| Author |
Message |
    
fdirsh
| | Posted on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 4:33 pm: | 
|
I had an occasion to meet a gentleman today in the course of my job that had an antenna system that I have never saw before.
Although the man would not tell me anything about the measurments I did get a lil info from him.
This is what he had. He had a ball mount on top of his van with two solorcon 1.4 K antennas. The stingers (tuning rods) were longer than normal and appeared to be from wilson 1000s. The antennas were mounted about 6 inches...I say 6 inches apart. The gentleman would not give any measurements on the mount only stating it was a double antenna mount.
From what I saw there was a piece of flat aluminum about 6 to 9 inches long. It was attached to the ball mount with a bolt. Like a T. The bolt was thru the center into the mount. On each end was an antenna. The gentleman said that the SWR was 1.2 and it took alot of work to get it there. He said that the ears were 2db more than his base running an A-99.
He said that it was the best mobile system he had ever seen.
My question is how can this work, and work as well as he stated. It looked good too. He did say that the measurements had to be exact. |
bruce
| | Posted on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 6:25 pm: |
|
I dont want to sound like i doubt him but 2 db more than a a99..... i dont think so.
1) how did he measure it?
2) was both antennas in the same place line of sight to a signal sorse and how did he calabtate the meter he was using??? to NBS or JOGUNN.
There is a rule the longer a antenna is the better it works to 3/4 wave.so it is not likely a 1/4 wave will work better that a 1/2 wave unless something is NOT equal.
Bruce |
Taz
| | Posted on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 9:06 pm: |
|
No way not from a mobile. |
ss8541
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 12:00 am: |
|
if you all noticed, he said the 'EARS' were 2db better than an antron 99. yes the question still remains as to how he measured this, and many other questions. and i doubt that there is anyway this setup would hear better than a 99 unless it was laying down in his yard.
-but- his rx capabilites would increase with this set up. since they are only 6" apart, on transmit they look like one wide diameter antenna to the outgoing rf. this wider diameter will most likely make the antenna more broadbanded, but harder to tune like stated above since each individual antenna has to be exactly like the other. although tx bandwidth is increased, tx gain will not be. atleast not by any increase that would be worth noting.
for rx, the gain would be noticeable and worth noting. the reason is because you now have twice the 'capture area' for the incoming signal. 3 or 4 antennas in a set up like this would increase this gain even more. and this is why he said, the 'ears' were 2db better. |
bruce
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 7:52 am: |
|
ss8541 Capture area of this setup might be some what better but at 6 inches the coupling of the antennas would as you stated lower Q and broadband the system and i think the net effect would be to cancle most captuer gain out. Now in my work on 50-1300 meg systems where capture area becomes a problem to gain much the elements must be phased ans spaced corectly a VERY good example are colinear arrays I ran on 2 and 440 the cushcraft DX arrays 80 elm on 440 and 20 on 2 meters they were for all in effect 4 stacked 3 elm beams each per 20 elem array. They would pick up things a beam of the same gain had no chance at since you had 4 driven elements looking at 4 places in the sky. I this case of closely stacked antennas i feel it would have little or no value and if you dont get transmitt gain you will not get recive gain since they are too close. I would love to see a controled test but i cant beleve its anything more than show. |
Fdirsh
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 10:34 am: |
|
I am not sure about the exact spacing but they appeared to be about 6" apart.
The gentleman said it was a double antenna mount?
Now that I am noticing I have seen several around here in the last day mostly on vans and pick- ups.
The gentleman said it received better than his
A-99. I am not sure whether he meant when he was sitting on one of these hill tops or not. |
Motorhead
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 10:55 am: |
|
Am I correct in inferring from the tone of your original post that he wouldn't REVEAL any measurements or particulars about this set-up?
Did he envision himself to have a matter of National security on his vehicle?
Think it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. |
Taz
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 11:52 am: |
|
did he take the same radio from hin a99 into the vehicle and look at the meter? I doubt it. |
Phineas
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 1:18 pm: |
|
I agree with MotorHead.
