Jo Gunn Antenna's, what a joke.
Sean
yes, this is surely a high figure in anyone's estimation. don't forget,
due to different spacing on the elements, different forward gain and front
to back ratios are very common on different beam designs. you can space
the elements for max forward gain, max front to back ratio (rejection) or a
combination of the two. i DO have to agree with the CB Guy on this one
though. they are built damn good and are worth the money in terms of being
trouble free in most installations. just like anything else though, you
pay your money and make your choice. Sean
Jean-Paul 19AT272 <jean...@pi.net> wrote in article
<352BE1...@pi.net>...
> The Cb Guy wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 21:40:01 +0200, Jean-Paul 19AT272
> > <jean...@pi.net> wrote:
> >
> > >No comment, what a junk !!
> >
> > Oh really?..I've put up a couple of their beam antennas....and haven't
> > seen anything of that quality before in my days.
> > They fit well, matched excellantly, and perform very well.
> > And they've been up 2 years now.
> > Hmmmm......maybe I missed something?
> >
> > The Cb Guy
>
> You have, Jo Gunn's do not perform better than anyother ordinary
> antenna, only their construcution is a positive point. How would you
> explain 17.5 dBi gain for a 4 ele.yagi, which design is rather
> "classic".
> J-P.
> --
> 19AT272 Jean-Paul }{ visit: http://www.ips.gov.au
> mailto:jean...@pi.net }{ http://www.sel.noaa.gov
> ICQ:7832018 }{ http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
>
Sean
if someone takes the time to properly assemble the antennas that you
mentioned and have some forethought as to how you can "ruggedize" these
designs, they will work well. if you put the antennas up just following
the directions and nothing more, you will have problems. here in the WINDY
CITY, you can see all kinds of moonrakers, wilsons, maco's, etc... with
elements that don't line up anymore or broken elements caused by the winds
and storms. while you may not have the weather conditions that we have
here, these are prime considerations when putting up a major antenna
installation around here. it's not fun having to drop a large beam array
from a tower to do repairs and then have to re-install the whole thing
again. i would rather buy something that was built to last and put it up.
Jo Gunn doesn't use ANY hose clamps that stretch or loosen, like ALL of the
other beams named do. Jo Gunn doesn't have you measuring different
elements and hoping that you have the overall length correct, as all of
their antennas are predrilled and use sheet metal screws. Jo Gunn doesn't
give two different element lengths (individual and overall) that contadict
each other like the old Wilson's and current MaCo's do. this is especially
a bitch when you have already assembled the antenna and installed it and
call MaCo to find out what the problem is and they tell you to use the
overall length instead of the individual length. "oh, those individual
measurements are incorrect. we keep forgetting to correct that in the
instructions." that's the last thing that i want to hear after putting up
a 4 element crossed yagi that had final assembly performed on the roof due
to the individual installation requirements. how much money did you save
by having to pull the whole thing down, remeasure the whole antenna and
then re-install it ? not enough to compensate me for my time and your
aspirins !!!! buy something that is designed right and built to last and
pay the extra money instead of having to rig it and hope it lasts. it's
worth it. Sean aka Bigfoot
Rooster
<roo...@bedford.net> wrote in article <352BA637...@bedford.net>...
> i've run comets and shootingstars when they were made by wilson, and run
a
> moonraker now, never had the problems you describe.
>
> Sean wrote:
>
> > while i somewhat agree with the "bloated" gain figures on the beams, i
too
> > was curious about the "audio gain" figure. i talked to several
different
> > antenna engineers from different companies about it. all of the "older
> > guys" said that there was no such thing and that it was a bullshit
spec.
> > all of the "younger guys" that had just come out of school or been to
> > refresher courses said that it was a legitimate spec and that different
> > antennas can affect the audio envelope in different ways. this must be
> > something that is newer that it being taught and measured compared to
the
> > rest of the normal specs. i myself, don't know. all i DO know is that
> > they work great and are built like tanks. yes, they are expensive but
you
> > get what you pay for. if you want to put up an antenna and not have to
> > mess with it due to wind damage, elements rotating out of place,
elements
> > bending or breaking, etc.... i see only one choice on the commercial
> > market. Sean
> >
> > rooster <roo...@bedford.net> wrote in article
> > <352B4CF7...@bedford.net>...
