| Author |
Message |
    
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 2:51 pm: | 
|
I JUST GOT MY TOP ONE FROM COPPER ABOUT AN HOUR AGO . GOT IT TOGETHER AND ON A POLE , WAS READY TO PUT IT UP WHEN MY DAUGHTER DROPPED OF MY 5 & 6 YEAR OLD GRANDSONS . WILL WAIT TILL THEY GO HOME TO TRY TO PUT IT UP .IT WAS SUPPRIZNGLY EASY TO ASSEMBLE NOW IF IT JUST WORKS AS GOOD AS I HOPE . NOT GONNA TAKE MY I-MAX DOWN THOUGH |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 430
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
It will work surprisingly good under 30ft. If you run it over 30 feet the Imax is the best. I didn't invent this information. A Tech here did the test. Both antennas are great.
mikefromms |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 351
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
1861, it sure would be interesting to hear your report of the two antennas after you get them both up. Can you get them close to the same height to the top?
Hopefully you have an antenna switch so you won't have to be changing coax in order to check each against the signals you will see.
When you ask a buddy to give you a signal report, don't tell him which antenna you are on until you finish the check. This keeps the possible bias out of his report.
|
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
YEA , I SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHECK THEM THIS WEEK SOMETIME . I AM SATISFIED WITH MY I MAX , JUST GOT TO WANTING TO SEE WHAT THE TOP ONE WILL DO . RAN AN OLD ASTROPLANE MANY YEARS AGO . WILL POST UP LATER |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 2179
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
1861
My problem hear is a 35 foot limit on hight. If i go over that you must pull a permit and the antenna must be able to withstand 125 MPH winds.
My top one took 100+ before it bent ..... i miss it it worked every bit as good as the A-99 i replaced it with. |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 352
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Well Bruce, if the Avanti design did as intended, then an AP should work better than the A99 or Imax assuming each was installed within the 35' tip height limit you have in your area.
That was the design idea Avanti had.
|
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
OKAY , GOT THE TOP ONE UP , SWR IN RED ! GOT TO START OVER . I AM SURE I PUT IT TOGETHER , AS BEST AS INSTRUCTIONS SHOW , BUT WILL TAKE IT DOWN AND RE-CHECK EVERYTHING . ANYONE WHO HAS USED ONE OF THESE HAVE ANY SUGGESTION ? |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 2186
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
1861
Mine was under 1.3 / 1 across the entire cb band and got over 2/1 above 28.5 mhz ...... you got a problem ... |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 435
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
I had problems with my swr on the AP but it was coax. Make sure your coax is good and connectors are on correctly. If you are in the red sounds like a dead short. Try another run of coax.
mikefromms |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 353
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Check the continuity between the center conductor and the shield, you should see continuity (a short). Then check either the center or the shield to each of the 3 elements and you should also see a short there as well. This antenna is DC grounded.
If you don't see the connections noted above then you have something broken.
|
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
THANKS ALL FOR THE TIPS . AS SOON AS WEATHER BREAKS AGAIN , I,LL TAKE IT BACK DOWN AND CHECK THIS . DON,T THINK IT IS COAX , BECAUSE I REPLACE ANOTHER ANTENNA THAT WAS WEORKING FINE AND HOOKED THE COAX TO NEW ANTENNA . |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
OKAY , I WENT AND DISCONECTED THE COAX FROM RADIO . CHECKED BETWEEN THE CENTER CONDUCTER AND SHIELD , HAD A DIRECT GROUND . IS THIS CORRECT ?WHEN I PUT IT TOGETHER , I MEASURED THE TOP RADIALS , ALL SAME LENTGH -- HOWEVER , LOOKING UP AT IT , IT LOOKS LIKE ONE MIGHT HAVE SLIPPED BEFORE I GOT THEM TIGHTENED DOWN . ON ONE , IT LOOKS LONGER ON ONE SIDE THAN THE OTHER . COULD THIS BE THE PROBLEM ? |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 354
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
There is only one radial on the top of this antenna as installed. The single 49" tube with the two horizontal wires in a little hub goes on the top.
