| Author |
Message |
    
Kattracker
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 11:19 pm: | 
|
Has anyone had any luck with and can recommend
any broadband coil type antennas?
I tried one tonight on my Lincoln that was supposed to be resonant from 26-29 Mhz. That was a BIG overstatement. I got the swr set, on channel 1-40 it was okay. If you went down or up, the swr was terrible.
I know it is not my set-up because my stainless 102" whip, Firestik KW-6, Firestik II 5 footer have perfect swr on any channel.
You would think an antenna supossedly designed for being broad-band would do as advertised.
I thought it was to good to be true for $50.00
I need a broad-band reasonably short (5 ft or less) antenna for in town use as my mount on top of the cab on my pick-up.
Please don't bother with recommending mag mounts.
I swear by direct mounting. I have seen too much paint damage by capacitance grounding especially when using amps.
Thanks,
Kattracker |
Deadlyeyes
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 1:06 am: |
|
Probably not if you expect perfect matching across such a broad spread of frequencies.
And here is why. A coil makes a shortened antenna only look longer to your radio. A Cap makes an antenna too long look shorter to your radio. IF you put the coil and or the Cap in a series or parallel circit you play the value of one component against the value of the other to reach a desirabe value that makes your radio happy.
BUT making your radio happy only means that. Your radio is happy BUT your antenna has NOT changed.
For the MOST efficient antenna might I suggest a 102" stainless steel whip with a strong spring. It will not be absolutely flat across the entire CB range but it will be the most efficient. A full length quarteer wave length antnna without coils or tuners always works better than a tricked out short antenna. |
Simon
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 9:36 am: |
|
Broadband Coil antennas?? If I remember my theory correct no such animal can really exist. Anytime you add a coil to any antenna you automatically reduce the bandwidth of that antenna.
Now having said that,and before anyone shoots me, an antenna having a coil CAN be made to cover a wide range of frequencies but usually by adjusting tapping points on the coils. Take a look at the famouse Bugcatcher style antennas or even the screwdriver type. They both get there broadwidth by adjusting connections on the coil. |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:44 am: |
|
Deadlyeyes,
Thanks for the reply, and I don't mean to sound rude, but are you sure you even completely read my post?
My post clearly state I also have a 102" stainless whip. Finding an antenna with suitable swr is not the problem. Finding a broadband antenna that is relatively SHORT is the problem.
Heck, my stainles 102" whip is perfect except for one thing. Sitting on the top of my cab on my pick-up truck, the overall height is 14' 6". Now do you see the picture?
By the way, the coil types I am referring to are those similiar to Monkey Mades and Strikers. Not a small coil like I presume Simon may be thinking of.
Monkey Mades and other large coil type claim they are broad banded. That is the whole purpose in their enginering. They boast being resonant from 26 to the high 29 Mhz.
Thanks,
Kattracker |
Bullet
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 4:03 pm: |
|
im not sure of the monkey mades, but most other big coil antenna adds boast about things like power handling, swr over cb band,and lowering the take off angles of radiated rf.
as far as broad bandedness i would have to side with simon with the exception of the screwdriver antenna,and multi tapping of coils for different freqs "like in hf amps". |
Boxman
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Kattracker,
You might want to try an antenna tuner to get the range you desire. There are several variants that can be found at
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?catid=37
boxman
|
Bigbob
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Try a wilson 5000 roof mount from copper,it's direct mounted and it has a large diameter tapped coil for matching and band width,should work.Bigbob. |
Alsworld
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |
|
Kattracker,
I run a MonkeyMade MM5 with a tri-quad magnet mount on top of my Silverado Pickup. It can handle more watts than my coax can. It is quite broadbanded, but it's been awhile since I tried to check all frequencies SWR's. I set it to channel 20 (27.205) as a base line. The way I have it mounted, it would be quite the pain to check the full range of SWR's again except using the radios built in SWR meter. I can try that (I'm NOT trying to be a salesman for Monkey Made although I love my antenna), but who is to say how calibrated, or uncalibrated these built in SWR meters really are.
