good newsgroup.
Keep up the good work.
Pete
--------------------------------------------------------
Check out my personal start page for links to cbradio mods,
manaufacturers and info.
http://www.suresite.com/cgi-bin/psp.pl?ssb128n Click on CBRadio online
for updated info for newbies and not-so-newbies.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Sandy
Dennis wrote:
:
: Hi Pete..
<snip>
: Save your money, use a $15 steel whip or a GOOD loaded (preferably
: center-loaded) antenna that's as tall as you can get away with.
: 73,
: Dennis
Question: Assuming that a center loaded antenna is better than a base
loaded antenna, is a longer base loaded antenna better than a shorter
center loaded one?
SEAN FOLEY
BINGO !!! the large francis will beat the 102" for sure, and the large
firestick will also. these antennas still suffer from loading loss due to
their small conductor AND thermal loss due to the heat transfer. now
imagine something with a better angle of radiation with losses minimised by
using larger conductors, no heat transfer and minimal inductance. maybe
you'll get the picture soon. Sean aka Bigfoot
Jsender104
>
>Question: Assuming that a center loaded antenna is better than a base
>loaded antenna, is a longer base loaded antenna better than a shorter
>center loaded one?
>
are better than all base loaded antennas. Depends on how much shorter you
are talking about. If you must use a shortened antenna use the longest that
is practical. As the main current lobe is near the base of the antena it is
always best to keep coils out of this area. The greater the current in the
coil the more loss. There is nothing magical about antennas, my first
mobile CB antenna was a cane fishing pole with a bolt that matched the
mount threads clamped in the bottom joint. I ran a 1/4 wavelength wire up
the side of the pole and fastened it on with flax fishing line. This worked
as good as any mobile antenna I've ever used. This started out as a quick
way to get my radio in for hunting season, but I kept it for the novelty.
tn...@muck.net
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:57:18 -0500, "SEAN FOLEY" <big...@xsite.net>
wrote:
Now if only others could come to the conclusion that a 102" whip
can be beat. Thank you Bigfoot.
Dale Powell
WB6CBJ wrote:
>
> Hi Bill...
> Thanks for the feedback as well as inclusion of references!.. It's
> fun to toss this around.
> Your post was a nice compliment to mine. I disagree with only one
> item on it.. and you were the second person (so far) to take me to task on it.
>
> >
> > No it's not. The helically-wound whips (Firesticks, Wilson Silver
> > Loads, etc.) ARE more efficient than their base or center-loaded
>
> I AGREE with your statement taken alone, but remember, what I said was
> a "stupid idea" was putting all that extra wire into the antenna presumably
> just to say it's a 5/8ths wave. I don't know how many feet of wire is in
> the antenna.. don't care, point is, it won't perform any better than a full
> length resonant 1/4 wave. As far as I knew, they may well have put enough
> inductance into the thing to make it electrically 5/8ths wave long. If so,
> there is plenty of loss there associated with an additional 180 degrees of
> loading. What you're saying is that it's REALLY only a 1/4 wave helix. In
> Pete's original post he never said how tall the antenna is physically or
> how much wire is in it, I assumed it was electrically 5/8ths wave. But
> the manufacturers are getting off easier by only making it a 1/4 wave
> helix.. less expense for them.. and a marginally bigger lie, but who is
> checking?
>
> >
> > No he doesn't. He's getting ready to argue just this point.
> >
> > He's ready to argue that electrically shortened antennas can
> > rival (if not beat) their true physical length counterparts.
> > I'm going to face him in that argument. I'd really rather
> > not go against Sean because we get along, but I can't let
> > him trod on what I know is true.
>
> at least, DID know it. He may honestly perceive better perfomance from a
> certain short antenna over a certain 5/8ths wave... BECAUSE those elevated,
> 3-radial, things suffer from not having ideal conditions associated with
> the gain achievable by an antenna that tall.. noteably:
> 1. Poor decoupling from feedline (causing pattern distortion)
> 2. Inadaquate far-field ground plane at the proper height.
> As soon as you raise the antenna above an ideal ground the pattern gets
> complicated. Numerous lobes (and nulls) develop.. and the ideal strongest
> lobe at low angles gets narrower and minor lobes appear at higher angles.
> When you super-impose the fat, lower gain, pattern of the short whip over
> this big base installation one would see that the deep nulls from the
> 5/8ths system will be filled in by the small antenna at some useful angles.
> So, someone could see better performance to some places. We need to
> decide on a "given" environment to comparing these things. A
> surface-mounted (over good/excellent ground) 5/8ths wave antenna will
> out-perform ANY single-element antenna that is shorter.. any day on the
> same surface, and I'll stake a months pay on that. But anything else is
> apples/oranges as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Well Bill.. it's late.. 73 and we'll talk again!
> Dennis
Who really cares anyway? If he is intent on disproving the physics of
antenna design and performance, let him spend all his time doing so.
Those out there who know radio know the truth, let Sean convince the
good buddies in the crowd.
Dale Powell
WB6CBJ wrote:
>
> >
> >BINGO !!! the large francis will beat the 102" for sure, and the large
> >firestick will also. these antennas still suffer from loading loss due to
> >their small conductor AND thermal loss due to the heat transfer. now
> >imagine something with a better angle of radiation with losses minimised by
> >using larger conductors, no heat transfer and minimal inductance. maybe
> >you'll get the picture soon. Sean aka Bigfoot
>
> I'm confused.. exactly WHICH post were you referring to? What is the
> "francis"?
> Also, after you said these antennas beat the 1/4 whip you went on to say
> they "suffer" from loading losses and heat build up... I'm assuming we're
> talking about mobile antennas here... that being the case how can these
> "lossy" antennas beat the 1/4 wave whip which has NO such losses??
> I HOPE you don't say that they have a lower angle of radiation, because
> unless they're considerably taller than 8 feet they won't have a lower
> angle no matter WHAT they have in them.
> And, if we're not talking about mobile antennas then thats a different
> story.. but your post didn't refer to any particular note on here.
Yeah, what he said.