Almost nothing has a better receive than a wire. On a mobile, I have proven that time and time again. If you want a better receive, figure out how to run a wire for your counterpoise(Ground) rather than use your vehicle as you only ground.
All he is going to do is make his system more broadbanded, and change his radiation pattern. In theory this will also add inductive reactance to the line. That is why his stingers are longer, probably to increase the Capacitive reactance in the line to tune the antenna. He will gain nothing accept his recieve pattern is going to be a little more broad, but you will never gain anything adding reactance to any antenna. This is where I agree with bruce. If you want gain, and you want to double your radiating area, you will have to capacitive couple the antennas, or make your antenna longer. This way you would not lower the radiating efficiency of the antenna, or add reactance.
I hate to hear when people are trying to get over. This goes to prove that even a CBer can have a superiority complex...lol ESPECIALLY when he doesnt know what he is talking about.
Phineas |
bruce
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Everyone knows my pet peve is riping off people i feel if a product is knowingly sold with false clames there should be a way to recover your money..... you know like too little AUDIO GAIN ? |
Taz
| | Posted on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 7:07 pm: |
|
hahaha |
ss8541
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - 9:31 pm: |
|
here is something to think about.
an antenna will only rx the rf energy within a 1/4w of the antenna(1/4w on each side to really make a 1/2w). rf also obeys the inverse square law. 2 cophased antennas of the same type when mounted vertically above one antoher will rx 4 times the rf energy as 1 antenna of the same type(this is in a perfect system where the 2 antennas patterns are not changed). you would think 2 times as much, but because of the inverse square law, it is 4 times. the same goes for horizonally cophased antennas but their pattern is changed much more by the interaction of the 2 antennas.(this is all textbook theory, no tests on my ends to confirm).
so now the question remains as to how this works into the mystery antenna system at hand. yes on tx the close proximity of the antennas cause a 'cancelling' effect that makes the 2 look like one antenna to the rf current. -but- on rx, the only currents present in the antennas are the ones caused by the 1000's of signals that the antenna is rxing(the rxer picks the one out of the bunch that it wants and the rest, well..may be ignored, cause desense, imd's, etc). so since the antenna width is changed, then there is slightly more rf energy than a 1/4w on each side that is being absorbed. the question is how much will this effect the systems rx.
tech833, chillydog, 307, any input(i think all of you are engineers and possibly have tests to support or shoot down)??? i would like to see what you have to say. this is something i haven't been confronted with until now, so as a growing tech, i would like to see all points(bruce has already made a good one). i keep one hand on a book and one on a test bench, and still haven't learned all that i want to learn. |
Fdirsh
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 4:12 pm: |
|
OK. I researched today and this is what I found.
The mount is a Pro Trucker Dual Antenna Mount. It is 8" long. The SO 239's are taken off each end of the bracket and a hole is drilled in the middle of the bracket for a bolt to fasten it to the mount. The antennas are Solorcon 1.2K's with 62" wilson 1000 tuning rods. The antennas are fastened to each end of the bracket by simply putting a nut on the bottom of the antennas after putting them thru the holes. With 62" tuning rods the SWR is close. 1.1 on Channel 1 and 1.5 on channel 40. Antenna spacing is critical so when drilling the hole in the center of the mount it must be exactly in the middle. From what I understand you can "X" two of these mounts and use 66" tuning rods with 4 antennas.
Guy who is running this showed me how it worked. He had an I-MAX 32 feet. He broke a man down the road and we looked at the signal it was 3 pounds. We took the radio outside and put it in his truck. The guy was putting 5 pounds on us. The guy said that he has seen it actually double in coming signal and he has actually heard people on his truck when he could not hear them on his base.
I went and bought a double mount. I am gonna get 2 antennas and try it. I saw it work for him and we'll see if it works for me. He said he learned about it from LeAnn Rymes' Dad who got it from Texas somewhere. If the 2 antennas work for me I am gonna try four. |
bruce
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 6:57 pm: |
|
fdirsh
im not a beliver if it worked Lawson, the ARRL and west all would have it in a handbook.