I'll be more than happy to give you my results based on that, but with each setup/radio/meter being different, who is to say the true accuracy?
Alsworld |
392
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 1:31 am: |
|
Like Bigbob said, the Wilson 1000 or 5000 are a good choice. My 1000 has low swr for about 120 channels. |
Kiwikid
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 5:27 am: |
|
Hello Team from New Zealand!The WILSON seems to be the way to go.My WILSON 1000 works fine for me even though the steelwhip gets warm to the touch after the 8 pill Messenger has had a work out.
73 and ciao ! |
Simon
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 9:22 am: |
|
Bullet
Maybe I should have said - they get their overall broadwidth (1.8m to 29Mhz) by adjusting tap positions but that at each position of the tap the bandwidth is still fairly narrow. |
de
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:47 am: |
|
Re Kat
My point was that coils do not change the efficiency of the antenna. A coil is like an antenna tuner. It does not change the physical length of the antenna, it only makes the radio happy. |
bruce
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 6:22 pm: |
|
DE
The Q of a coil CAN change the efficency .....good example are the PVC " traps " used on some hf antennas PVC is not a good way to go it will get hot from the Fr it sucks in and heat is power. If one used the wrong materals the coils could absorb RF and that power is lost. Matchboxes as you said only " TRICK " the radio just like cutting coax. Nothing beats a full 1/4 wave wip on the car ...... |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Ahhh, I understand now...
Thanks,
Kattracker |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 2:30 am: |
|
Kattracker
When a antenna advertisement reads "resonant 26-29Mhz", many people think that the antenna will actually BE resonant throughout that whole 3 Mhz range. I'm telling you that it's practically impossible to do that with a mobile antenna. 2Mhz maybe.
What they are really saying is that their antenna is useable in that range but not in one SWR setting. "Broadbanding" means how far or how many frequencies a given antenna will feasibly work each side of a particular frequency after the SWR has been set flat or almost flat on that one particular frequency.
Those big open-coil antennas that seem to be the rave these days are one of the biggest jokes on the CB market. CBers not in the know unwittingly will needlessly spend big bucks on those antennas thinking that the bigger they are, the better they must be. And most of them are only 1/4 wave antennas. However, I have still sold many of the open coil antennas even after explaining the pros and cons. In my area, most of the CBers that buy them do so because they think they look so cool on their vehicle. And here's another thing that people don't think of. They were made for stationary vehicles. Not moving vehicles. The wind load is just unblievably tremendous on them at 60+ MPH.
The big open-air antennas were designed with one thing in mind. "COMPETITION". That's it. They were designed and built for the purpose of being able to absorb thousands and thousands of watts of power. Unless you are sending thousands and thousands of watts into huge Broadcast quality coax for competition, then they are a complete waste of your money. I can think of better suited and more practical antennas and radio gear that Copper offers than spending your hard earned money on something as silly as an antenna made for competition such as MonkeyMade or other brand. If you're a competitor, then great. If not, why bother?
Kat. if you were to put one of those gawdy looking things on the roof of your truck, you would be downgrading from your 1/4 wave 102" whip. You would quickly see that your 102 WILL out-perform AND out-distance ANY huge-coil 1/4 wave if you were to do a comparison between 1/4 wave antennas.
Or put another way, THERE ISN'T A "COIL LOADED" 1/4 WAVE ANTENNA ON THIS PLANET THAT WILL OUT-PERFORM A 102" WHIP. PERIOD. When it comes to 1/4 waves, it all boils down to one thing..... Length means EVERYTHING. The longer the whip, then less coil is needed to make up for the absents of the whip. Another thing to remember is the fact that the longer and higher the whip, the more RF is being transmitted into the air. Short coil loaded 1/4 wave antennas just don't, won't, can't and never will cut it. And another thing, the 102" WILL outband any other 1/4 wave.