WB6CBJ
Firewalker
tn...@muck.net wrote:
Beware of information from "experts" (real or self-proclaimed). There is
antenna theory and there is antenna reality. We have yet to see a
vehicle that simulates a lab. While theory is a good starting
place...experience is the only place to end up. The best book on theory
will produce the worst antenna you could own.Some "experts" may "claim"
5/8 wave mobile antennas are not possible because they would need to be
23 feet high. They are wrong! Physical length and ground wave
performance are not the same. If you ever hear someone make that claim,
ask them how a handheld CB can have a 1/4 wave antenna 8 inches long and
1/4 wave mobile antennas from 12-60 inches long in spite of the fact
that a physical 1/4 wave is 108 inches.
--
A mobile 5/8 wave antenna wil outperform a full length quarterwave...if
you first unwrap all of the wirt and stand it straight up. This is not
reasonable. Ant the quarterwaves thats not full length? Well they are
loaded, and the load brings down the effective range of the antenna.
Firewalker
> >Wrong......
> >From personal experience, I know that 102" whip is the best performing ant.
> >I've used all the "best" antennas, Wilson 5000, the Penetrator, etc., etc.,
> >and I keep coming back to the old standby. Mounted on the headache rack of
> >my pick-up truck, the whip is sometimes a burden, but it always talks
> >further,
> >stronger, and hears better than any of the other antennas.. Further, you can
> >run virtually any amount of power thru 'em....For $14 you simply cannot beat
> >it.
>
> valid test to compare antennas. There is nothing like good calibrated
> equipment to sink your teeth into.
If thats not good enough for you, how about this. Three identical
radios in three cars. One car had a 102", one had a wilson 1000, and
one had a K40, all antennas mounted in the same place and set to
identical SWR with a digital meter. All radios were tuned exactly the
same. They drove to a parkinglot 10 miles away, pointed towards where
the recieve station, and transmited at the same time. The 102" blew out
the competition. When the 102" shut down, the other two guys were
playing with each others signal with no real difference between them.
This did auctually happen, and I was at the recieving station. You can
believe that electrical mumbo jumbo which works in theory, or you can
believe what auctually works in the real world. Its your choice.
Dave or Debby
Professor wrote:
>
> you know it!
>
> --
> The Old Professor
> WindowsNT Powered
>
> Firewalker wrote in article <3423F5...@swbell.net>...
I believe you said that wrong! You should of
said "You can believe ALL the Antenna companies PROPAGANDA, OR you can
believe the theory & reality, which says THE LONGER THE BETTER, AND the
HIGHER UP the coil is, the better!" Nothing is better on a MOBILE but
a 108" whip (the 102" needs a spring, to get it close to 108"). You can
buy 108's anymore, other than NOS OR from ME (I made some up a while
ago. They are 108" and sit in the 3/8-24" whipholder that makes them
actually 108 1/2" !! NO SPRING NEEDED. PRICE: SAME as I was selling
them before when the companies made them--$40 & shipping. I have 7 or
so left--next batch may be more! THE GOOD 102" & SS Spring (NOT radio
shack) is around $35 or so. So why not pay another $5 to get ALL the
length that will get you out better than a 102" without the spring,
which is MIS-Matched, because you need 108, NOT 102 ! SO buy a SS
spring from Hustler OR buy my 108" & you'll BLOW SMOKE !!! IN FACT,
mine are BETTER than the companies older 108's. My static ball on top
IS THREADED & GLUED with #271 glue===--it will NEVER come off! So look
COOL going down the road, not cheap, and get the BIGGEST Mobile antenna
you can get--the 108" SS whip! GOOD TEST--next time make sure that the
cars are the same, or same design, or remove each antenna & test on the
same radio & car & look at S meter to see what one is stronger instead
of your "shootout" test! Dave
Bernard Cormier
In article <3423F5...@swbell.net>, mrhi...@swbell.net says...
You had all three radios transmiting all at the same time? Now that is a
winner. How did you get you SWR of your 1/4 wave below 1.3? Did you park 1/4
wave apart or 1/2 wave apart to null your partner's tramsmit.
Try this. Have your receiver calibrated with a good signal generator and with
a digital meter connected to the agc. Make a accurate chart in 1/10 db scale.
Now drive about 2 miles to get a reasonable signal and compare one antenna at
a time. Not all three at the time.
I tried this with a 102" whip on my van compared to a Wilson 1200. There was
hardly any difference in signal (.2db).
Professor
you know it!
--
The Old Professor
WindowsNT Powered
Firewalker wrote in article <3423F5...@swbell.net>...
>> >Wrong......
John D. Griffin
Yeah, but how much space was between the cars eqaually. If your side by
side I would believe it. Try it again with about 20-30 feet in between
all the cars. I and two friends did it that way and found that not a
single one got over the other when tuned the same. At the same time we
tried it side by side and the whip stepped on the other two. At this
distance from eachother the whip had a height advantage over the other
two.(wilson 1000, and K40. I stuck to my k40 after this was all said and
done as my main antenna. I also have a whip mounted on the car on a
switchbox and my k40 outperforms it on the same car.
Anyway just my road tests, no arguement just thought I would share it.
John
SEAN FOLEY
you aren't paying too much attention to technology, are you ? by making
the conductors physically very large diameters and giving larger surface
areas to the coils, minimizing the inductance through using widely spaced
turns and having no direct connection to coil insulators / spacers, you
have made an antenna that is more rigid for better wind stability reducing
signal flutter (aka "the dancing 102") , minimized coil loss due to thermal
coupling, minimized the reactance from the coil, physically shortened the
antenna due to larger cross section in diameter and changed the radiation
angle (hopefully for the better). by utilizing different metals (aka
copper, silver, etc) you can also minimize skin effect losses as compared
to steel (one of the worst) or even aluminum. anything that a magnet can
pick up is not an efficient radiator for an antenna compared to the metals
listed. now, as you were saying something about experts (real or self
proclaimed) ?????? Sean aka Bigfoot
SEAN FOLEY
Dennis, we are primarily talking about mobile antennas, not comparing
mobile antennas to base antennas (although i have no fear of doing this
with most typical base installations and my mobile installation, barefoot
radio to barefoot radio). let's compare apples to apples first and then
get to the extremes. PS as far as debating goes, this is all done in
good natured fun and education. i think that we are all learning from each
other and can better examine the different points of view this way. it is
very important that we all be on the same basic wavelength to start with
though, so let's make this perfectly clear. we are discussing electrically
shortened mobile antennas as compared to a standard 102" stainless steel
whip, correct ? this is mounted on a vehicle with a typical cb radio, coax
and antenna. no special transmatches or impedance altering devices inline,
correct ? are we using a spring / lengthener of some type on the 102" if
not mounted on a ball mount ? where is the antenna mounted on the vehicle
? Sean aka Bigfoot
SEAN FOLEY
WELL, WELL..... glad to see you finally found your way over here Dennis.