Maybe a typo, but you said "...I MEASURED THE TOP RADIALS , ALL SAME LENTGH --" The support mast goes up between these two radials and attaches to the hub plate at the feed point connector. This makes these two elements the bottom of the antenna and there is an insulated support (rod)for the mast about midway where these elements bolt together. My knockoff AP is all bolted together and the elements screw into the insulators on the hub. The extenders to the two down elements are bolted together, so there can be no slipping. You could have left a bolt loose and it could have fallen out, but then the center brace (noted above) would also be just hanging out there.
The two long elements should be equal length and the ring that connects them at the very bottom of the antenna should be horizontal to the ground.
You could in error mount this antenna upside down I suppose, but I doubt it would work right. This antenna is already upside down by design.
Go to CB Tricks and look for Antenna Info at the top of their page. Select the AP antenna and read their docs. You will need to be able to load Adobe Acrobat in order to see their docs.
I know that the docs that come with these antennas are not very good, but I hope you don't have your AP downside up. |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
OKAY , MY TERMINOLOGY WAS WRONG . I MEANT THE WIRES AT TOP THAT CROSS . YES , I HAVE IT UP RIGHT , AND EVERYTHING IS TIGHT . |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 356
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Does your mast extend above the hub any at all? |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
NO , I SANDED OF THE PAINT AND CLAMPED IT FLUSH WITH THE TOP OF MAST . WHEN WEATHER BRAKES AGAIN , I,LL TAKE IT DOWN AND MEASURE RADIALS AND THE CROSSED WIRES ON TOP TO MAKE SURE THEY ALL MATCH . YOU DID SAY THAT THERE WAS SUPPOSE TO SHOW A SHORT BETWEEN CENTER AND OUTSIDE OF COAX HOOKED TO THIS ANTENNA , DIDN,T YOU ? |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 438
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
This is one reason I ended up with the Imax 2000. I certainly don't say this to make you feel badly, but I've had it with swr problems. However, hang in there and once you get the swr problems worked out on that antenna you'll have a good performer. I'll still be tempted to try another run of coax.
Good luck. |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
YES , I HAVE AN I-MAX ON TOP OF HOUSE . THE TOP ONE , I RAN TO MY SHOP OUT BACK . I TOOK IT DOWN TODAY , FOUND THE PROBLEM , SWR IS NOW WHAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO BE |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 440
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Great. What was the problem? You have two really fine antennas.
mikefromms |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
IN MY RUSH TO GET IT TOGETHER AND UP IN THE SNOW , I DIDN,T GET THE TOP RADIAL SCREWED IN ENOUGH . MARCONI TOLD ME TO CHECK CONTUINITY , SO I TOOK IT DOWN AND STARTED CHECKING EVERYTHING , SURE ENOUGH WHEN I GOT TO IT , THERE WAS NONE . |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 2192
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
1861
Put it up and let the ( DX ) games begin! |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
I HAVEN,T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ON IT YET , BUT THE RECEIVE SEEMS NOTCIABLY QUITER THAN ON MY I-MAX . I MEAN ALL THE BACKGROUND NOISE . |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 359
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
1861 how do they compare in height to the tip?
I always noticed that the FG sticks seemed to be noisy. I have an A99 up and it is an excellent antenna, but most of the time it has static that the others do not. I have an I-10K that is quite except when it rains and then you can't hear anything on it. ??? that one. |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 363
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
1861, we are still waiting for your comparison report between the Imax and the Top One.
Can you give us the height to the tip of each antenna? |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
I MAX TIP ,PROBABLY 55FT. TOP ONE TIP ONLY ABOUT 30FT. IF THE SNOW SLOWS DOWN , I,M GONNA CHECK THE TOP ONE OUT . IT IS RUN TO MY SHOP OUT BACK , IMAX IS RUN TO HOUSE. |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 111
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hey 1861 I am with Marconi on this one I am kicking it around on getting one of those antennas.Thank you.