1) To get a real measurment the antennas would have to been the same spot looking at a line of sight sourse
2) everything ive seen in the last 40 years tells
me that that close they would cancle each other out
3) show me it under controled conditions i MIGHT change my mind.
BRUCE |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I just ordered 2 1.2K antennas. Like I said i'm gonna try it.
He said it splits the signal. Ex. 10 watts out of radio...5 watts to each antenna. Double the recieve? 1.1 SWR, how does it cancel one or the other out? Maybe it is not in your book because no one has tried it. |
bruce
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Fdirsh if you mount them about 4 foot apart and run a phasing harnes with switching stubs and you will form a 2 elm array i have the instuctions to do that and will email them to you. As for not in my book thats right its not and i have no reason because its not in my book to beleve it will work. SPLITING a signal WILL NOT give double recive not spaced like they are there is too much inter action.
Now when you get them let me know and lets see you measure how much diffrence it makes.
e-mail for instructions for phasing
wa4gch@yahoo.com |
CZAR
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 10:13 pm: |
|
I worked for firestick here in phoenix a few years ago and all I have to say about this antenna and this guy who has this set-up is BULL...T.They would cancel each other,plain and simple.But if you believe it I am selling my "oceanfront property in arizona"let me know how much you want to give me for it {about 8 million to start ?} |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:35 pm: |
|
The thing about it is they are not co-phased. It is just one antenna. Think about it. To look at it, it looks like two but there is only one feed line and one mount. The whole bracket is hot. How could one councel the other out? Its only really one antenna. I saw it work. I'm gonna try it. We'll see ! I've now talked to 6 people that are running this set up. From what I see...it works. |
Scrapiron63
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 5:43 pm: |
|
I've seen those close spaced dual antennas for many years, the first was in the '70s, they made a mount for two steel whips. People that ran them swore by'em. I never tried'em, one whip flopping around was enough for me, and when they came out with a good baseload, I quit the whips. Those two whips mounted a few inches apart on a toolbox in a pickup were something different anyway. They caught your eye. People that didn't go thur the CB craze of the 1970s wouldn't believe what people would do, trying to talk a little better. I've seen late model Lincolns, Caddies and other high priced cars with a whip mounted on each rear quarter panel, or two whips with the chain-type mounts on the rear bumper. I remember several late model cars with a 102 inch steel whip mounted right in the center of the roof. Now those were talkers, looked like hell, but they were broadcasting. scrapiron |
bruce
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 5:47 pm: |
|
fdirsh
I have a rule i tell my CB friends and only FRIENDS ....... If its not in the ARRL books ... Or in the books by Bill Orr ..... or in books by RSGB... or by Dr. Lawson or in books by gordon west the chances are 99.9999999% its cr**. Now i have no problem with what you are saying but i feel when all is said and done youll have wasted time and money. I have been a ham long enough to have seen a lot of screwy ideas come and go and if you and the 6 others measure this to NBS standards you going to find im right
Bruce |
Bigbob
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 8:13 pm: |
|
The guy obviously has the time and money to play with this thing,so I say more power to him.Be sides I gotta question,I need an inducter thats a dead short to 60 hertz and a complete open to 27 mega-hertz,any ideas? |
bruce
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Well good question now i had that problem too it was something called parallel resonace. Strange effect when the RL = RC and the coil goes nuts and the only limiting facter is the losses sometimes it can get into the MEG ohm range! It does have a use Bigbob you can drain off static charge with it or even it you want too tap up / down on the turns to match things neet Ha? |
Bigbob
| | Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:48 pm: |
|
YOU got it bruce,static charge!you know how many micro-henrys this coil is I NEED ONE BAD.PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE. |
CatmanKZZA1806
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 8:33 pm: |
|
well that idea sounds cool but i'll stick with my little antenna. i might try something like that. I would like to learn more about stuff like that. someone have some info share |
HoosierCardinal
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 8:38 pm: |
|
bruce...
Anything JO GUN says is 999999999999.99% BS too!
Hmmm wonder if that guy said his antenna had audio gain too? Beter than a A 99 LOL.