you have seen a few of the antennas that i am referring to in my shop. as
you and i have discussed, these antennas do not follow typical antenna
theory. in your own words, "due to the design of the coil, it acts more
like a direct radiator instead of a coil". as you know, the larger the
physical diameter of the radiator, the longer the electrical length. this
makes the electrical length of the antenna longer than it's actual
appearance. if we also minimize the loading losses, increase the surface
area and concentrate our signal at 30* to 45* on the horizon (as verified
with Troy Tullos, the manufacturer) and can attain a near perfect 50 ohm
input impedance, we HAVE beaten a 102" whip in both theory AND reality.
due to the better impedance match we should have better power transfer
(from a cb without a transmatch). by placing the primary lobe at this
appr. angle, we have now concentrated our signal for maximum usable gain,
ala the "theoretical" benefits of a perfect 5/8th's wave. this is not to
mention the inherit benefits of better clearance and less signal flutter
due to not having to deal with the longer whips "dancing". as i have
stated to others here on the group, you can stand by your "theoretically
best" antenna and i'll take the one that just plain kicks it's ass in
reality. once again, glad you made it and hope your doing well. PS
to all of the cber's that typically don't appreciate hams, Dennis is a true
gentleman and a ham with class (Extra, to be exact !!!) he and i (along
with Luke and a few others) used to do battle on Boomers old tech forum
regularly. Dennis and i disagreed in several areas and he stopped by my
shop to see firsthand what i was talking about. we both now have a better
understanding in certain areas and clarified many of our differences of
opinions firsthand. he can also verify the "correctness" of my wattmeters
for the unbelievers (just as he WAS). Sean aka Bigfoot
Jsender104
Sean, Do you think a radiation angle of 35 to 45 degrees is good??
A simple 1/4 wave antenna has an angle of about 23 degrees. Lower is
better. AT 45 degrees one mile from the antenna the strongest part of your
signal is going to be 1 mile up in the air at 30 degrees it will be .6
miles up. You think this is good??
Loading losses,You can do all kinds of things to minimise them, silver
plating and big wire is good but the only way to get rid of them is to get
rid of the loading coil.
As far a whip flutter I have one and at 60 it just lays back a little bit
while the bottom 4 feet( the part of the antenna that is most active)
barely moves at all. Any lean it has is constant and there is no flutter
at all. Does anyone else experience whip flutter perhaps mine is not a
typical case.
As far as impedance matching goes shortened antennas are going to have a
lower impedance period. The only way to get around this is by base loading
the antenna and tapping up on the coil at the 50 ohm spot.
BTW I have been doing some comparison on mobile anennas, A top loaded 1/4
wave, a full length 1/4 wave and the infamous 5/8 firestick. The loaded 1/4
and firestick were even as far as I could tell. The full length won out but
not by much. I can only resolve 1 db increments and it was less than this.
If claims of the manufacter are to be believed the firstik should have
blown the others out of the water. It didn't . All antennas were tested
from the same place, The tool box on the back of my pickup. This should be
pretty normal for a mobile mount. Other station was a base 5 miles away
running about 2 watts output into a omni antenna. SWR was very similar from
antenna to antenna. Would like to try again using an antenna tunner at the
base of the antenna to normalize this variable.
Amor Powers, CB Radio
SEAN FOLEY aka Bigfoot sez:
> as you know, the larger the physical diameter
> of the radiator, the longer the electrical length.
Amor sez:
Maybe you meant to say something else, Sean?
Actually, *thinner* wire or conductors of an antenna loading coil (the
kind which radiates) have *longer electrical length*. Inductance
decreases with the increase in conductor diameter. This is why ground
straps are large conductors: to lower the inductance or "electrical
length".
With reference to antenna radiators:
1. A larger conductor diameter is more broadbanded. Lower Q.
2. A higher resistance conductor is more broadbanded. Lower Q.
The difference here is that #2 gets its lower Q by heat loss.
SEAN FOLEY aka Bigfoot sez:
> this makes the electrical length of the antenna longer
> than it's actual appearance.
Amor sez:
*Electrical length* as pertaining to antennas is just whatever the
antenna's natural *resonant frequency* is (lowest SWR in CB terms).
*Physical length* is measured with a tape measure.
It is really that simple. There is nothing mysterious about it.
Even the most efficient coils made with large diameter copper or silver
plated tubing do not radiate as efficiently as a straight radiator of
same electrical length.
Here is something you might try with your "magic" 5/8 wave shorty mobile
antennas, Sean. With an accurate milliohm meter, measure the DC
resistance of the antenna from top to bottom. Whatever that resistance
is, it contributes to the overall coil inefficiency. Many of the
manufacturers have tried to compensate for this (and the narrowbanding
which occurs when physically shortening an antenna) by using multiple
wires in parallel. But this is just an attempt to get back some of what
is lost by physically shortening the antenna. It is never 100%
efficient. The DC losses and coil inefficiencies of short vertical
antennas are a big engineering and manufacturing problem.
True, some antennas have those big tubular center loading coils. But the
design objective is just to attempt to make up the difference in what is
lost by physically shortening the 1/4 wave antenna by electrically
tuning it.
Even cooling the coil to near 0 degrees Kelvin (superconducting) won't
get the radiation efficiency completely back. Believe me, I've been
designing antennas commercially for over 27 years, including
superconducting coils at HF and LF. How I have wished for some magic
potion which could solve the engineering problem of coil loss!
At least one manufacturer (Hustler... did I say that?) used to make
mobile antenna loading coils purposely with a higher resistance, knowing
they were less efficient radiators (up to a couple S units worse at some
frequencies). It lowered the SWR and made them more broadbanded. But
operators loved them because they had a lower SWR (resistance increased
the antenna impedance) and had a lower SWR accross the band. They looked
really superb on an SWR meter (reflectometer)!
Perception is everything.
Marketing is perception :-)
Amor Powers
One of The-Powers-That-Be
Lots of hot air
END OF POST
---------------------------------
keywords (see above text ^)
cb radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best cb
radio hf antenna coil inductor superconductor broadband SWR best
tn...@muck.net
>BTW I have been doing some comparison on mobile anennas, A top loaded 1/4
>wave, a full length 1/4 wave and the infamous 5/8 firestick. The loaded 1/4
>and firestick were even as far as I could tell. The full length won out but
>not by much. I can only resolve 1 db increments and it was less than this.
