| Author |
Message |
    
Kid_vicious
Junior Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | 
|
i currently run an antron 99 on a 5 foot mast mounted in the bed of my pickup. (not while moving!) i read on firestik's site that they have a redesigned top section for the A-99. it supposedly gives a lower radiation angle and blah, blah, blah. has anyone tried or tested these things? i am considering buying a "top one" antenna from copper, as the top of my A-99 sits at about 26 feet from the ground. i would like to know what some of you have done to upgrade the top one. i have read that the hardware is substandard, and would like to get SS hardware for it. being a metal fabricator, i might even weld it! J/K any input is welcome.
thanks in advance.
matt. |
Kid_vicious
Junior Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 10:31 pm: |
|
oh, c'mon, nobody has seen the firestik website?
maybe the gurus are on the radio tonite. wish i was but i'm at work. |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 3949
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Kid_vicious,
Sorry but I cannot offer any help on this one as I have never used a top one or found any reason to modify an A99.
I would guess the best way to Modify one is to Pitch it and get an IMAX-2000.
Lon
Tech808 |
Oldpirate
Junior Member
Username: Oldpirate
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Hi kid, Don't waste your money on that firestik tip they are absolutely useless. I was like you and read the hype on them and got suckered.
we were using it on a cobra 148 driving a Palomar tx250 (255 watts), swr was matching well at 1.3 to 1 and we got a few good contacts so all seemed okay. Next morning tuned up and swr was way out and couldn't be corrected, pulled A99 down to find a nice burn't hole the size of a pin head in the windings went back to the standard A99 tip and no problems using the same equipment.
I agree with Lon, pay the extra money and go for the Imax 2000
Murray CEF295 |
Kid_vicious
Junior Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:55 am: |
|
thank you both so much. i have been reading the reviews here and the concensus seems to be that if the tip of the antenna is less than 30 feet above ground then the top one is the best choice.
i do like the imax and have heard many good things about it. will i really notice the difference? because if the difference is negligable then i'll go with the imax. reason being, i take down and put up my antenna each time i go on the air.
thanks again guys.
matt. |
Crafter
Senior Member
Username: Crafter
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 2:59 pm: |
|
There has been all types of ideas, Im sure some of you have had a ole Big Stick and used a steel whip or a AKO100 up there on top. I know I did when the top got broke.
It's going to be tough to improve on any solarcon antenna. |
Oldpirate
Junior Member
Username: Oldpirate
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Kid,
I purchased an A99 and a Shakespear NBS2010 21ft 5/8 (unfortunately no longer made) and as luck would have it my neighbour next door had just put up the imax 2000, there was significant improvement in transmit and receive with the shakespear and imax over the A99 (usually about 1 to 1.5 s units. All antennas were mounted with the tips at the same height (50ft above the ground), horizontal separation between the shakespear and the A99 was 30ft and the imax was 55ft away from the other two. Working skip there appeared to be nothing between the imax and the Shakespear but I have a friend who lives about fifty miles away on the other side of a mountain range (1500ft), my friend was using low power (12 watts pep) could not hear him on the A99 but was heard on the imax but very weak and hardly understood but on the shakespear could hear every word. Feedlines (40ft) on the A99 and shakespear were both RG213 but the imax was using
rg58 of a similar length, I just wonder if this difference would of had some effect on the results of this test results. Maybe Bruce or Lon might be able to shed some light on the effects of heavy verses light coax for receive. My friend reported with his reception there was nothing in it between the imax and the shakespear but he could not hear the A99.
The reason I purchased 2 antennas is I wanted one for our home and one for our beach house.
After reading a lot of posts on the forums on the A99 and the creating TVI I decided to mount the shakespear at our home QTH where local tv transmits on 55mhz (nice harmonic of 27), put the A99 up at the beach house where the lowest tv band is on 175mhz and no problems. Hope this helps with your questions.
Murray (CEF295) |
Kid_vicious
Junior Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 8:43 pm: |
|
thanks oldpirate, i think im going to go with the A99 because of price. take it easy.
matt. |
Ae548
Junior Member
Username: Ae548
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:23 am: |
|
I put a wilson silver load 4" on top of a imax 2000. It works great! Better band width _ lower swr. Between 26-28 Mhz 1.3 |
Racer X (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:46 am: |
|
My dummy load has a VSWR of 1.1:1 from 500KHz to 500MHz, but it's not a very good antenna.