But I am curious on your review as well.
CEF#189 Len So,Minnesota |
Dan_in_wa
New member
Username: Dan_in_wa
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
1861, I think anticipation has reached a peak. Even a partial comparison would be great. Thanks
Dan |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 4863
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Dan_in_wa,
Tech833 has already done this for you and all you have to do is read his article.
How to Choose a Ground Plane Antenna
And if you are going to get or use an IMAX FORGET about where the TIP of the Antenna is, and get the BOTTOM/LOAD as high as you can. 
Hope this helps,
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Dan_in_wa
New member
Username: Dan_in_wa
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:08 am: |
|
Tech808, Thanks. I still enjoy reading real world evaluations whenever possible. I used to experiment with ground plane antennas when I had more time. And, after using sound theory and construction techniques while building several antennas I found a design that worked extremely well. It was the ground plane I assembled out of random, leftover parts.
Humble Dan |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 4867
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:23 am: |
|
Dan,
If you have read Tech833's Reviews on antennas it is VERY REAL WORLD Actual testing that NO ONE has ever done before.
He does things to antennas that NO ONE has ever done when testing.
Check out his A-99 EXPOSED and IMAX 2000 EXPOSED Review's.
A-99 Exposed
IMAX 2000 Exposed
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 366
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Tech808, I have been trying to understand this AstroPlane (Top One) antenna that 1861 has just installed. You reference an article that 833 produced about GP Antennas. I remembered that article, "Selecting a Ground Plane Antenna." I just looked at it again and I have a question.
If you consider some of the antennas he did in that report, installing them at 30' to the tip would place them very low to the ground. Less than a 1/2 wavelength for sure, even the A99 would fall into this category. Do you know why he picked 30 ft. to the tip as a bases for his report?
Comments anybody? |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 4870
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Marconi,
Sorry, I can't help you on that one but I am quite sure Tech833 will be able to answer your question.
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN
|
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
I picked 30 feet based on what a couple people had written about home owners' associations not allowing anything over 30 feet above the ground. |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 112
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
I myself would like to get as much information I can.
I was told never go by with just one thought go with as many as possible.
Not to say what tech833 did was not good but it's nice to get other people's testing as well.
I willing to bet there might be other people with the same questions but afraid they will upset some one for doing there test.
Take care cef#189 Len |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
SORRY I HAVEN,T REPORTED ON MY THOUGHTS ON THIS ANTENNA , I,VE HAD THE FLU FOR3 DAYS , AND RADIOS HAVEN,T BEEN TOO MUCH ON MY MIND . FOR WHAT LITTLE I DID MESS WITH IT , I BELIEVE I AM GOING TO LIKE IT . IF I EVER GET OVER THIS FLU , I WILL TRY TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH IT AND GIVE YALL MY OPINION . |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 113
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
I know what you are going through,I had the flu so bad I thought I was hospital bound.
2 weeks of solid aches pains and could not breath.
Just take care get alot of sleep and fluids worked for me.
Get well soon.
Len CEF#189 |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 369
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
833 did you model the antenna or did you live test them somehow?
Do you remember me picking at you about just such an issue, back in 2002 or whenever you posted your report about selecting a groundplane antenna?
I did have some points I wanted to pick your brain about. Don't matter if you remember or not.
I have been studying the Astro Plane design for some time now and think that I have something that you might want to look at with that in mind.
I am back because these old boys are buying probalby the best little antenna around and it would be interesting to see if knowing something about the original Avanti design would be helpful in these guys getting the most out of this complicated little antenna.
If you are interested in my points then answer the question above and I will lay it on you. I will ask you here to consider to look at the patent on this one or look at it again if you already have. |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 370
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Leonard and 1861, you may want to check this out if you are really interested in the AP antenna.
We will wait a bit for 833 to get in here if he has time. His advise will be needed, because I do not have all the answers. This is a complicated antenna design and was done to a very specific goal. A special note was made in the patent papers that even the guys at Avanti did not envision until the antenna was tested. None of these issues were ever disclosed in the product documentation either.