>If claims of the manufacter are to be believed the firstik should have
>blown the others out of the water. It didn't . All antennas were tested
>from the same place, The tool box on the back of my pickup. This should be
>pretty normal for a mobile mount. Other station was a base 5 miles away
>running about 2 watts output into a omni antenna. SWR was very similar from
>antenna to antenna. Would like to try again using an antenna tunner at the
>base of the antenna to normalize this variable.
You didn't say what size Firestik you used in your comparison. Next
time try a seven foot Firestick instead of a four or five footer.
Report the results here.
Tn...@muck.net
P.S. a 1/4 wave close to the ground (as in a mobile installation),
has a max. rad. angle much higher than 23 degrees.
The2X4
In article <342708...@CB.Radio.net>, "Amor Powers, CB Radio"
<po...@CB.Radio.net> writes:
> How I have wished for some magic
>potion which could solve the engineering problem of coil loss!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then I guess it's true! It's true. True... True ... TRUE.
But you can make more profit selling the brand new shiny 'lossy' coil
antenna when the lowly, best all around 102" whip sells for $13.95.
Still all installations ain't the same.
Shorter sytems are a must for cosmetic and clearance purposes.
It would be nice if these factors were presented when
ya' all get done to proving this and that.
The fastest path from here to there is still a straight
line____________________
Carl
philip de cadenet
Hi Amor,
>Amor sez:
>Maybe you meant to say something else, Sean?
>
>Actually, *thinner* wire or conductors of an antenna loading coil (the
>kind which radiates) have *longer electrical length*. Inductance
>decreases with the increase in conductor diameter. This is why ground
>straps are large conductors: to lower the inductance or "electrical
>length".
>
>With reference to antenna radiators:
>1. A larger conductor diameter is more broadbanded. Lower Q.
>2. A higher resistance conductor is more broadbanded. Lower Q.
>The difference here is that #2 gets its lower Q by heat loss.
in the running at the 75m ham band shootouts, these close wound, too
thin gauge wire coils are real poor performers.
Air-spaced large gauge wire (Bugcatcher style) seems to be the norm, and
of course the ultimate former material is 'no former at all'.
Don't forget the capacity hat.
Phil in the UK.
Amor Powers, CB Radio
philip sez:
> Regarding the current crop of Hustler HF coils/antennas,
> they are never in the running at the 75m ham band shootouts,
> these close wound, too thin gauge wire coils are real poor performers.
That's for sure.
But they have such low SWR!
Over the whole band!
So does a dummy load... :-)
I've burned up two 75m KW Hustler coils. They went up in smoke. I won't
say how much power it took to do it, but it wasn't more than 3db over
their rated power. Both times it was when I was parked and ragchewed too
long on SSB with the compressor on. They withstood it for quite a while
if "air-cooled" >>60mph (>100k/h). The 300W Hustlers are more efficient
(less coil resistance) but burn up even easier, and have more corona
problems. The fuscha fan of glowing ions is impressive at night for
CBers and the general public. The light show is fun, but a waste of
radiated power.
> Don't forget the capacity hat.
I've always needed more capacity in my hat, Philip. [:-)
The question is, with so much capacity in my hat, can I still drive down
the road?
unit77
> That's for sure.
> But they have such low SWR!
> Over the whole band!
> So does a dummy load... :-)
>
>
dont:>)From 2:1 to 2:1 appx 20-25 kHz is the best I have ever seen
anyone get from the 300 watt Hustler resonators.A bit more from the KW
resonators.
Just a 'little bit' better than no antenna at all:>)
SEAN FOLEY
also try an eight foot francis. i'm trying to stay on the cheap side with
this suggestion. another thing to test is with the vehicle rolling. the
102" is a fluctuation station. the francis will beat all antennas when
parked next to any large metal object. it is the hardest to "detune" by
placing nearfield reflections. in other words, it stays in tune the best
regardless of surroundings. Sean aka Bigfoot
Jsender104
>
> Tn...@muck.net
>
>
>P.S. a 1/4 wave close to the ground (as in a mobile installation),
> has a max. rad. angle much higher than 23 degrees.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It was a five footer, Are you saying that longer is better? Another 1.5
feet and your 7 footer and it will be a full 1/4 wave I was getting the
impression that length didn't matter if you had enough wire coiled on
it.(ha ha). Really though a firstik is a good antenna but it is what it is,
a shortened 1/4 wave antenna and adding all the loading in the world is
not going to change that. I you don't want the long antenna on your car or
truck and in most cases a short antenna is the only thing that is practical.
As far as radiation angle goes on a car, who knows what it is going to be.
there are too many variables to account for. The best you can do is figure
that what ever is best against a good ground plane is going to best on
the car. You would drive youself crazy trying to figure out if there is a
best antenna for a particular car or location on a car.
A quarter wave on the ground is about 23 degress it then varies as to
what part of a wl you are above ground. How much it varies is dependent on
how good the ground plane is. The higher you get the less effect ground
proximity has.
Jsender104
Don't know how I could do these test while moving, but the 102 inch
antenna does'nt move that much while driving a constant speed. Some people
think the thing is doing a hula dance while you are driving down the road,
this isn't so. If this is a problem at all its when I am in city traffic
and making a lot of turns. I would'nt even talk on my cell phone then. As
far as testing other antennas I've done my bit and don't plan on wasting
another weekend fooling with the things and it's not that often I drive the
work truck home so I have the test equipment available.
Ken
My antenna test results are published in the BLACK BOOK OF CB LINEARS.
I found that location on the pickup made a big difference; often more than
the
type of antenna! For info on the book go to http://www.kenselectronics.com
tn...@muck.net wrote in article <342af0bf...@news.tir.com>...
>
> >BTW I have been doing some comparison on mobile anennas, A top loaded
1/4
> >wave, a full length 1/4 wave and the infamous 5/8 firestick. The loaded
1/4
> >and firestick were even as far as I could tell. The full length won out
but
> >not by much. I can only resolve 1 db increments and it was less than
this.
Next time try a seven foot Firestick instead of a four or five footer.
> Report the results here.
Ken
Nothing beats the 102" whip on the middle of the roof of the mobile;
many antennas on the roof of a van will beat a 102" whip on the van bumper.
