| Author |
Message |
    
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 172
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 10:37 pm: | 
|
TECH 858, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE BOTH SO HOW DOES THE MONKEY MADE ANTENNA DO AGAINST THE WHIP.? WHICH IS THE BEST ON RECEIVE AND OR TRANSMIT? WHICH WOULD HAVE THE BETTER BAND COVERAGE AND SWR? |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - 1:44 pm: |
|
We just did a very extensive field test on an antenna range with a Monkey Made vs. a 102" whip. Gain numbers, bandwidth numbers, you name it. It was published int he Copper catalog a few months back. I do not know where to find it on the forum. Perhaps the forummaster will know the link.
Your radio 'Mythbuster' since 1998
|
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 173
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - 3:23 pm: |
|
I have been told different tale's about the monkey made antenna by different people. Some like it and swear by it and other's say you can not beat the 102" inch whip. I have owned the 102" inch whip antenna and I know how tough it is and how well it does. The only draw back I have on the whip is it bounce's around a lot and hit a lot of thing's. BUT, I SURE WISH I HAD SOME CONCRETE PROOF OF HOW IT DOES. WELL TECH 833, ONCE AGAIN I ALWAY'S THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUICK EFFORT AND RESPONSE IN TAKING CARE OF MY QUESTION'S. |
Dale
Senior Member
Username: Dale
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - 7:01 pm: |
|
im using a monkeymade mm9. it does very close
to a 102. seems the 102 has more bandwith.
but the swr on the 102 seems to be unstable
at highway speeds.signals both tx /rx seemed
to favor the 102 siutting still. but while
moving the monkey made was slightly better.
all in all for a dx antenna while parked
the 102 is great. on the open road and normal everyday driving i like the monkeymade.these are
my findings
dale/a.k.a.hotrod
cef426
cvc#64
|
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 175
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Dale, it has been a while. Thanks for the information. As it is with every radio operator, whether it is ham or cb we want to alway's do better and like to learn more about our hobby. |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 3:08 pm: |
|
OK, I discovered that the article appeared in the Copper Electronics print magazine only. it was never posted on the website.
Since your email address is hidden in your profile, I cannot email the whole article with pictures to you. But, if you're interested in seeing the article, I'd be glad to email it.
The catch is, you cannot share it with anyone else, it is still copyright Copper Electronics until further notice.
Over 16 antennas, including Wilson, Predator, Monkey made, Whiskey Still, etc. were tested against the 102" whip as a reference. In short, none "beat" the 102" whip on the antenna range in our tests, but a few were close!
FYI, the Monkey Made MM9 showed 92% efficiency compared to the 102" whip and a bandwidth of 2.570 vs. the 102" whip's 2.862.
Your radio 'Mythbuster' since 1998
|
Dale
Senior Member
Username: Dale
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 6:51 pm: |
|
tech 833 id love to see your results.
my email IS in my profile. are we in agreeance
the monkeymade mm9 did CLOSE to the 102.
its been a while now since i tested them
dale/a.k.a.hotrod
cef426
cvc#64
|
Forummaster
Moderator
Username: Forummaster
Post Number: 550
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 10:24 pm: |
|
I have finally posted the Big Coil antennas EXPOSED! that Tech833 is referring to. Tech833 did a lot of work and research on this article and I want to publicly apologize to him for not getting the article up on the forum sooner. I also want to thank him for all the work he does on the forum as he truly is the 'myth buster'.
You can find his article under :
Subscriber (Preview) » Articles » Big Coil antennas EXPOSED!
Forummaster
CEF001
CVC001
|
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 1:18 am: |
|
No apology necessary, my good man. Just happy to be of service.
The article was changed and images deleted, etc. so much, I think we all lost track of where it was in production. In the first few drafts, each antenna name was a link to a picture of it mounted on the test jig at the range, lots of pics in and on the lab, etc. It was so huge, it would have taken days to download!
With help of the other techs like 237 and 808 (SK), we cut and trimmed it down to a manageable size, then kinda left it. I still wasn't happy with it since without all the images, it didn't seem to make as much sense, but 808 and FM assured me that it was fine, and when it came out in print, he was absolutely right.
I still have the huge, image filled version on my hard drive, but after seeing it without all that fluff, I have to admit, it looks just fine.
This was the most extensive and time consuming project I have ever done for Copper Electronics. The ground work and fact-finding took over a month. Chasing down interviews, getting permission to print quotes and facts and images, another month. The field testing alone took nearly a month. Then compiling, formatting, etc. took weeks of sweat and perspiration. Nobody had ever attempted something this extensive and fact-based for the CB antenna market before, and we broke a lot of new ground and shattered a lot of long-standing myths. Thanks again for all of your help, I couldn't have done it without you.
But, I have a feeling this effort will help a lot of people I will never have the pleasure of meeting, for a very long time.
Your radio 'Mythbuster' since 1998
|
|