I have, off and on, studied this one over a long period of time. I always seemed to overlook the very simplest of issues when on these quests. This is just another case in point of a very simple issue that probably can accout for a real install difference. At the very least it is worth the effort somebody might take up.
Hang loose,
|
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 371
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
833, to save you time looking for the patent look at: US Patent on Astro Plane |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 4880
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Hey I have an idea 
Why not Just ask the question you have so you can get an answer.
I have been reading for 5 minutes and still have no idea what the heck the question is you have.
Inquiring minds want to know. 
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 373
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
I asked 833 if he modeled the antennas or live tested them on a testing range. Depending on what he did, I would approach this another way. That is why I aked him if he recalled the contacts we had earlier. All that I am going to do is call his attention to something that might be important.
I'm not going to waste any more time explaining right now. You know I don't have all the skills that 833 does. But since Leonard poped up with his questions I thought I would get started. You know waiting on this forum to to post is not meant for speedy conversation. And it looks like there is some interest in the Top One. I guess you can understand what that might mean, right?
So 808, just hang on and pay attention. If you don't have time to read my stuff, the do something else. |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 217
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:59 pm: |
|
well, i for one am intruiged! i hope you will not keep us in suspense for long. and by "long" i mean you'd better have an answer by tonite!
J/K! the reason im so anxious is because im reinstalling my top one this weekend. using better hardware, (nylock 1/4" nuts, 1/4" bolts, etc.) and some tie line on the ring to keep it centered around the mast. also raising the antenna another 10 feet. this will put the top of the mast at 34ft. and the top radiating element at 38ft.
so, before i go to all this trouble; whats all the hubub, bub?
matt |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 374
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:44 am: |
|
Don't give up Matt. Start reading carefully at section 4 line 45 thru to the end. Sorry this is not easy, that is why it has taken so long and I'm still not sure. Ya'll are rushing like we should leave understanding to the wind, but you just can rush.
You will note from two drawings at 5 & 6 they are talking about two other antennas. In the testing they did with 146 mHz scaled model they discovered something about the exact length of the mast #14 in the drawing of the AP antenna.
I'm trying to put into words just how I read all of this. That too is hard to do.
That is why I hoped that 833 may still have his modeling reports and that something might have shown up there that was easier to describe if he was to go back and consider making the mast #14 equal to a 1/4 wave length below the B plane or B field as Avanti describes it.
Now can we rush it up a little. |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 114
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Lon my question is how the top one compared to the I-Max 2000,with 1861 Jessie.
I have read information that was performed by Tech833 and it was great info but I want to read more from other people on how it worked thats all.
It might take a bit because 1861 is sick with the flu,I am in no hurry it's still cold here so I am not going to put up no antenna untill it warms up^ alot.
But 1861 I wish you well,and again I know what you are going through been there done that.
Good thing's come to those who wait.
Len CEF#189 |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 375
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
Leonard, the remark "rush it up a bit," was for the benefit of others, not 1861. Sorry it is just my style I suppose.
Right now I am trying to put this idea into words and post something about the exact mast length for the AP and whether it can be raised higher and still have a good RF pattern based on info in the patent paper on the Internet site I noted above.
If you try to read the patent document you will see that it is slow going. Hopefully 833 can or will get in here and help us get up to speed soon. |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
I TALKED TO A COUPLE OLD TIMERS THIS MORNING , WHO BOUGHT ASTROPLANES WHEN THEY FIRST CAME OUT , AND USED THEM FOR YEARS . BOTH SWORE THAT IT WORKS BEST ON 18FT. POLE . SAID THEY TRIED THEM AT DIFFERENT HEIGHTS , AND THIS WORKED BEST . ANYONE ELSE HEARD THIS ? |
Keithinatlanta
Intermediate Member
Username: Keithinatlanta
Post Number: 476
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
1861, I did that back in the 70's. right on with the 18' height. I will also tell you that I had better luck with my Antenna Specialists Super Mag antenna than the astro plane. I lived in Denver, now whether that had any bearing on the differences or not, I do not know.