For test results of various antennas on different mounting positions see
the
BLACK BOOK OF CB LINEARS. for info: http://www.kenselectronics.com
SEAN FOLEY <big...@xsite.net> wrote in article
<01bcc1a2$d35113a0$7dfe...@bigfoot.realworld.com>...
Stan Labinsky Jr.
Hmmm... You folks might want to get hold of the ARRL's Antenna
Compendium, Vol.1, in it is an article about this wonderful antenna
the 5/8ths. wave, with its fabled 3 dB of gain.
For those who can't find a copy, I'll condense.
1) This antenna was designed back in the 20's as the best antanna for
the old AM broadcast band, .5 the 1.5 MHz. In order to deliver the
promised gain it had to work over an INFINITE groundplane... read a
"SALT MARSH" and the rest of the EARTH.
2) The typical CB mobile installation comes NO WHERE NEAR to an
infinite groundplane! IN fact, its a POOR ground plane at 11 meters,
depending on the meager capacitance between the vehicle frame and the
earth. So where does the signal go? More Upward, than outward.
(Have you ever noticed that the signal off the fender opposite the one
on which the antenna is mounted usually shows a stronger signal, while
in the opposite direction the signal stinks? Well that's the effect
that the groundplane has... that's why it's usually best to stick the
pole on the middle of the roof... as good a compromise as you'll
find.)
3) The MAIN selling point of the 5/8ths. wave antenna is this... It is
EASY for manufacrurers to MAKE. And since there is this myth of all
that gain, they sell like hotcakes... the 2meter Amateur Band is full
of them, and some folks that I've spoken with are now going back to
the HALF wave antenna as its vertical radiation pattern is more
uniform and its radiation angle is LOWER... down where the people that
you want to talk to all are.
4) Since there are TWO main lobes of radiation, one which is sotra'
down near the earth (dependent on that INFINITE groundplane) and the
other which is up at about 70 or 80 degrees to the horizon, not ALL of
your power is going to your listeners... unless you are talking to the
Russian Space Station as well as the guy down the road.
Hey, don't flame me, it's all in the book!
Of course, all of this is moot, as a real 5/8ths. wave antenna
stands around 22 feet tall. Compressing it vertially into a 4 or 6
foot length changes the pattern... usually for the worse. BTW,
shortened antennas typically are less efficient, turning more of your
signal into heat. The more wire, the more loss... in antennas SIMPLER
is usually better.
But just so the guys running a 102" wip don't get too big a head, It
is a proven fact that the electrical conductivity of a metal can be
ascertained by observing its Thermal conductivty. A test of this is
simple. Take a Sterling Silver spoon and a stainless steel spoon,
stick them both into the same cup of very hot coffee (you can buy that
at McDonalds ;-) ) and feel the handles. The silver one's handle will
be hotter to the touch, usually much, much, hotter... it is a much
better conductor of electricity too. I had this graphically proven to
me working around a machine which introduced RF into a vacuum chamber
for the making of Integrated Circuits. The first model used a
stainless steel rod to carry the energy (about 2700 watts) and it
MELTED, a qurater inch diameter rod, melted like a candle. We
replaced it with a copper rod of the same diameter and while it got
quite hot, it stayed on the job until we upgraded it to a silver
plated 1" diameter rod. So there you have it, some of your talk-power
is keeping the ice from forming on that stainless steel wonder.
So, lots of words... I guess that I just read one too many... "My
antenna can beat your antenna" posts. Now I've had my say, and I'll
slip on my flame proof drawers and say, "Good by"... all.
Remember, it is in the book!
OZARKS 333
<<If thats not good enough for you, how about this. Three identical
radios in three cars. One car had a 102", one had a wilson 1000, and one
had a K40, all antennas mounted in the same place and set to identical SWR
with a digital meter. All radios were tuned exactly the same.>>
What B.S. !!
Tuned exactly the same and SWR set the same ?? I don think so!
Are you an IROC fan ???
This is clinicly impossible. Sounds like after a few beers, it was mines
better than yours. Oh yeah ! Lets drive to the top of that there mountain
and see who gets out better.
And another night goes by in B.S. land. Ha !
Joe 333 Springfield Mo --Using a 4 ft Whip and talkin all over
the place, no i dont need a
radio check
Mr. Ronald E. Shapiro
Joe 333 Springfield Mo --Using a 4 ft Whip and talkin all over
> the place, no i dont
need a
> radio check
now that's a real scientific statement.
Ron
Amor Powers, CB Radio
Stan Labinsky Jr. spewed forth:
> So there you have it, some of your talk-power
> is keeping the ice from forming on that stainless steel wonder.
>
> So, lots of words... I guess that I just read one too many... "My
> antenna can beat your antenna" posts.
Good one, Stan.
If it were possible to make a 5/8wave have gain or a better broadside
lobe and be shorter than 20feet long, we would use those techniques to
build mini-yagi-doublezepps!
But alas, the mobile 5/8wave is just a bowl of CB hokum (aka
junk-science) being dished out to the suckers who are born every minute
to consume them. Perception is everything. Marketing is perception. It
has been working for 22 years for these companies. And the myth
continues.
Enjoyed your post, Stan. Very illustrative. Please join in more.
For CB mobile a full 1/4 wave size SGC whip which has a thick coating of
copper foil on a fiberglas rod comes closest to high efficiency. At $300
bucks they're not cheap. No outrageous claims of gain or radiation
pattern from SGC, just good stout, highly conductive hardware. Ask
anyone who has one. But they will break a normal CB mount right off the
vehicle.
Amor Powers
Sandra Crooks
Dave or Debby wrote:
>
> Professor wrote:
> >
> > you know it!
> >
> > --
> > The Old Professor
> > WindowsNT Powered
> >
> > Firewalker wrote in article <3423F5...@swbell.net>...
> >
> > >> >From personal experience, I know that 102" whip is the best performing
> > ant.
> > >> >I've used all the "best" antennas, Wilson 5000, the Penetrator, etc.,
> > etc.,
> > >> >and I keep coming back to the old standby. Mounted on the headache rack
> > of
> > >> >my pick-up truck, the whip is sometimes a burden, but it always talks
> > >> >further,
> > >> >stronger, and hears better than any of the other antennas.. Further, you
> > can
> > >> >run virtually any amount of power thru 'em....For $14 you simply cannot
> > beat
> > >> >it.