Helooooooooo Jo Gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
bruce
| | Posted on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 10:23 pm: |
|
HOOSIER
THE FACTS OF ANTENNA
1) Gain is derived by changing the lobe.
2) the amount of gain is a funion of number of elm
and boom lengh
4) and if it is TOTALY NEW never done before its totaly Junk |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Well got my antennas today. So I hooked'em up!!
SWR 1.2 all the way across the band from 26.515 to 27.855
It seems to receive as well my antron 99. I am impressed. I have them on a ball mount thru the roof of my 1992 Isuzu truck.
I'm gonna run it a while and report back. |
bruce
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 4:52 am: |
|
fdirsh
The only way to see whats going on it to do it with the right equiptment. " Seems to recive" is ok as a check to see if its working at all but to REALY see you must have a calabrated standard or all is hearsay. Now when you get that far then we have something usefull ..... im not being mean just laying out the facts too much on CB is GOLLY IT SEEMS TO HAVE 40 DB of gain! As for bandwidth Just over 1 MHZ sounds about right although 1.2/1 FLAT hummmmmm. Bruce |
Kirk
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 10:27 am: |
|
I agree with Bruce. Lots of guys think they have this "secret antenna." I knew a guy who swore he had this "magic beam: antenna and would never let anyone look at his specs. I saw them a few years later...nothing somebody else didn't already have. Just like JoGunn, lets bend the rules of science to make exhorborant claims! I'm glad to see that most of us on this post can spot this kind of thought a mile away. If it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is. That phrase hasn't changed much. 73 |
HoosierCardinal
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 4:24 pm: |
|
bruce...
You got it 100% on the nose!!!! |
2600
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 2:31 am: |
|
Screw the measurements and stuff. I want a look at his "Ears Meter". I want one of those.
More "Cargo Cult Engineering", I'd say.
73 |
bruce
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 8:31 am: |
|
2600 your right now how do we calabrate the ears? |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 1:52 pm: |
|
You calibrate the ears with a jumper to the rectumifier. The current must be 220 volts.
Your capture area may need a shot of solder near the upper most portion of the antenna head that way your TX (projectile) has maximum penetration and sends liquid audio world wide. |
123upmichigan
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 8:00 pm: |
|
i wonder if this secret antenna priciple is somewhat along the lines of someone i talked to dx land from texas..i.e. buckeye 1 in buckeye texas. he told me he was running a straight six elements with dual gamma's. not i did not think dual feedpoints on the same beam, same polorization would make a diffrence. but he said it made the world. now i am not a sucker for every idea i hear but i kinda wonder if it would work. or if the cophasing harness in the vertical six to 2 feed points would just cancel each other out and if it would be really worth the trouble. would not 2 ffed points cause resonance for that antenna and put it up in the second harmonic? just wonderin , he did not want to talk when i started to ask him the tech stuff. well take care all happpy dxin' 123 upper michigan operator sam |
bruce
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 8:14 pm: |
|
dual gamas has been used before it makes some diffrence IN MATCHING but gain wise VERY small
2 wips 8 inches apart will do nothing except help BANDWIDTH............. If someone can show ME a 2 S unit gain thats 12 DB MEASURED ill eat my words as will every antenna book printed in the last 50 years! |
123upmichigan
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 9:04 pm: |
|
ok was just wondering if hit really made a diffrence, wanted to dsee if buckeye one was onto something or just pissin in the wind. i am a firm beleiver in the arrl antenna book myself and live bye the book antenna wise. but. telegraph used to be the only way then someone invented radio and i waa completely new. just wonder if sometimes something new will come along and revolutionize antenna's as we see it. just remember computerds used to take upo rooms not just desks. lol take care 123 upper michigan operator sam |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Well i've been running the antennas a few days and although the RX is better than a single antenna , all reports are that the modulation is better with one antenna. I will give up an s unit in RX any day to be heard especially at great distances. One antenna on the truck the other on my hunting ATV. No big deal. |
bruce
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 6:50 pm: |
|
fdirsh
There is no way a antenna is going to effect MODULATION dont pull a JOGUNN. You know i beleve in FACTS and the only way to get them is to have a way to MEASURE them. You state recive is better but how did you measure it what equiptment did you use how was it calabreated to NBS what standard? How dod you control your field was it line of sight to the external rec/trx site and did that sight have the same standards you had ???