Keith in Atlanta |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 115
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Marconi Sorry but by no means I was making a statement on your post."rush it up a bit"
I was just saying I know what 1861 is going through with that darn flu so Please do not tkae this as a negitive way.
I was answering Lon Tech808 on his post on what the question was about.
Thats why I like this forum so much you can ask a question and get so much feed back.
Thank you Len CEF#189
|
Road_warrior
Intermediate Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 299
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Leonard,
From doing simple home antenna tests here./
Tech 833 is 100% correct on his articles
about different antennas./ He knows his stuff!
If i would of knew about this forum sooner,
i could of saved myself some $$$$$.
JIM/CENTRAL PA/CEF 375 |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 116
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Again I am not saying 833 is WRONG I would like to see MORE input.
OPEN MINDED to see more information besides if he did not know his stuff!!! as you put it he would not be one of the TECH's on the forum I respect that.
I guess thats the reason why we come here to ask questions to everyone!!!!!
Why does a simple question get out of control,
From asking how it compares to saying some one does not know there stuff.
Before we buy anything we want to find out as much as we can from as many as we can at least I do.
Not from just one or two as many as possible.
Thak you Len CEF#189 |
Road_warrior
Intermediate Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 300
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Leonard,
Please don't take my last post to heart./
It was not intended that way./ I understand
you want many different opinions on things./
Buying an Antenna all depends on what your
needs are./ How high you can mount your
Antenna./ The Top one is designed to work
better at lower heights./ Top Loaded, lower
angle of radiation at lower heights than some
other antennas./ If height isn't an issue,
then the Maco 5/8 or Imax 2000 are great
performers./If i had to mount an antenna low
to ground, the Top One would be my choice.
JIm/Central PA// CEF 375
|
Tech833
Member
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 62
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Marconi,
I did computer modeling over imperfect terrain averaging with conductivities between 20 and 80% and combined findings for simplicity and to make it a better read. Also, in the field, ground effect is difficult to model ont he test range, so I use the actual V field pattern after spinning to model based on current zero in relation to mechanical zero. That was about the only way I could get the computer to accept the Top One numbers and be able to compare to standard antenna numbers.
The actual gain figures were retrieved from the antenna range, not a computer. It is difficult to read gain in direct comparison to a known radiator without computer 'guesses', so I use actual field pattern minus phase and matching losses. The field pattern is predictable on theory antennas, but not real ones, so I always prefer actual field gain over 'guessing gain'. Real gain is measured on the horizon while theoretical gain is measured in the major lobe, wherever that me be.
I have not been over the patent info yet. When I get a moment this weekend (probably during the CEF net) I will look it over. |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 463
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
I have seen this myself. My Top One worked much better at 10 ft off the ground to the loop than it did at higher heights. It was amazing how well that thing received and got out! I now own the Imax and run it way up there at 65 ft or so at the base. That thing is amazing up there. I agree with the comment, if I could only run an antenna close to the ground, the AP would be the one. Above 30 ft at he base, I'm sold on the Imax for it's functionality and incredible, unmatched bandwideth. Another thing I'm sold on, and I'll throw this in for free, good coax. Get the good stuff. It is like lorial (expensive hair color) it's worth it.
mikefromms |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 376
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Thank you 833. To let you know, I will be making a new post on this issue entitled "Astro Plane Exposed" if you don't mind. If you would rather I not, then let me know and I will change the title.
The patent is a bit tedious, you know as lawyer's go.
The significant points I find are in Avanti's testing back in the late 60's. They mentioned no concerns for earth affects or disruption to gain as negative values on testing. No computer models then of course. Not sure what technology they had or used. Their surprise apparently came when scaling the original antenna down to 146 mHz for testing. They probably did that so they could use a little test range they had set up. Makes sense maybe, but just a guess. They only determined that if the antenna supporting mast, #14 in the depictions, was less than a 1/2 wavelength, then the antenna produced a very high angle of depature within a 100 feet. That was substantial. On reading this gave me cause to wonder why that issue was never made public in advertising or documentation. Admittedly the news got out somehow in spite of a seeming hush. We have heard that here already.