> > >>
> > >> Break! Break! How about a radio check? This does not cut it out as been a
> > >> valid test to compare antennas. There is nothing like good calibrated
> > >> equipment to sink your teeth into.
> > >
> > >radios in three cars. One car had a 102", one had a wilson 1000, and
> > >one had a K40, all antennas mounted in the same place and set to
> > >identical SWR with a digital meter. All radios were tuned exactly the
> > >the recieve station, and transmited at the same time. The 102" blew out
> > >the competition. When the 102" shut down, the other two guys were
> > >playing with each others signal with no real difference between them.
> > >This did auctually happen, and I was at the recieving station. You can
> > >believe that electrical mumbo jumbo which works in theory, or you can
> > >believe what auctually works in the real world. Its your choice.
> I believe you said that wrong! You should of
> said "You can believe ALL the Antenna companies PROPAGANDA, OR you can
> believe the theory & reality, which says THE LONGER THE BETTER, AND the
> HIGHER UP the coil is, the better!" Nothing is better on a MOBILE but
> a 108" whip (the 102" needs a spring, to get it close to 108"). You can
> buy 108's anymore, other than NOS OR from ME (I made some up a while
> ago. They are 108" and sit in the 3/8-24" whipholder that makes them
> actually 108 1/2" !! NO SPRING NEEDED. PRICE: SAME as I was selling
> them before when the companies made them--$40 & shipping. I have 7 or
> so left--next batch may be more! THE GOOD 102" & SS Spring (NOT radio
> shack) is around $35 or so. So why not pay another $5 to get ALL the
> length that will get you out better than a 102" without the spring,
> which is MIS-Matched, because you need 108, NOT 102 ! SO buy a SS
> spring from Hustler OR buy my 108" & you'll BLOW SMOKE !!! IN FACT,
> mine are BETTER than the companies older 108's. My static ball on top
> IS THREADED & GLUED with #271 glue===--it will NEVER come off! So look
> COOL going down the road, not cheap, and get the BIGGEST Mobile antenna
> you can get--the 108" SS whip! GOOD TEST--next time make sure that the
> cars are the same, or same design, or remove each antenna & test on the
> same radio & car & look at S meter to see what one is stronger instead
> of your "shootout" test! Dave
hey dave,
whats a static ball???
philip de cadenet
Amor,
>If it were possible to make a 5/8wave have gain or a better broadside
>lobe and be shorter than 20feet long, we would use those techniques to
>build mini-yagi-doublezepps!
>But alas, the mobile 5/8wave is just a bowl of CB hokum (aka
>junk-science) being dished out to the suckers who are born every minute
>to consume them. Perception is everything. Marketing is perception. It
>has been working for 22 years for these companies. And the myth
>continues.
>
>Enjoyed your post, Stan. Very illustrative. Please join in more.
>
>For CB mobile a full 1/4 wave size SGC whip which has a thick coating of
>copper foil on a fiberglas rod comes closest to high efficiency. At $300
>bucks they're not cheap. No outrageous claims of gain or radiation
>pattern from SGC, just good stout, highly conductive hardware. Ask
>anyone who has one. But they will break a normal CB mount right off the
>vehicle.
>
>Amor Powers
two resonant points, (just gone and done my homework, make that 13.2 and
22Mhz for their SG-303 model).
Also a shame that their antenna system comes bottom of the pile in the
75m antenna shootouts out there on the west coast. Maybe they should
stick to making antennas for the 11m band only:-)
Dummyloads on a stick.
Phil Unit 148/G4ZOW
Amor Powers, CB Radio
phil sez:
> Agree with all what you say but I thought that SGC claim
> their whip has two resonant points,
> Also a shame that their antenna system comes bottom of the pile in the
> 75m antenna shootouts out there on the west coast. Maybe they should
> stick to making antennas for the 11m band only:-)
You're right on the mark about that, Phil.
You're also right about the dual resonance of that antenna. There are
several SGC models with different dual resonant points.
The 22Mhz resonance works very well for 20,17,15,12,11,&10m.
The 9.8MHz resonance is great for 30, and not too bad on 40.
I wouldn't advocate competition use of it on 75 or 160... I prefer a
center loaded antenna on those bands. There is very little % loading in
the antenna itself compared to a 1/4wave for 3.8MHz or 1.8MHz... so it's
a dog on those bands.
SGC's system is remarkably versitile, however, with the Smartuner. Just
pick up the mic and talk on any frequency. Don't even bother wondering
how the reflected power is. It is always below 2:1 within a second or
two of the first transmission. For better efficiency I use a dedicated
center loaded tuned whip on the Smartuner for 75 and 160. Then, there is
good efficiency and the ability to quickly go from one end of the band
to the other without getting out and retuning, or running a screwdriver
motor. I find it difficult when driving on the freeways in traffic to be
wondering about my match. Especially when going from phone to CW. I
prefer an automatic transmission (automotive) over 5 on the floor as
well for this kind of driving.
Oh well. :-)
Amor Powers
Amor Powers, CB Radio
Sandra Crooks sez:
> whats a static ball???
Hi Sandra, it's that little metal ball on the tip of the antenna.
Why is it called a static ball??? I don't know.
It doesn't prevent static, that's for sure.
It serves the same purpose as the little ball on the end
of a fencing foil. Touche'
It prevents people from getting stabbed very badly by them. :-)
Amor Powers
Dale Powell
Get a life. ANY loaded antenna is less efficient than a plain old 102.
End of discussion.
Dale Powell
You are lacking some of the basics needed to understand antenna
operation. On the subject of the ground mounted broadcast
verticals-groundplane antennas mounted on the ground need a much
different groundplane than an elevated antenna does. Example- a ground
mounted vertical needs approximately 120 radials 1/2 wave long to equal
the efficiency of 4 1/4 wave radials if the antenna is 1/2 wave above
ground. You have completely failed to mention or consider GROUND
LOSSES! You choose to selectively use and mis-interpret the quoted
texts. Also, the conductivity differences between stainless and other
materials in an antenna of the size used for CB has a negligible affect
on performance.
Tim Cline
edges at he end of the antenna there is a possibility of Corona Discharge from
the sharp edge.
This has nothing to do with drinking way too many Mexican Beers
C. Orlando
On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:11:32 -0500, Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>> >Wrong......
>> >From personal experience, I know that 102" whip is the best performing ant.