> > > totally over rated and chech out the gain figures must have been
rated by
> > > antron. who ever heard of an antenna having audio gain. only selling
> > point
> > > is material.
> > >
> > > beam wrote:
> > >
> > > > your opinion of junk must be different than mine...
> > > > but then you probably run a radio shack so what would i
know....hehehe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
The Cb Guy
>No comment, what a junk !!
Oh really?..I've put up a couple of their beam antennas....and haven't
seen anything of that quality before in my days.
They fit well, matched excellantly, and perform very well.
And they've been up 2 years now.
Hmmmm......maybe I missed something?
The Cb Guy
Jean-Paul 19AT272
No comment, what a junk !!
beam
Toll Free
Yeah, Black Ambassador, Prime Minister, Cat Dillon, Big Wolf, Doc Adams, M &
M, and the rest of the west Coast lockdown kings must all really like
running crap. I think that with the bankrolls these characters have, they
could run anything: But there must be a reason that they would all run the
same junk.... The 8+8 Killer Star.
Toll Free
The Cb Guy
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:16:31 -0700, jimcar <jim...@erols.com> wrote:
>Sean wrote:
>>
>> i would have to agree with you CB Guy. they are the best constructed of
>> any commercially made communications antenna that i have seen, bar none.
>> my customers that use them LOVE them. in fact one that has been using one
>> of the ground planes will be ordering one of the 4 element stars within a
>> month.
>>
>> The Cb Guy <thec...@iname.com> wrote in article
>> <352ba9f2...@news.det.ameritech.net>...
>> > On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 21:40:01 +0200, Jean-Paul 19AT272
>> > <jean...@pi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >No comment, what a junk !!
>> >
>> > Oh really?..I've put up a couple of their beam antennas....and haven't
>> > seen anything of that quality before in my days.
>> > They fit well, matched excellantly, and perform very well.
>> > And they've been up 2 years now.
>> > Hmmmm......maybe I missed something?
>> >
>> > The Cb Guy
>> >
>> > http://www.ameritech.net/users/thecbguy/cbradio.htm
>> >
>also in agreement with thecbguy. only problem i've found with my 5+5
>though is that the hardware ie nuts, bolts, washers had to be replaced
>with stainless after 3 years in the salty air of coastal long island and
>virginia beach. 73, jim.
We don't get too much Salt air here in Mich, but I have seen an awful
lot of ICe on Joe Gunns....and not any damage, unlike the flimsy built
Macos...I used to run a Maco V-Quad...great performer, however
difficult to build, and nowhere's near the quality of Joe Gunn.
Sean
The Cb Guy
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 22:43:16 +0200, Jean-Paul 19AT272
<jean...@pi.net> wrote:
>The Cb Guy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 21:40:01 +0200, Jean-Paul 19AT272
>> <jean...@pi.net> wrote:
>>
>> >No comment, what a junk !!
>>
>> Oh really?..I've put up a couple of their beam antennas....and haven't
>> seen anything of that quality before in my days.
>> They fit well, matched excellantly, and perform very well.
>> And they've been up 2 years now.
>> Hmmmm......maybe I missed something?
>>
>> The Cb Guy
>
>You have, Jo Gunn's do not perform better than anyother ordinary
>antenna, only their construcution is a positive point. How would you
>explain 17.5 dBi gain for a 4 ele.yagi, which design is rather
>"classic".
>J-P.
Unlike other "box-readers" here on the group..I put my expectations in
reality, not the so-called gain posted by marketing folks.
Their only positive point....CONSTRUCTION is a good one.
Unless of course you like climbing up and tearing down an antenna
every year.
And they DO perform...maybe not up to the papers...but at least as
well, if not better, than any antenna out there.
There is not a problem with these antennas in the slightest...yes,
they are pricey. But, if it's your hobby, and you're serious about it,
you don't buy junk.
Or, you buy junk......again and again and again.
rooster
ive talked to as many people on maco and homemades and they didn't have to
sell the wife and kids.
beam wrote:
> not interested in the figures they write on the box ...put one in the air
> and write those results down!!!
> they hammer.
Jean-Paul 19AT272
beam wrote:
>
> your opinion of junk must be different than mine...