I just have a feeling that this antenna has gotten a bad rap of sorts, having to do with some unexplained limitations to height of operations, or maybe just plain misinformation.
I await your review of the patent report.
Thanks, |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 4913
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:28 am: |
|
Just a couple of question's here but since the Avanti has been out of production for many years now is the patent the same as the newer Top One or has things been changed ?
From the design that was patented back in the 60's by Avanti will it be accurate to compare it to the Top One?
Would a "Astro Plane Exposed" article be worth doing on an antenna that is no longer in production?
Maybe someone could get the patent information on the Top One antenna to compare with the older Avanti Antenna patent information and actually see what the differences are.
Just a thought.
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 378
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:05 am: |
|
Well Lon that is certainly something to consider. I have decided to use a different title for my piece.
In my mind I basically see the Top One and the Astro Plane as one in the same. In looking at the patent compared to the newer Top One, I see no difference electrically and very little structural difference. I don't believe these differences will change the facts or the response.
The obvious difference is the way the hub is designed to physically hold the elements opposite the feed point and the way the tubing is joined in the bottom elements. I will have to assume that the spacing and deminsons are the same or nearly so depending upon diameter of the tubing. If the tubing is different it might make for some deminson differences.
I am not considering that to be the case here.
A point to consider for guys planning to make some modifications to this antenna. For the most part this thing is like a big radiating resonant tuner. The 1/4-wave flaired elements, the bottom hoop, the top section, the antenna mast and the hub bracket are all sensitive to the relative position of the other pieces. Primarily the smaller down elements flair and spacing, controlled by the orbital loop at the bottom and the standoff deminsion, are relative to the main support mast. These parts and their spacing works together importantly to provide the proper take off angle and the matching impedance. The top element and the mast deminsons are also noted to be critical. |
Leonard
Intermediate Member
Username: Leonard
Post Number: 117
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Now this is what I was looking for with all the information.
With Tech833 and what I have read from everyone else I am going to put my I-Max 2000 up another 20 feet it will be up a total of 34 feet from feed point from the ground.
I was thinking on going with the top one thinking it would help out with TX and RX.
Again this is the reason this forum is so good a person can blow up from alll the input Thank ya'll for the information.
But if anyone has more info let me know.
Len CEF#189 So,Minnesota
|
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 383
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Now your talking Leonard. Not that it matters, but somehow I got the impression that you were just shopping for info on buying a base antenna.
In your case, for sure put that Imax up as high as you can get it. You would have a hard time getting an AP's tip up as high as the tip of the Imax in order for the AP to do as well.
I guess after all, that is the real point about all such discussion, right? Help us get our options cleared up. |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 466
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
I agree 100%. Both are good antennas but the Imax 2000 can touch the clouds easier.
mikefromms |
Tech833
Member
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Marconi,
I have no problem at all with an article by you. I am looking forward to reading it!
BTW, Copper Electronics owns the antenna articles I wrote, not me. Ask the Forum master for permission. |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 386
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
833, thanks.
I have already made my post under a different title. I didn't use the "Astro Plane Exposed" title. As it turned out the conclusions were not as revealing as I had previously thought. I wasn't testing with anything, just trying to reason things out by a careful reading of the docs. I found that not an easy task trying to follow the patent lawyers writing style.
I am still thinking that this antenna should work as well or better than most of the traditionl GP's if the tip heights are the same. I also don't see anything that would curtail it from working well just because it was up high above some arbitrary point. I know it has the reputation for only working low to the ground. Maybe with your experience, the testing you did, and after reading the patent over, you could tell us what you think about why it does not work as well up higher.