>> >I've used all the "best" antennas, Wilson 5000, the Penetrator, etc., etc.,
>> >and I keep coming back to the old standby. Mounted on the headache rack of
>> >my pick-up truck, the whip is sometimes a burden, but it always talks
>> >further,
>> >stronger, and hears better than any of the other antennas.. Further, you can
>> >run virtually any amount of power thru 'em....For $14 you simply cannot beat
>> >it.
>>
>> Break! Break! How about a radio check? This does not cut it out as been a
>> valid test to compare antennas. There is nothing like good calibrated
>> equipment to sink your teeth into.
>
>If thats not good enough for you, how about this. Three identical
>radios in three cars. One car had a 102", one had a wilson 1000, and
>one had a K40, all antennas mounted in the same place and set to
>identical SWR with a digital meter. All radios were tuned exactly the
>same. They drove to a parkinglot 10 miles away, pointed towards where
>the recieve station, and transmited at the same time. The 102" blew out
>the competition. When the 102" shut down, the other two guys were
>playing with each others signal with no real difference between them.
>This did auctually happen, and I was at the recieving station. You can
>believe that electrical mumbo jumbo which works in theory, or you can
>believe what auctually works in the real world. Its your choice.
Althou, You might think it does out perform the others, thats your
opinion. Any antenna can out perform K40, event the "Little Wil"
made by Wilson. 39" high 10oz. mag. power handling of 500 watts. with
apriice around $30.00 . I have heard & seen a magnetic Wilson 1000
out perform a pair of 96" fiblerglass antennas. these were the
straight & not wire wrapped coil-loaded fiberglass antennas either.
just the plain copper wire covered with fiberglass. The 102" steel
might be your perfect antenna. But look at the type of mount you have
to get to support it. either that big trailer hitch ball mount, which
means drilling a 3/4" hole or these new style mag mounts that have 3
to 4 5" magnets all straped together or the bumper mount.
With the Wilson 1000 antenna magnetic, it can be set up in a
matter of a few minutes. And since all 1000's are the same setting
the swrs are made easy. there is no interenal capacitance or resister
inside a Wilson. But can you unscrew the antenna from the base mount
without using a wrench, and put it inside the vehicle. like say for
instance if you had a standard size pickup with a reg. cab.
now its your choice,
tn...@muck.net
On Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:09:55 -0800, Dale Powell <pow...@polarnet.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Get a life. ANY loaded antenna is less efficient than a plain old 102.
>End of discussion.
If you ask me it's time for you to stop theorising about antennas
and prove it.
1.----- Take a 102" whip, put a quick disconnect on it,
2.----- Take a fair alternate antenna like the 7' Firestik or 8'
Francis and put a quick disconnect on it.
3.----- Compare them from a stationary mount to numerous
stationary recievers.
4.----- Note the real world (not theoretical) results.
5.----- Get ready to apologies for stating previous false
information.
6.-----Formulate an excuse for not getting the prefered
results.
7.---- Ignore this post completly because it's to embarrassing
to admitt when your wrong.
TN...@MUCK.NET
Bill Nelson
Amor Powers, CB Radio (po...@CB.Radio.net) wrote:
:
: Hi Sandra, it's that little metal ball on the tip of the antenna.
: Why is it called a static ball??? I don't know.
: It doesn't prevent static, that's for sure.
: It serves the same purpose as the little ball on the end
: of a fencing foil. Touche'
: It prevents people from getting stabbed very badly by them. :-)
:
: Amor Powers
It allows a person to run higher power without the antenna developing a
corona discharge off the tip of the antenna.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Brian
The R-ME uses a big plastic teardrop shaped ball on their R-292 antennas
to prevent the tips from puncturing your eye. Its too big to enter the
eye socket. Of course, it doesn't prevent them from pushing them up
into power lines. Brian
Amor Powers, CB Radio
Part of antenna thread from news:rec.radio.cb "mobile antennas"
Token sez:
> Do a Web Search for "Contrawound Toroidal Helical Antenna".
> This tech is cool, one sixtieth the size with a 300% increase
> in gain. It's real but I think the numbers are being compared
> worse case to best case.
Such claims!
Contrawound Toroidal Helical Antennas are a patented antenna technology
that was invented 5 years ago, licensed to West Virginia University.
But, I think if you read more about it, there is more than meets the eye
for amateur or hobby applications. From the previous technical material
released, there is no increase in gain over conventional verticals or
dipoles. Maybe it works better than other isotropic antenna designs of
it's size? The CTHA people are fuzzy when it comes to explaining that.
Actually, one design looks like it might approach the field pattern of
an isotropic radiator. Wow! :-)
But is it less gain than a dipole in the dipole's favored direction? Is
there a need for isotropic radiators in most HF or VHF communications?
Aeronautical maybe? Is it as efficient as a good mobile whip? These are
unanswered at this time.
NVIS might be an application for isotropic radiators, although aren't
there already good NVIS antennas with more directive high vertical angle
signal?
The example given for CTHAs is the AM Radio Broadcast antenna. But when
you figure that 95% of the possible AM Stations in the USA are already
in service, where is the market? Is it the international AM Broadcast
market? Slow growth there too.
Maybe the mil market! Integral Technologies announced in August that the
government has committed funding to the development of the (HF and VHF)
Contrawound Toroidal Helical Antenna (CTHA). Is it a way to get precious
government funding, maybe? Just asking...
It is certainly not for the CB or Ham market yet, since it is too
cumbersome for CB mobile, and both the Ham HF and CB markets are sliding
into a shadow of what they once were.
Is homebrewing a CTHA a can of worms at this point? (is it a narrowband
device?). How much engineering does it take for return in real value?
Still an experimental curiousity? Fun to play with?... :-)
Anybody know what the non-mil applications are for CTHAs?
At any rate... these are believed to be the patents for the CTHA:
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5654723
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5442369
Amor Powers
END OF POST
keywords:
antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas
SEAN FOLEY
corona ? how about flames !!! i have customers that have literally melted
tips down easily. at the keydown in Gary, Indiana last spring Real Deal
aka real deal dominator amps had flames coming out of his antenna. a guy
up at the Detroit keydown was using dual 18' antennas and had appr. 3' of
flame coming out of the top of these. this can be verified by anyone at
the keydown. as Amor stated, most large tips are for show, but some guys
really do need them. Sean aka Bigfoot
Amor Powers, CB Radio
Bill Nelson sez:
[re: "static balls"]
> It allows a person to run higher power without the antenna
> developing a corona discharge off the tip of the antenna.