A 5/8 wave antenna has gain because of the physical size of it's radiator, not it's electrical length. Shortening it simply takes away the reason you bought it over a 1/2 wave antenna - the gain. |
Rick330man
New member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Back to the original question: is the Firestik top an improvement over the stock 3rd section? I have a few antennas here including a 1/2 wave Big Stick, an old Radio Shack 1/2 wave crossbow and two A99s. The stock A99 gets out better than the crossbow and the receive is about the same. The Firestik top section made no difference in the transmit or receive performance with one exception: less static and ground noise. I could not get the improved output performance claimed by Firestik. |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 812
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
thanks for the input rick; although if you check the dates on this thread, it is from last year.
i purchased a top one antenna instead and am very very happy with it. to see how happy, check my thread titled, "top one at 44'"
matt |
Rick330man
New member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Yeah, I know about the timing, but I didn't have anything to report until recently. And I didn't want to report until I had some time to set up some actual field tests.
I literally set up two antennas at a time. I'd go to the stock A99, then the crossbow, then the Big Stick, then the modded A99. I also made sure the result were consistent by using stations at various distances and in different directions. It was a lengthy ordeal. In the end, I was a bit disappointed that I did not see some degree of improvement on the transmit end. But I can't say I was all that surprised because - like Racer X noted - the length of the resonsant vertical radiator is key.
I'll check out your post.
73s. |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 826
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
ive heard that a .64 or a 7/8 wave are the lowest radiation angles. would love to try one someday.
thanks for the report,
matt |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 8344
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Kid_vicious,
Get an IMAX 2000 .64 Omni. 
WE LOVE OURS. 
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 835
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
i would love one, but i cant use it in my current location.
the reason the top one is so great here is that if it falls; it wont fall on the neighbors' house.
matt |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
KV-
A .64 (or .625) wave antenna has a MUCH lower angle of radiation than a 7/8 wave.
As you approach a full wave, the pattern turns into a '4-leaf clover' shape and actually has negative gain on the horizon. However, they do work extremely well on short hop DX. |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 841
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
thanks 833, when i hear something from you, i know i can file it away and swear by it later.
im guessing there isnt going to be much short hop DX for the next few years, so my next antenna will definitely be a .64 wave.
thanks,
matt |
Rick330man
New member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
It is too bad they don't make them anymore, but I had one of those old Radio Shack Archer aluminum .64 base antennas. Definitely the best talking barefoot antenna I ever owned. Very impressive performance.
As for the full wave radiation pattern, for a while I cheated and ran two 1/4 wave stainless steel whips just above my roof cophased 36' apart. Not quite the same thing. My SWRs were 1.4 to 1.6 across 11 meters. I saw that four leaf clover effect TECH 833 mentioned. It suited me perfect because I actually wanted to push stronger signals due north, due south and due east. It was an interesting experiment, but I found any good 1/2 wave or 5/8 wave base station antenna to beat it. My next set of experiments will be with cophasing 1/2 wave base station antennas.
Its probably easier to just buy a good .64, but it ain't quite as much fun as the experimenting. |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 8361
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Rick330man ,
IMAX 2000 Base Antenna
A Quote from Tech833's Review of the IMAX 2000:
Imax 2000 Exposed (REVIEW)
(I was very surprised to find that the Imax 2000 is not a 5/8 wave as advertised. The Imax 2000 is actually a .64 wave! The .64 wave is one of the best kept secrets in CB and 10 meter antennas.)
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Freebird
Intermediate Member
Username: Freebird
Post Number: 307
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 1:30 am: |
|
fire stick's are junk try a 102" steel whip on the top thats what i did and it will never break unlike a firestick will. |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 846
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
freebird, there is no magic that makes the A99 resonate, it is basically a vertical dipole with a tuning mechanism. the top section is just a 6 foot piece of copper wire inside a fiberglass shell. putting a 102" whip on top will make the antenna resonant at a lower frequency then it was designed for.
this is why i was asking last year how firestik could make the claim that their replacement would increase performance. i found out they were out and out lying.
matt |
Rick330man
Junior Member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Freebird:
Just want to make sure I'm following you. Are you running an A99 with a 102" whip for the top section? If you are, how does it get out; what are your SWRs like; are you using a tuner in line; what other mods did you have to make to get this to work?