Im not knocking YOU this is a great example of CB grapevine why did you hear fdirsh got better modulation with 1 ANTENNA ! See CBer's are always getting ripped off and im one who dosnt like seeing that and i will tell you when its not going to work! Well at least you have 2 antennas to play with hey i learn too by what i do and im not afrade to pass it along even if i FAIL in what i was doing.
Bruce |
Tech671
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 5:59 am: |
|
Bruce,
I'll have to disagree on this one with you. A few years ago a friend and I tested the Wilson 5k base load MM against it's new competitor called "Big Bubba". The Bubba acually had lower swr and reflect, but had a hint of distortion in the tx audio compared to the Wilson. No, not scientific tests with multi-thousand dollar equipment, but repeatable results nonetheless. |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 7:01 am: |
|
Bruce,
E-mail me. We need to talk. |
bruce
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 12:17 pm: |
|
671 sounds like a bad solder joint some sort of rectification but i would like to see it in a peice of test equiptment.
My E-MAIL WA4GCH@YAHOO.COM |
Scrapiron63
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Back when I was selling and installing lots of mobile antennas, and checked them against each other with the old 'how do I sound' method, I've had that same thing happen, one would have a better sounding modulation, although the SWR's might be the same. Later, I bought a good antenna analyzer, and really got confused, ha, but did find out you can have a good SWR reading, but the resistance might be + or - from 50 ohms quite a bit. The idea, according to MFJ, is to get the lowest swr, at 50 ohms, at the frequency you do most of your talking. This will not be true over several bands. If your tuned for 27.000, you might have a good swr on 27.500, but the resistance might be at 100-150 ohms, or even at 25 ohms. Could this resistance mismatch cause the difference in how the modulation sounds, I don't have a clue, but its a thought. Oh yeah, I sold the MFJ to a Ham operator friend, he worries about stuff like that more than I do, it gave me a headache, but the analyzer is nice in setting up antennas. scrapiron |
bruce
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Scrap what your decribing is the coax MASKING the swr. The analizer would tell you your ant is not correct and what you would be looking at would be a inefective antenna. How ever MODULATION is not a function of the antenna I have seen VERY high SWR cause detunning of the transmitter but still in a AM transmitter MODULATION takes place by changing the voltage to the output and sometimes driver stages at a audio rate and have nothing to do with the antenna. I would like to see someone MEASURE a change in modulation .....not output caused by the antenna directly. Again if you could increase modulation with antenna design everyone would be doing it.
Bruce |
Motorhead
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 10:49 pm: |
|
MODULATION affected by the antenna element???
How would the antenna make a difference in the parameters of the audio circuit?
Sounds like someone needs to polish the outer jacket of their co-ax with some armor all to
"adjust their swr's".
But then i have heard folks advise that the most important piece of their station was the "leenearr" and that the co-ax and antenna weren't anything to worry about as long as you had enough "faaaar in yer waaaar".
While I'm at it, who came up with the saying "readin the mail" ?
Better yet, what does "rockin the mail" mean?
Why does everyone try to speak in a Southern US accent on the radio?
Why Why Why????
Thanks
Until my next tirade,
Motorhead |
The Beserker
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 3:38 am: |
|
since every time antennas are compared here and we always hear about the NBS standards, and how did you measure things, how about inlighting us all in how we can test these antennas our selves at home and not in a lab!(step by step)(can you!)
pass on this awesome knowlege so we can all make meaningfull measurements to back up our down on the farm in the real world findings.
can you do this,without us having to buy thousands of dollars worth of test gear? if not dont be so critical on some of thier simple testing. its not fair and its not good form to do so.