Now, lets talk 1/2 and 5/8 wave for a minute. In my business, I have personally used and tested many brands of mobile antennas of all shapes and sizes. And I know for a fact that 99.9% of them have a true Dbd gain of 1 or less. Believe it or not, most of them are only Unity Gain. Unity gain is means zero. Nadda. Nothing. And the same holds true for base antennas. Most of them in reality have less than 1 Db of gain. But that's alright with me because since the actual gain on these antennas is so low anyways, it means absolutly nothing to me. And in reality, it shouldn't mean anything to any of you either. I can count on 3 fingers how many CB antenna companys will give you a honest Dbd rating on their antennas. But on the other hand, both wavelength and bandpass mean a great deal to me.
Kat, you reported in a earlier post that you compared a few antennas that you own with a distant base station. But you didn't say how far away you were from it. Here's a good test that anyone can do....
Put yourself far enough away from that base to where you are giving him/her 3 to 5 S-units. Do it at nite when there is no skip running and preferably on a quiet frequency. Jocky your truck around to where you are giving him/her the strongest signal. At that point, your ground plane will be pointed directly at that base antenna. Now do your deadkeys and antenna comparisons and write the results down on paper. Out of all the antennas you told me that you have, I personally believe that your 6 foot 5/8 wave Firestik is probably the best "all around- go everywhere" antenna. I'm really curious to know just where in your town can't you go with a 6 foot antenna?
For many years I used the 7 foot 5/8 wave Firestik up until about a year ago when Kenny, after moving and setting up the new Anttron company, sent me one of his model 1700 6 footers to do some comparisons with against some other brands that I had in stock at the time. This Anttron 1700 is wound to a 1/2 wavelength with the bottom 2 feet being of fiberglass and the top 4 feet of stainless steel whip.
Since I found very little difference in range between it and my 7 foot Firestik, I was a "little bit" impressed that it was performing as well as my 7 footer. It also did a bit better than the Wilsons by "almost" a 1/4 S-Unit. Now, that WAS impressive when you stop and think what it takes to move someones S-meter just a quarter S-Unit. BUT, that still wasn't enough to convince me that I should discard my "do-all" 7 foot Firestik.
After a call to Kenny again and telling him of my findings, he told me that he expected my results to be pretty close to his. He then asked me if I had checked the bandwidth? No, I didn't. So, back to my favorite, unobstructed spot on the Nebraska prairie I went. To my surprise, I discovered that the 6 foot 1/2 wave Anttron 1700 actually "OUTBANDED" my beloved 5/8 wave 7 foot Firestik. How could this be I wondered? To this day I still don't know and he hasn't told me.
I tuned the A-1700 the same way I did with my 7 foot Firestik. My home frequency is 26.110 USB. With a flat SWR on 26.110 using the Firestik, I was always a little over a 2 to 1 by the time I got to channel 20 on the CB band. Now, with the A-1700 tuned the same way, I could get to 27.7 with the SWR a hair under a 2 to 1. At 28Mhz however, the SWR went to a (still useable) 2.5-1. That equates to a bandpass of around 1.9 if you take the 2.5-1 SWR into consideration. That was enough to impress the he11 out of me. I am definately sold on this antenna design and I can easily live with a 1/2 wave far, far better than I can with a 1/4 wave of equal length. I just wish the A-1700 was a 5/8 wave.
Kattracker, you didn't say how much of a bandpass you are looking for. Since you have pretty much the same installation that I have, you may want to consider one of these Anttron 1700's. I would like to add however that I got these results using my old 1st generation RCI-2950 into 18 feet of Belden mini 8 coax.
I really didn't intend for this post to be so long but the point I am trying to make is the fact that there is a big difference between a advertisement claim of an antenna being "resonant from 26-29Mhz" and an antenna actually having a "Bandpass" of 3Mhz. The bandpass of the A-1700 approaches that of the A-99. Take note that I said "bandpass". Not performance. And here's some more food for thought.... The mobile Anttron 1700 antenna was designed by the same company and engineers that designed the original A-99. That should tell you something right there. These people know what Bandpass is all about.
PS: Don't ask me what the Db gain is on the A-1700 because like EVERY OTHER MOBLIE ANTENNA, it's not even worth mentioning.
73s my friend.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:00 pm: |
|
kc0gxz.
Now that's what I like to hear!... That is what I call an answer to a post. Well Done!