> but then you probably run a radio shack so what would i know....hehehe
This is the junk I run:
RCI 2950, Zetagi MB+5 microphone, German made KLV-1000 Tube amp, 5 ele.
polarity switchable cubical quad on 18m tower designed by italian HAM
I2PKW, which produces a real 14dBd (16dBi) gain..Fortunately here in The
Netherlands, the law forbids to advertise with totally unproven
performance for your products...
J-P.
PAINKI6669
8+8s are bad ass
In article <6gfm19$b20$1...@news1.iamerica.net>, "Toll Free"
<toll...@bigradios.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Jo Gunn Antenna's, what a joke.
>From: "Toll Free" <toll...@bigradios.com>
>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 06:11:55 -0600
º¿º) §§ PäìÑK죣êR §§
dont bump it down list :\also idiot list
# toofine79
# RDavis
# Scanner
# James
# Professor
bitch ass trick list:
§ 10-7 §
ng9220700-Ostrowski
beam wrote:
>
> your opinion of junk must be different than mine...
> but then you probably run a radio shack so what would i know....hehehe
Obviously not too much!
Dennis
#12
rooster
totally over rated and chech out the gain figures must have been rated by
antron. who ever heard of an antenna having audio gain. only selling point
is material.
beam wrote:
Professor
--
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Professor - Telstar Electronics
Robert Piland wrote in message ...Are you really a rooster?
Brass at Muddy Waters
jimcar
Sean wrote:
>
> i would have to agree with you CB Guy. they are the best constructed of
> any commercially made communications antenna that i have seen, bar none.
> my customers that use them LOVE them. in fact one that has been using one
> of the ground planes will be ordering one of the 4 element stars within a
> month.
>
> The Cb Guy <thec...@iname.com> wrote in article
> <352ba9f2...@news.det.ameritech.net>...
> > <jean...@pi.net> wrote:
> >
> > >No comment, what a junk !!
> >
> > Oh really?..I've put up a couple of their beam antennas....and haven't
> > seen anything of that quality before in my days.
> > They fit well, matched excellantly, and perform very well.
> > And they've been up 2 years now.
> > Hmmmm......maybe I missed something?
> >
> > The Cb Guy
> >
Robert Piland
Sean
while i somewhat agree with the "bloated" gain figures on the beams, i too
was curious about the "audio gain" figure. i talked to several different
antenna engineers from different companies about it. all of the "older
guys" said that there was no such thing and that it was a bullshit spec.
all of the "younger guys" that had just come out of school or been to
refresher courses said that it was a legitimate spec and that different
antennas can affect the audio envelope in different ways. this must be
something that is newer that it being taught and measured compared to the
rest of the normal specs. i myself, don't know. all i DO know is that
they work great and are built like tanks. yes, they are expensive but you
get what you pay for. if you want to put up an antenna and not have to
mess with it due to wind damage, elements rotating out of place, elements
bending or breaking, etc.... i see only one choice on the commercial
market. Sean
rooster <roo...@bedford.net> wrote in article
<352B4CF7...@bedford.net>...
Jean-Paul 19AT272
The Cb Guy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 21:40:01 +0200, Jean-Paul 19AT272
> <jean...@pi.net> wrote:
>
> >No comment, what a junk !!
>
> Oh really?..I've put up a couple of their beam antennas....and haven't
> seen anything of that quality before in my days.
> They fit well, matched excellantly, and perform very well.
> And they've been up 2 years now.
> Hmmmm......maybe I missed something?
>
> The Cb Guy
You have, Jo Gunn's do not perform better than anyother ordinary
antenna, only their construcution is a positive point. How would you
explain 17.5 dBi gain for a 4 ele.yagi, which design is rather
"classic".
rooster
i've run comets and shootingstars when they were made by wilson, and run a
moonraker now, never had the problems you describe.
Choo-Choo
like getting social studies instead of history or the whole word reading
method compared to phonics.
beam
CNC FUN
> No comment, what a junk !!
> 19AT272 Jean-Paul }{ visit: http://www.ips.gov.au
> mailto:jean...@pi.net }{ http://www.sel.noaa.gov
> ICQ:7832018 }{ http://www.dxlc.com/solar/