If height doesn't really matter then the only issue with the AstroPlane would be how do you take advantage of its design benefit and get it up as high to the tip as say an Imax, which is simpler to assemble and maybe easier to install. |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 395
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Well hopefully 1861 is OK. Last I heard he had the flu or maybe the weather is just still bad up his way. Still waiting for his comparison report though.
I think that Mikefromms nailed the whole issue however in his brief statement above, why mess with an AstroPlane when the Imax is so much easier to assemble, handle, and install. Plus it too is reasonablely priced.
I have talked to a fellow that is supposed to know Herbert Blaese, one of the old Avanti engineers and designers of the AP. I understand he is still around and doing antenna work. Dino says he has contacted him and has received comments already. I am waiting, maybe he can find out something more about how this AP works and what there is to the story that it only works well when installed low, as 833 and others tell us. |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 236
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
wow! straight from the horses mouth! (so to speak)
i would love to hear his comments. he'll probably start with, "you guys are still using that stupid thing?"
matt |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 396
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:41 am: |
|
Well Kid you know how guys are when they get to talking about what they know. Sometimes they only know when to shutup. It has been a while already and he has not come back to tell us anything yet.
Those guys back then really had a vision of how to make those things really work and in the hands of hobbyist like us no less.
These were significant people. Just consider what they did, not just in design, but in manufacturing, production, distribution, and sales. The CB craze of the 70/80's really happened. It was really big business.
No, I don't think they would question, I think they would swell with a little pride in what they had done. |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
I SURE BE GLAD WHEN THESE WINTER STORMS LET UP A LITTLE SO I CAN TRY MINE . IT,S ONLY ABOUT 50 FT. BACK TO MY SHOP BUT WE HAVE 4FT SNOW PILED UP AND THEY ARE CALLING FOR A MAJOR NOREASTER TONIGHT AND TOMORROW . BEGINNING TO LOOK LIKE I,M NOT MEANT TO USE IT . WELL AT LEAST I KICKED THE FLU . KID , DID YOU EVER GET YOUR ,S UP HIGH AND COMPARE IT TO THE LOW MOUNTING ? |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 243
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:52 pm: |
|
good evening gents! looks like i missed your responses yesterday.
i feel like a procrastinator, but i havent gotten to the install yet. i have assembled all the components. just trying to keep the peace with the YL. its surprising how low on the "honey do" list my antenna install is.
i have decided to step up to some serious coax. im going with LMR400. this is the first time ive spent more on the coax then i did on the antenna!
the coax should be here on friday, and if it gets here early enough, i might just get it done that day. if not, i may have to do it throughout the work week. its tough to do in the dark.
my ideas on improving the performance of this design are more mechanical than theoretical. (does that make sense?) i figure that the reason the bottom hoop is in four sections instead of one continuous circle is for shipping. the problem created with this is that you end up with an imperfect circle. i dont know how much this matters, but i doubt the theoretical model used an out of round circle. my solution is going to be to cut a circle of the correct diameter out of plywood, (i dont know the measurement yet, maybe one of you can tell me), and use it as a template to bend the aluminum sections to the proper curvature. again, i believe that the loop should be tied off with UV resistant string to keep the mast directly in the center. i also plan to use 1/4" stainless steel harware and nylock nuts.
i have found that because the SO-239 is sideways, that making the coax bend like the picture in the astroplane manual is stressfull on the coax if not impossible. i give my coax about a 1 foot diameter hoop before taping the coax to the mast. i dont like the idea of stressing the coax connection, but i wonder what this is doing to the signal. if the shield of the coax is somehow part of the radiator then this big bend might distort the angle of radiation or something. who knows.
BTW, in the astroplane manual, there is a picture in the back of avanti's "saturn" base antenna. it looks like a huge groundplane antenna. have you guys heard of or used this design? curious to know how it works. i'll keep you "posted" on my progress.
matt |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 397
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
Kid according to the patent the coax does work to aid in tuning of the AP and its placement in the antenna field going down about 18' is implied to be critical for the take off angle of this antenna. There is a caution in the docs about dressing the coax down nicely to the mast. The patent suggest that the proper space relationship to the elements is vital.