I have given up on the large coil type antenna. My new in-town antenna is a Firestik KW-4. Yes, I am aware that will not be a real performer compared to my 6 footer or the 102" whip, but it is needed for in-town driving.
My town has a nickname. It has for decades been known as Tree City. With my Chevy pick-up 4x4, 265/75 tires, stock height, the roof is almost 7 feet. Put the Firestik KW-6 on it and add a couple inches for the ball mount, and I occasionally hit tree limbs on side streets.
You mentioned you had a Firestik 7 foot 5/8's wave. I do not know about the later years, but their 7 footer they have now is a 3/4 wave.
Check their website for verification.
I have not done much comparison between the 6 ft. 5/8's wave and the 102" yet, but they both have made a 28 mile mobile to mobile barefoot communication.
I think they both are fantastic. I agree that the 5/8's wave 6 footer is the best all around. Better radiation pattern too.
Thanks again for the detailed explanation.
Kattracker |
bigbob
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:27 pm: |
|
I am running a 60" wilson silver load,swr at 26.535 is 1.2 at 27.855 is 1.3,that is the extent of my pc122s freq. range,in order to achieve this I had to remove the tunable tip altogether.The current node of this antenna is at or very near the top and that puts it a little higher than my 102 whip,whereas the 102s current node is at it's feed point,the silverload is a 5/8 wave.I talk to base stations in 4 towns at varying ranges from 30 to 40 miles on ssb barefoot(12 watts pep),I get better reports with my silver load AND better recieve and it beats the wilson 1000 all hollow in every respect. |
Alsworld
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Jeff,
if you don't mind I would like to do a little FRIENDLY debating. As stated above, I own and operate a Monkey Made MM5 mobile antenna. Now first off, many of your points I fully concur with, but just for the sake of pointing out some Pro's and Con's from a differing perspective, let's give this a shot for others out there that may be contemplating a coil antenna.
My antenna is advertised as a 1/4 wave, with no gain figures given. I fully concur that if I could put a 102" where the Monkey Made MM5 is, I might see different results. However if I did that, I would exceed the legal height and smack every bridge around. I am a huge fan of the 102", and don't think much can beat it in terms of cost and effectiveness, although I've had just as great results with a Francis 8ft'er.
I fully concur with your comments on "broadbanding". Antennas need to be tuned to the frequency, and see where it will go from there. Expecting a mobile antenna to cover such a range is reaching the unrealistic when it comes to goal setting. However, some of these coils may just surprise you concerning this issue. Many though can be tuned to reach across whatever frequency you are reaching for within it's design and expand quite a ways from there.
As far as being a "joke" or "waste of money", at least concerning my own, I must disagree. Here is why: For those wanting an antenna that can handle the power efficiently (aluminum moreso than stainless steel), these aluminum antennas can spit it out. Coils do reduce the height and only simulate a 1/4 whip, but if it's on top of a pickup truck, that may be a good thing compared to what overall height we can afford (referring to feet and inches, not $$$) Performance? It smoked my K40 it replaced hands down, and yes I did testing locally in Florida.
Competition. The original big coils were designed for that, but more of these "driveable" antennas are hitting the market. I reserved any previous comments on this factor until I made my 3000 mile trip from Florida to Washington this summer. The mountains of Wyoming with extreme gusting headwinds confirmed that the antenna remained much more wind resistant that a 102" whip ever would have (with respect to overall movement, whipping in the wind, etc.). Trust me, the winds trashed my new "custom" boat cover where it was my concern, and not the antenna. It was the opposite prior to the trip.
Now we get into one of the true facets of Americana. Much like tatoos, custom cars and motorcycles, individual taste and what is physically appealing to us sells. You referred to the coil antennas being "gawdy". No problem, but for many of us, they are complete eye candy. They are eye catching, different, and actually refreshing compared to other antennas. Yes I realize that does not make them "better", but they're still many benefits over some of the standard CB antennas out there, including performance.