Thanks. |
Road_warrior
Advanced Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 987
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
A friend of mine tried the Fire-up 99
replacement antenna./ Waste of money!/
JIM/PA/CEF 375 |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 3262
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
If you change the length of the A-99 from 72 to 102 all you would do is lower the frequency not increase gain.
A 5/8 wave is the highest gain vertical antenna unless you STACK elements such as a ringo ranger which uses 3 5/8 waves stacked with a phaseing stub between them.
Gain is about 6 DBI about 4 DBD.
|
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 897
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:01 am: |
|
i tried to tell 'em bruce! LOL
this all started when Secret CB put a picture of a K40 whip on top of a bigstick and claimed that it increased the gain.
oh well, just make sure you use EXACTLY 18' of coax when running a 102" whip on top of an antron99.
matt |
Road_warrior
Advanced Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 998
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Instead of anyone wasting money on different
Top sections for the A-99. Upgrade to a
Imax 2000 if you want a fiberglass antenna
with better performance than the A-99.
JIM/PA/CEF 375 |
Sinker
Intermediate Member
Username: Sinker
Post Number: 280
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
I am a little lost on this one.
Are not both the Imax 2000 and the A-99 made by Solarcon?
The ground plane kit for the A-99 looks to be of a better design, where as the one for the Imax 2000 appears to be more of an after thought.
I consistently hear better things about the Imax 2000.
What is the difference between these two antennas?
Tim
CEF-634 |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 8517
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Sinker,
Solarcon Antron A-99
18 Fiberglass Base Antenna
1/2 wavelength
1000watts power handleing
Color - White
Set SWR with adjustable rings
Note: SWR rings preset from factory
Three 6 sections just screw together for easy assembly.
Mount and mast not included
Solarcon I-MAX 2000
24' Fiberglass Base Antenna
5/8 wavelength
2000 watts powe handeling
Three 8' sections just screw together for easy assembly
Mounts to antenna mast with included U bolts.
Set SWR by adjusting tuning ring
SWR rings are preset from factory
Mount and mast not included
SO-239 coax connector on bottom
Hope this helps.
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Sinker
Intermediate Member
Username: Sinker
Post Number: 281
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Well, honestly I do not know all the specifics but this definitely explains a lot. I am thinking of getting an Imax 2000 with GPK to store away for when I need it. I figure it is only a matter of time before weather takes mine down and it sounds like the Imax can take a beating.
Still want to go with a setup like Tech291 has for now though. That set up looks great and sounds like it works as good or better than it looks.
Thanks |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 901
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
looks like im going to have to make my little jokes more obvious!
no one should replace the top element of an A99 with anything but a 6' whip. (not a firestik!)
tim, the difference between the A99 and the IMAX is that the A99 is a half wave antenna, and the imax is a 5/8 wave antenna. the 5/8 wave is more desireable because it has a lower radiation angle which translates to the signal reaching further.
your alpha 5/8 wave is the same thing, and IMHO better because of the diameter of the tubing as it relates to "skin effect".
if you want to buy an IMAX, do it because you will be able to put up another antenna in no time flat if your maco ever comes down.
the ground plane kits in both the A99 and the imax work the same.
matt
|
26_op_141
Member
Username: 26_op_141
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Just for the record the Shakespeare ABS1600 or the NBS2010 is not end fed unlike A99 ,Imax 2000 or earlier Shakespear Big stick models. Its an off centre fed design.Its actually a 3/8 radiator over a 1/4 ground plane 'effectively' making it a 5/8 wave.
Back to the forum question...