besides the only place we should worry about better performance is in real world conditions not in the lab or on paper! cant shoot skip there! |
bruce
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Ok how about your moble or base to another moble or base ? Well one way and this is not a real good way but it will give some measurement of change is to if you change the powers of both radios using a good watt meter starting at .5 watt and going up ,5 watt at a time to 4 watts and RECORDING meter readings on your radio now you have a scale of change NOW when you change antennas you can also change power and referance it to the orignal antenna so lets say 1 watt is "S" 7 on the first antenna and "s" 8 on the 2nd one and you know that it took 2 watts to get "S" 8 on that first antenna that would tell you that the 2nd ant is 3 DB better than the first. Again not lab standards but a real world diffrence. MY gripe is people make statments baced on poor measurements and no controls. If you cant repeat it and have some sourt of scale it shows its junk data. My rule of Antennas is this IF it can be done and can be measured you will find it in one of the books ( ARRL, RSGB, WILLIAM ORR or W5YI ) If you dont find it there ask your self why? |
Fdirsh
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 2:45 pm: |
|
I have figured out that arguing antennas is like arguing religion. There is never a best antenna like there is never a best religion. One says Tomato and so one. One says his daddy came from an ape all leading to opinion. Some opinions are stated on fact and others some would argue. What is fact? Fact in some peoples opinion are in black and white. Fact is some peoples opinion are hands on experiences that are working for them that dont work for others. Guess its kinda like cars in a way. Take 2 just alike, one will out run the other. Same with antennas twin sisters, and Radios. No ones right no ones wrong as long as it works. Anything can happen all you have to do is believe even if you cant see sometimes.
I sometimes see things in my job that are totally impossible to believe but they happen! ....and I never saw anyhting in the book that said unbelievable could'nt happen it just documented a few things that did and someboday took the time to write them down. |
bruce
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Fdirsh
There is no argument I never intended to start one. Ive worked in electronics for almost 40 years and defence electronice for 20 of that and enginering for almost 14 years. The ONLY way you can tell if there is a improvement is with a base line and some scale of measurement. I never question things that fall within the window of it's been done before and documented only things that someone clames to have a secert antenna or it off the accepted scale of givin gain. Besides JOGUNN my all time best add was run as a joke and it says it all.
NEW IMPROVED 2 METER RUBER DUCKY 186 DB of gain*
* referanced
Over a wet non resent noodle down a 1000 foot well!
Thats my point junk data is USELESS again if it ant in any books red flags should go up.
Bruce |
fdirsh
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 8:18 pm: |
|
There is an argument anytime there are oposing opinions of numerous facts. Thats in anything from probable cause to NASCAR.
The first guy I asked about the antenna system didn't want to discuss it, plain and simple. The Owner of the C.B. shop gladly discussed it to sell two antennas and a mount. It worked good for me with just a radio in line. SWR was fine. I could talk as far as I could hear. I added an amp and the swr between the radio and amp was 2.1 The station I spoke with that said the single wilson antenna sounded like it had more modulation than the two may or may not have been correct. Then again there may have been some truth to it. There is probably less resistance into one matched antenna on TX than there is in two of them even though the capture area for two would possibly create better RX. I wouldn't know because the guy at the CB shop didn't tear that page out of his book and make me a copy of course Bill Gates didn't tear me a page out of his book when I bought windows, he just gave me enough info to show me it worked. |
bruce
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Fdirsh
THE SINGLE SOUNDED LIKE IT HAD MORE MODULATION could he have ment it sounded STRONGER yes you would because the 2/1 match ill bet went down and your signal up. CAPTURE area is bunk in this case the antennas are FAR too close. Its like this this guy is tring to do something that DEFIES the given laws of antennas in short he is full of c*** "The Owner of the C.B. shop gladly discussed it to sell two antennas and a mount. " Shure its money to him i cant fault him for selling you 2 antennas he makes a living selling. Back in the early 80's when i worked at Sperry microwave in engineering i worked with THE BEST antenna engineer who i ve ever seen Lary Rainwater this guy was in charge of building antenna systems at 96GHZ and i was his tech for 3 years we even had fun with JOGUNN audio gain to Larys dieing day he chuckled over that one. The facts are simple these HUSH HUSH only i know how to do it things are 99 % of the time junk. I say again if its not in the ARRL, RSGB, BILL ORR, and W5YI books chances are there is a good reason. |