Okay, here's my bottom line Jeff. I 100% agree that if I were recommending the best overall antenna, it would be the 102" whip with a spring (or a Francis 8ft'er with a spring). For those that are not familiar with SWR settings, or need to reduce height and want something that really performs, I'd recommend (and bought one for my brother) a Wilson 1000, or even a 5000. But....I still believe there is a place in this world for WELL made large coil antennas. It may not be the ideal antenna Kattracker is looking for, but for myself, and others like me, it was. More height that either Wilson, can handle more power for those that want it, but still driveable, good SWR's, and they perform pretty darn well. Cost? I bought mine brand new for about $15 more than a Wislon 5000.
For me, I dig the antenna, and am extremely happy with the performance. It looks cool, and I'm not ashamed to say that the looks had an affect on my purchase, but it was only one of the reasons I purchased it. Hey, it's my hard earned dollars, and I do not feel it was wasted. I'm quite proud to have the Silver Monster on top of the truck, and chicks dig it (okay okay....I made that part up).
Now once again, differing opinions only. Not trying to start an arguement whatsoever. I guess I could add a bunch of  to show that, but sometimes thinking outside the box may have some benefits besides just sales. I still concur about the 102" whip, but feel you may have shortchanged all coil antennas in one nutshell with your post.
I will respectfully disagree with a few points as annotated above, without throwing any stones your way. Just my observations and opinions
Alsworld |
Deadlyeyes
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Re Bruce...
Howdy!
I have been conducting a real world experiment in re to antennas.
I have been listening to an AM standard broadcast station in TX--I am in South Central LA. Using my ham radio in general coverage mode I have listened to this same station both day and night/post and pre amp turn off.
Here are my observations so far. Using a 10 M, 15 M, 20 m, 40 M and 80 M antenna as receiving antennas the overall performance is on the 80 M because it is closer to a quarter wave of .530 Khz. than the rest. Even during the day when the skip zone kicks in the longer wires work the best.
I will be putting up a 160 meter inverted V to get even closer and check out to see if the trend of getting better continues.
So given my somewhat limited obsrvations on a single radio transmitter as a source over a period of a month or two I have somewhat concluded that while a coil may make the radio happy it is the overall length of the actual antenna that makes the difference on receive (up to a point and all other things being equal of course ;-)).
Best to all
Check the back stoop
for a link of boudin
and a cold virtual
brewskey.
DE |
Bruce
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 5:26 am: |
|
DE 2 things
1) the LENGTH adds capture airea to the antenna simply more wire more signal hits it.
2) Logic tells you if you put a coil between a radio and the wire being induced with radio waves something is going to get lost somewhere.
Now anyone who uses ham sticks finds out the other problem with shortend antennas BANDWIDTH. |
Bigbob
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 5:39 am: |
|
A 5/8 wave fiber glass antenna with enamel coated wire is longer electricaly than a 102 whip, more wire,thus more capture area . |
de
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 1:12 am: |
|
Re Bruce...
Point 1 I agree with. Which was my point. In any antenna the longer the actual antenna part the better the receive properties. Up to a point of course where length becomes impractical.
Thus the 102 stainless whip is a better receive antenna than the 16 inch thru the glass coil loaded cb antenna.
Thus use the 102 inch whip.
Point 2 bandwidth...
I hope we are not boreing people to tears. Well I agree as well on the function of the coil acing as a band width reducer. BUT you have to also factor in the diamater of the antenna radiator as well. A big fat radiator, solid or cage construction, is going to have a better band width.
But you know ol bud that in the practical world while we would love to put a tribander/raker on the ol family vehicle those darn folks with bubble gum machines on the tops of their cars just might take objections. ;-)
May you and your family prosper
DE |
Bullet
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 2:14 pm: |
|
alsworld,jeff
i agree,that some of these big coil jobs do have thier place.
i dont care "totally" about the theory behind the 102 vs coiled 1/4 wave antennas near as much as i do about "this one gives you a s-4" and "this one gives you a s-6."
i will agree that the 102ss whip is a great antenna and in theory is supost to give you the best performance.
i as well have done that same exact real world experiment with several mobile antennas.
though the 102 ss whip was one of the better performers, it was not the one that gave me the biggest signal on the stations used for recieving.