My friend is currently using an A99 with a Fireup and he is getting good reports compared to his old Sirio 827. However I dont know if its better than just a plain old A99 on its original top section?? |
26_op_141
Member
Username: 26_op_141
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Direct form Shakespear.And they quote:-
Hi Tim,
There is a ton of mis-information out there. The antenna is a unique application of a 5/8 wave radiator. It is an off-center fed 5/8 wave coaxial sleeve antenna. We have a VHF version of it (136-174 MHz ) that is patented. We simply adapted the design to 27 MHz. The feed point of the antenna ie where the RF is acutually imparted to the antenna is at the top of the base stick so there is a 1/4 wave below and 3/8 wave above the feed point. The coaxial sleeve in the base section is why mo radials are needed and why it is not vnecesasary to cut the coax to a specific length"
|
Rick330man
Junior Member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Just wanted to get back to the original topic with an observation.
I use CB mostly for local communications. I'm in the lower Florida Keys. CB works great over the water. I've been standing on an island with a 40 channel walkie talkie throwing 9 on my base station 15 miles away. When I get to distances where cell phones won't hit their towers unless you hook up an external antenna, CB consistently does the trick for me over the water.
Skip isn't really by bag. In an earlier post, I mentioned that I did not notice a performance difference between the stock Solarcon upper section and Firestik FS 99 top section. But I have since noticed one performance difference that I did not expect: better skip. I've been talking several times on SSB when stations in DXland would start hailing me. The difference has definitely been noticeable.
So I am amending my prior report a little. Local performance between the stock Solarcon top section and the Firestik FS 99 top section is about the same. I could discern no performance improvement when testing with various stations at different local distances. The Firestik provides some noise reduction. The Firestik top section seems to allow the A99 to perform better on skip communication. The latter point ought to be of some help to ham operators looking for an economical omni-directional antenna with multi-band capabilities that will cover the 10, 12, 15 and/or 17 meter bands. |
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 936
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
rick, the firestik part is a rip off. after studying the how's and why's of this antenna, one can only come to the conclusion that adding any length, traps, or anyting else to the top section of an antron 99 will only make it resonant on a lower frequency. it will have absolutely no positive effects on signal strength or take off angle.
it does not provide any gain, and is actually LESS efficient than the stock piece of copper wire enclosed in a fiberglass shell 72" long.
your antenna tests dont really have any actuall "constants" to measure against, so its pretty much impossible to say that the antenna was the difference.
you should really check out tech833's articles on antennas, specifically "antron 99 exposed".
look around on this forum, i'll bet you find some very smart people here and i bet you wont find anyone running the firestik upgrade. (or at least admitting to it!)LOL
matt |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
I guess I need to squelch this once and for all.
The Firestik A99 'upgrade' will make the antenna have lower gain. It does NOT increase gain. It is a way for an antenna company to make some money off of someone else's successful product.
Sorta like companies that make money from selling Ford, Chevy, etc. 'aftermarket upgrades'. If adding a fancy copper clad hose really made the motor run cooler, the mfg. would have probably added it in the first place.
Emotional buying causes people to believe some very weird things, then tell all their friends they are 'facts'.
Sorry, save your money. Use the A99 as is and be happy. If you want more gain, order an Imax 2000. |
Rick330man
Junior Member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:50 am: |
|
I have three antenna masts set up running north to south along the east side of my house. I ran two antennas into one switch and went back and forth when doing head to head comparisons. And since I do have two A99s, I was able to install them 22' apart. Each was 18' off of the ground. One had the stock Solarcon top section and the other had the Firestik. The comparisons were side by side in real time. Results were as reported: no difference at all locally communicating with stations from 5 to 20 miles apart, respectively; noticeably better'stronger contacts with the Firestik when skip rolled in.
And understand that I don't use 11 meters for DXing. Here in the lower Florida Keys, lots of us use 11 meters to be able to communicate from house to boat at distances where cell phones can't hit local towers.
I'm not encouraging people to go buy or not to buy the Firestik upgrade. It makes sense to just put the extra $20 into a 5/8 or .64 wave antenna. I'm just reporting what my results were in head to head competition under somewhat controlled circumstances. Of course, your mileage my vary. |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 8655
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Been there and done that with the ORIGINAL A-99 from Antron/Anttron and the Solorcon A-99.
Almost the exact same setup as above except my towers are about 35 feet apart and I tested at 36' / 54' using the MFJ-1700B antenna switch in line so I could take less than a second to change from one antenna to the other.
I tested with the Firestick and the 102" whip.