I once lost my corona ball outside a Mexican bar in a little pueblo when
the overhead wire caught it. (Not to be confused with loss of
conciousness due to consumption of Mexican Corona).
In my experience with high power mobile antennas...
It would take way more than 2KW before you would notice any corona on a
27 MHz whip. I've never been able to grow a corona on any of my mobile
whips above 6MHz with 2KW.
Coronas are those pretty little fuchsia flowers that grow in the air
around the tip of antenna elements due to high voltages present when
transmitting. They cause high SWR due to detuning by the coupling of
conductivity of the ionized air to the antenna tip.
Has anyone on the newsgroup been able to grow a corona on a CB antenna
at 27MHz? How much power does it take? And how long was the antenna?
It seems that for CB, the significance of a "static ball" is largely
mechanical.
Amor Powers
Amor Powers, CB Radio
SEAN FOLEY sez:
>
> corona ? how about flames !!!
> flame coming out of the top of these.
Really, Sean! I'd love to see that! What a show!
Was there was some "magic" going on... Are you sure he didn't have
tubular whips with propane fed into them?
What was burning, Sean?
Are you sure it was RF corona at 27MHz?
I've never seen it like that even with 20kW Shortwave Broadcast systems.
Phil, have you ever seen this kind of corona above 10 MHz?
Corona sort of looks like flames to some people. It's sort of like the
aurora borealis in miniature. True, prolonged corona will melt away the
tip of the antenna a little at a time.
Amor Powers
Toolman
You guys got it all wrong. That was the visual manifestations of mutual
transconductance at work.
Toolman
Amor Powers, CB Radio wrote in message <343891...@CB.Radio.net>...
philip de cadenet
>SEAN FOLEY sez:
>>
>> corona ? how about flames !!!
>> using dual 18' antennas and had appr. 3' of
>> flame coming out of the top of these.
>
> Really, Sean! I'd love to see that! What a show!
>
>Was there was some "magic" going on... Are you sure he didn't have
>tubular whips with propane fed into them?
>What was burning, Sean?
>
>Are you sure it was RF corona at 27MHz?
>
>I've never seen it like that even with 20kW Shortwave Broadcast systems.
>
>Phil, have you ever seen this kind of corona above 10 MHz?
>
>Corona sort of looks like flames to some people. It's sort of like the
>aurora borealis in miniature. True, prolonged corona will melt away the
>tip of the antenna a little at a time.
>
>Amor Powers
No, I've never had problems at such high frequencies but there again I
only have a meagre 1.2KW output.
All my experimenting at present is on the 160 ham band and we are having
severe problems with corona. Several other factors come into play, I
have a physically large chassis'd van adding to the ground, my antenna
is very high Q and overall a relatively efficient antenna for this band.
How does 1% efficiency sound:-)
I am limited to around 200w when it's damp outside.
I have melted fibreglass top whips with under 500w on this band.
All my testing on 27Mhz ended in the early 80's, it's a whole different
ballpark downstairs, you guy's have it easy.
Phil / UK
Joseph M Zawodny
> Maybe the mil market! Integral Technologies announced in August that the
> government has committed funding to the development of the (HF and VHF)
> Contrawound Toroidal Helical Antenna (CTHA). Is it a way to get precious
> government funding, maybe? Just asking...
>
> It is certainly not for the CB or Ham market yet, since it is too
> cumbersome for CB mobile, and both the Ham HF and CB markets are sliding
> into a shadow of what they once were.
> Is homebrewing a CTHA a can of worms at this point? (is it a narrowband
> device?). How much engineering does it take for return in real value?
> Still an experimental curiousity? Fun to play with?... :-)
>
> Anybody know what the non-mil applications are for CTHAs?
>
> At any rate... these are believed to be the patents for the CTHA:
> http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5654723
> http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5442369
>
> Amor Powers
>
> END OF POST
> keywords:
> antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas antennas
I saw an article in a military/space electronics rag that I get
at work which discussed this antenna. It was hilarious! I very
much enjoyed the part where they talked about the radiation
from a CTHA coupling to the Earth's magnetic field which allowed
propagation over very long distances and through mountains. If
I can find the article again (only a month or so ago) I'll post
more detailed info on the rag and issue so more can enjoy this
propaganda ( I meant PR). It might be worth sending to NBC news
for consideration in their "Fleecing of America" segment.
What a joke!
KO4LW
--
Joseph M. Zawodny http://wwwp.exis.net/~zawodny
zaw...@exis.net
Amor Powers, CB Radio
Joseph sez:
> I saw an article in a military/space electronics rag that I get
> at work which discussed this antenna. It was hilarious! I very
> much enjoyed the part where they talked about the radiation
> from a CTHA coupling to the Earth's magnetic field which allowed
> propagation over very long distances and through mountains.
--chuckle--
I'd be really interested in that article, Joseph.
I have loop antennas and transceivers for 180kHz SSB which actually do
talk through mountains. We use them for cave rescue.
Amor Powers
philip de cadenet
Token
>
>Do a Web Search for "Contrawound Toroidal Helical Antenna".
>
>This tech is cool, one sixtieth the size with a 300% increase
>in gain. It's real but I think the numbers are being compared
>worse case to best case.
>
>Token
There's been a lot of discussion of CTHA antennas, great in theory,
difficult to replicate and lousey in real world trials.
Amor,
I respect your views on the use of the SGC tuner but they only handle
micky mousepower and that ain't fair. Play the game:-)
Phil Unit 148/G4ZOW
Tom Rauch
>--chuckle--
>I'd be really interested in that article, Joseph.
>I have loop antennas and transceivers for 180kHz SSB which actually do
>talk through mountains. We use them for cave rescue.
>Amor Powers
Only because of the FREQUENCY, not because of the antenna. Doesn't
matter HOW you radiate the signal, it propagates through air, earth or
buildings the SAME way. Any other claims are pure bunk.
73 Tom
Richard Leitch
The message <34421351...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
from W8J...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Rauch) contains these words:
> >Amor Powers
Not sure you're right there.
ISTR that the LF molefones use loop antennas because they use the
magnetic component of the wave as they operate in the nearfield.
You can find more details with an Alta Vista search on CREG or on David Gibson.
Seeya, Dick