the one antenna that stood out head and shoulders (2 s units) above the crowd as a joke, waste of money,as some would call it. i bought from Storm down in florida. its a costom made dual coil flat line ant.
though i cant explain theorectically why it did so. i do have some thoughts,but i can say that it did so by 2 s-units thats a fact many locals here can atest to, yea i said 2s units. and it rx'ed about that same margine better as well.
the next best was a 7 foot firestick it was very close to the 102ss whip but was said to have a very slight "needles width" more signal but i sounded better on this than the 102 whip.
next after the 102ss whip were the wilsons down about 1 s unit under the 102 whip.the 1000,5000 seen no real differance between them. the sp3000 was about the same
workmans oil filled job was under those by about 1 s unit.
i can't say these will always test like this for everyone's vehical but its how it shacked out on my ford ranger 4x4.
all antennas were pre tuned to save time between changes "except for the wilson 1000 it was a magnet mount". all the rest used the same mount on my truck in the same location on the truck.
the stations receiving for me were from 1/2 mile to about 35-40 miles. to give me a realistic assesment of how they perform in real world txing and rxing.
i know 2 s units dont sit well with theory, and ill agree with that on paper. but in the field it does so! and i am more than willing to try this test out again with anyone that wants to sit with me while we do it.
as im just after a good antenna and will run whatever works the best no matter who makes it!
i get no check from storm for advertisement!
hum thiers a thought........ |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 2:40 pm: |
|
That's very true, Bigbob.
Alsworld.
No, no, no. I most certainly did not take your reply as being argumentive. I loved it.
Now. If you were to put a 102 where your MM is, you most certainly WOULD see, not MIGHT see, but WOULD see a difference in performance even though there is NO GAIN on either one of them. The 102 is simply a piece of wire cut to a quarter wavelength. ALL 102 INCHES OF IT RADIATE! The 102 will outperform the MM for two reasons. #1, the reason stated above and #2, it's MUCH longer. No further explaination need there.
---------------------------------
Next item.. Broadbanding.
You couldn't be more correct when you said, "Expecting a mobile antenna to cover such a wide range is reaching the unrealistic." I'm old enough to remember when the 102 was about the only antenna availible if a CBer wanted to go mobile. No one gave broadbanding a thought back then because you only had but 6-8 channels to play with. The 102 worked great for the handful of CBers that were mobile.
Moving up in years now, when the 40 channel radio came along, broadbanding became a serious issue because most of the coil-loaded antennas on the market barely covered the range or beyond. Firestik was one of the first to do some serious experimentation with wavelength and broadbanding. They became very competitive and a force to reckon with.
CB outbanders wanted antennas that would work on frequencies well beyond the range of the CB band. And as of today, many companys make antennas that will do just that. BUT, as in every band, there are limitations. The lower the band, the narrower the bandwidth. The higher the band, the wider the bandwidth. Every Ham knows that. It is much more difficult to design a broadbanded, coil-loaded mobile antenna than a base type antenna. I'm thinking that mobile antenna manufacturers are at about their limits about now.
Today, you need a gimmic and GREAT advertising in order to compete in the CB antenna market. You have to offer something that no one else has. Wanna make some money with me Al? Lets go in your garage and build a all-new mobile antenna for the CBers. We'll copy someone elses design but maybe make the big coil a little larger at one end and a little smaller at the other. We'll inodize the aluminum in pink and hire and advertising company to convince the CBers that our aluminum antenna, inodized in pink, radiates far better than one inodized in gold will. We'll tell them that it can handle 1.3 million watts and its frequency range is usable from 18.6-31.2 Mhz. Without mentioning gain, wavelength or broadband ability, it would sell, Al. Only because it's different. Shape, size and/or color always attract people.
----------------------------------
Next item... "joke" or "waste of money".
I will stand by that statement unless you are a serious competitor.
-----------------------------------
I'm quoting you again here..."For those wanting an antenna that can handle the power efficiently (aluminum moreso than stainless steel), these aluminum antennas can spit it out. Coils do reduce the height and only simulate a 1/4 whip, but if it's on top of a pickup truck, that may be a good thing compared to what overall height we can afford (referring to feet and inches, not $$$) Performance? It smoked my K40."