The difference on my end (Receive) was not worth the trouble and not one person could tell the difference when I was transmitting and they were receiving the signal on the other end.
The BEST personal tip I can offer to people is to get an IMAX 2000 as you will save money and time and you will have far better results.
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN  |
Road_warrior
Senior Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Dx conditions change to often for accurate
testing of antennas.
And antennas being spaced apart from each other can cause weird things to happen at times.
Just too many varibles.
Simplify things by just upgrading to a better
antenna.
|
Kid_vicious
Advanced Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 942
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
if i dropped an apple and it went straight up; i would be more inclined to think that i was hanging upside down than thinking that gravity had reversed itself.
also remember that it only takes one second for skip conditions to shift. that makes it pretty darn hard to switch between antennas and determine that THEY were the difference.
matt |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
There IS a way to do this... Using PIN diodes, build a switcher that is able to automatically switch coaxes at an audio rate (like 1,000 times per second or so), and also has the capability to be manually switched. Then connect your radio and two antennas to the switcher. Throw a dead carrier and turn the switcher on. If people on the other end hear an audio tone (assuming their receivers are in AM mode), then there IS a difference between the two antennas. The more difference in signal gain, the louder the tone will be.
Then, to narrow down which antenna is the stronger one, manually switch antennas quickly for A/B testing. |
Rick330man
Junior Member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 12:20 am: |
|
Well, another follow up.
I mentioned before that it seemed from my experience like the Solarcon A99 gets skip much more easily with the Firestik FS 99 tip. Understand something: I do not use 11 meters to shoot skip. But my experience has been that I'll be talking to locals and folks in skipland will hail me constantly. I've really been surprised by this. I have had my share of CB antennas over the last 25 years: including Archer .64 omnidirectional (fantastic antenna); Archer 1/2 wave Omnidirectional; Shakespeare Big Stick; and numerous others. I've never had anything that talked skip as easily as the A99 with the Firestik end. I could not tell you the science behind it. Only that this has been my experience.
If this set up can do the same on 10 meters, this would be a pretty cheap way for hams to set up an affordable rig. |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 595
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 7:11 am: |
|
Well guys I can't tell you that the FS add-on will improve the A99 or not, but according to 833's report on both the A99 and the Imax it will be noted that the matching coils though very similar are yet very different in electrical function. So according to the FS printed words about modifying the A99 to a 5/8 wave antenna has got to be a fabrication of the truth unless when you screw the new element into the top of the A99 it remarkably changes the tuning coil as well, the part that brings the 1/2 wave element suddenly into a 5/8 wave and matches this new non-resonant length all at the same time.
I would call that all razzel-dazzel if I saw it on a street corner somewhere. |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 597
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 8:08 am: |
|
Well Rick, I just realized that it is just me and you in here, the rest were here a long while back. Probably just another case of moving stuff around on the forum and getting us all confused at the timing of events, because we don't look at the dates of the original discussion, unless you were just looking back over old post way down the line in these threads. If so, don't worry about my little disgust here. Just don't look for any responses from the peanut gallery up above. I have even heard guys complain two day after they created a thread that they could no longer find it. Does that make any sense to you, naw I didn't think so. So now that I have wasted my time riding a dead horse, so to speak, I vent a little about how this forum is run.
Some times working this forum is like looking up a phone number if a phone book that is ordered in the order of phone number only. |
Rick330man
Junior Member
Username: Rick330man
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 10:48 pm: |
|
It has been about two years since the last posting on this subject. Encouraged by local hurricane activity, I had taken my A99 down and only recently (this past week-end) put it back up. I started experimenting again with my different antennas: A99, Workman Bandit, Radio Shack 1/2 wave Crossbow, co-phased 102" stainless steel whips, my home made 1/4 wave ground plane and my Shakespeare Big Stick. I spent a whole afternoon Sunday and several hours tonight talking to some local base stations. After all of this, the strongest local performer was the A99 with the Firestick tip. The exact same A99 with the stock tip consistently came in just a little weaker.
I'm sure the doubters will continue to doubt. Personally, I was willing to spend $15.99 for the FS99 tip in search of something that would help me get out a little better. The investment didn't kill me, and the FS99 did what I hoped it would do. |