First off, Question.. What kind of power are you using that "requires" an antenna such as a Monkeymade? Most vehicles manufactured today do not have enough alternator in them that can easily handle a light-weight 600 watt amplifier and still have enough left over to operate the headlights and heater at the same time while trying to keep the battery up when there is such a trementous pull on it.
Second, aluminum will melt long before stainless steel will. But it sure is a lot lighter and cheaper. As far as "affordable height" goes, yes, your MM has a coil to reduce it's overall height. But please don't have the misconception of thinking that it does just as well as a 102 located in the same spot on your truck. You do not gain anything by shortening a 102 and putting a coil on it. But there definately is a reduction in hitting tree limbs.
-------------------------------
Quote again..."It smoked my K40".
Well, I would certainly hope so. K-40 Corp. never fully recovered from it's stroke since Wilson scared the bejeebies out of them. K-40s were built for 40 channel radios and work well when used there. Personally, as far as bottom coil-loaded antennas go, I would take any Wilson any day over a K-40. Until the Wilson was introduced, the K-40 was the best of the coil-loaded antennas. Wilson just plain out-designed them and then outperformed them.
---------------------------------
Quote...Competition. The original big coils were designed for that, but more of these "driveable" antennas are hitting the market.
Yes there are. But, why have so much metel on your roof to catch the air when there are so many other antennas with the same wattage capabilities to choose from?
----------------------------------
OK. You and I could go on and on about this big coil thing but it wouldn't really get us anywhere. You pretty much summed it up when you said that the looks of it sold you. Eye catching things (no matter what they are) attract peoples attention. It's things like that which help sell items. That antenna is for you and many others. It's not for me and many others.
In my opion, you unfairly compared your MM to your K-40. That's really not much of a comparison. There are many antennas out there that will eat a K-40 for breakfast. To be fair, the K-40 is a bottom loaded antenna and it should be compared with other bottom-loaded antennas. Your center-loaded MM should be compared with other center-loaded antennas.
Don't misunderstand me though. I never said and would never say that the Monkeymade is junk. Who knows? It just may be the very best competition antenna on the market. We both agree on this though....all antennas have their uses. Your 1/4 wave was designed and manufactured to perform in competion using EXTREMELY high wattage at relatively short distances. My 6 foot 1/2 wave Anttron was designed for a measley 1500 watts and perform at longer distantances.
I somewhat downgraded when I went from a 7 foot 5/8 wave Firestik, which is the best they have to offer, to a 6 foot 1/2 wave Anttron 1700. The reason? I saw verrrry little difference in range but I saw a BIG difference in the bandpass. That's the kind of stuff I look for in an antenna. PERFORMANCE and BANDPASS are very important to me.
------------------------------
I read your bottom line and understand where you are coming from. Hopefully you will read and understand my bottom line.
I have always judged antennas by what they were designed for and how they actually perform when compared to others that are designed for the same purposes. When I am forced to give up the heigth like what the 1/4 wave 102 has, I would then be looking for a 1/2 wave. The reason why the 102 performs so well is because all of the antenna is used.
It's bad enough that the 102 has such a high radiation angle, but it's length makes up for a lot of that. Cutting it down and adding a coil does nothing but shorten its talking distance. So how does one make up for that? A 1/2 wave or better yet, a 5/8 wave. What is the length of the whip on your Monkeymade? The coil does not radiate near as much as the whip does. If it did, mobile antennas wouldn't need the top whip.
And with that in mind, I'll leave you with this my friend. Performance wins over appearance every time, no matter what the wavelength may be.
73s for now Al.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
Alsworld
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Great explaination! And I'll agree again about performance vs appearance. Oddly enough, I usually run a barefoot Lincoln, but have a tiny kicker if I ever wanted to install it.
When I originally purchased the K-40, it was the hottest thing around. One month later, out came the Wilsons.
I would have put a 102" where my MM is, but it was just too high. I needed to compromise on the height, but to get as high as I could (my stopping point was low power lines crossing my driveway in Florida). As luck would have it, I moved up here and face the same problem, except these are lower I can't win for losing LOL!
Hey, I've got to run out of town for a few days, but thanks for the information. This turned out to be quite an educating post.
Take care and see ya'll Sunday on the air.
Alsworld |
Bigbob
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Speaking of antennas would Tech 833 care to shed some of his wisdom on the subject? |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Check out Coppers home page. Two types of big coil antennas right on the front page.
Kattracker
|
Tech808
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 8:33 pm: |
|
CHECK EM OUT!
http://www.copperelectronics.com/
Lon
Tech808 |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 9:27 pm: |
|
I forgot to mention a comment about the price in my last post, about the big coil type antennas that are on the front page of Copper Electronics.
Those prices that Copper is selling them for are a steal. Almost too good to be true. If you ever wanted one, better get it while you can.
I priced the exact looking antennas at a local retailer and the single coil was selling for $49.95 and the double coil was $59.95
No, I don't get a kick-back from Copper, nor do I work for them, but I know a good deal when I see one.
Kattracker |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Kattracker
Steal is an understatement. I wonder how Copper can sell them that cheap.
And I know that they aren't making very much on some of the radios that they run specials on.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
Pig040
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:44 am: |
|
Jeff,
I was running a two driving 6 x-force in my dodge truck with one extra battery, and a great big coil antenna, best swr I ever had, til the magnet mound melted! A friend and I were talking, and all of a sudden we could see the antenna leaning over the windshield! |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:42 am: |
|
Pig040
That's one of the reasons why I dislike magnetic mounts so much.
With a powerhouse setup like that, why wouldn't you be running a grounded antenna system?
Lol. I bet it did a number on your paint job under the magnet. Wish I had been there to see that antenna lay over. That had to be a sight.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
Bigbob
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Look,the mega-magnet mount from copper is the best you can buy,but lose the coax and little nylon adapter,shim up the middle bracket with 1 1/4"s of washers&longer bolts,install an so239 stud and mini-8 coax or full size rg-213,no problems and you can remove it in a snap. |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 1:06 am: |
|
Magnet mounts certainly have their place, but personally I am a direct mount guy myself.
I have had much better luck with direct mount.
Again, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good mag mount antennas out there. But when push comes to shove I will take a direct mount.
Except when I buy a NEW car or truck, maybe. If I ever do... Kinda hate to drill a brand new auto, but when it is 10+ years old like my truck, who cares. Drill the dang thing!
Kattracker |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Kattracker
Personally, I'd drill the hole whether it was new or not.
Let's say you bought a brand new truck and you knew the you would have it for at least the next 5 years. Having a magnet stuck to the roof for 5 years will eventually do a number on the paint even if you remove and clean it periodically.
Come trade-in time, the roof will look much neater with the availible flat rubber plug inserted into the hole than the faded and possibly rusted spot on the roof which will need a new paint job.
Like you, I too am a big fan of a fully grounded radio and antenna system. ESPECIALLY IF A AMPLIFIER WILL BE USED IN THE SYSTEM.
Just my thoughts.
73s Kat
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
Kattracker
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Good point Jeff. I never looked at it that way.
Kattracker |
Bullet
| | Posted on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 8:45 am: |
|
boy aint that the truth,discolor/rust under them no matter what. |
Bruce
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 9:19 am: |
|
hummmm
heres how they did for me
Frequency 29.6
mode FM
power 300 watts
antenna ham stick 7 foot
targart station from jail parking lot 10 miles
reading s9
change to 97 inch wip ( 1/4 wave)
reading +5db over 9
change to 50 inch base loaded motorola clone
reading s7
now this is not a antenna range just real life done to the same radio over a flat county with average obstruceions. As for " big coils" i tryed one it was like the monkey made and i found it also worked well BUT NO BETTER.
in short nothing wrong with a 1/4 wave wip. |
Tech833
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Fancypants.
What?? How is that possible on Earth?
Please send me an email with pictures and field technical data on this antenna you may have. My email is tech833 at copperelectronics.com and I am anxiously waiting. |
|