It is true that the bottom ring of the knockoff model I got from Copper's is not perfect. The original is better in that regard. It may make some difference, but I don't believe you will ever notice what the difference is due to that imperfection. I don't even believe the little movement of this ring in the wind will be a problem that you will notice in performance.
The ring diameter on the original was a near perfect 30" the knockoff measures a tad smaller and does vary in an almost un-adjustable way because the arc's are off a bit.
You are right about the coax bend, you will want to stress relieve and tape the coax well to the mast and guard against deforming the coax in the process. The arc LMR 400 is able to make and the stress on the first restraining point on the mast are important. Don't get either too tight as to deform, but don't allow the coax to come too close to the radial elements either. That might ill-affect the antenna some.
LMR is a good low loss choice if you will be going over a 100' for sure.
Don't know a thing about the Saturn, but hear that is appeared to be very big.
Good luck |
Mikefromms
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 482
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
You are wise in buying the expensive coax. You will be happy you did when your ears are the best you've ever had! You will be getting almost 100% of your tranmitted signal to the antenna as well. I'm a believer thanks to the copper techs and now my personal experience. Why buy a good radio and a good antenna and less than the best coax for the instalation?
mikefromms |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 245
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
i am learning to agree. i think the reason coax is usually the weakest link is because its not "cool to play with" and there are no mods for it! LOL
well marconi and 1861, i had some time on my hands today, and i moved the antenna up another 10 feet. the top of the radial on the antenna is now at 39'. while on the roof, i had the hoop right in front of me so i decided to try my idea of securing the hoop to the mast. the reasoning behind this is not so much for performance, but more for safety of the antenna.. if you shake your mast below the antenna you will see that the only things holding the bottom assembly to the rest of the antenna are two bolts. those two bolts will get A LOT of sheer force applied to them over the year(s). the holes will enlarge and the hoop will start to sway more and more in the wind. if this goes on too long, the hoop might actually start to touch the mast in a strong wind.
anyway back to my install. IT WORKED GREAT! i strung together cable ties, and went from the mast to the center of each hoop piece. think of it like this: there are four connection points on the hoop, run the cable ties in between each of the connecting points. after you install the ties loosely in all four directions, start tightening them evenly, measuring from center of mast to edge of hoop. it should be about 15". as you tighten the ties. it also helps pull the hoop into round. mine is now secure and centered, and looks pretty cool too!
went back inside to check the swr. used to be at 1.3:1 on ch.20, now is at 1.1:1 if even that. (i mean on the meter, not in reality). the only change i made besides raising it 10 feet was the hoop stabilizing. not sure if this made the difference or not, but im happy until i get to do the real install which will be adding 15 more feet. i'll keep you posted.
matt |
1861
Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
THANKS FOR THE UPDATE - I THINK I WILL DO THE SAME WITH THE HOOP IF THESE BLIZZARDS EVER STOP .NOT GONNA RAISE ANTENNA UNTILL YOU FIND OUT WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES . KEEP US POSTED |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
well! i am so far very happy with my results!
i realize that my findings are in no way controlled or otherwise measurable, but i can tell you that my receiver has finally awakened from its slumber.
i get home from work at about 10pm pacific time. the shoes come off and the radio goes on. (two things that always provide me with solitude! LOL)
i am usually greeted with a very quiet noise floor and the usual band of discontents on ch.19.
last nite, however, i felt like i was on radio mexico! on ch.19 i had a steady heterodyne of stations at s-5. the locals that i ratchetjaw with were between 1 and 2 s units stronger. and i had at least s-2 worth of stations on ALL the other channels.
i imagine that last nite was a particularly good evening for skip around here, so i'll have to check again tonite, but it seems to me that its not a coincidence.
my antenna was at 29 feet to the tip, and there are trees in my yard that are that tall.
i raised it up 10 more feet, and since i moved that radio to a different room, i needed to run more coax. the only piece i had wasnt long enough, so i was forced to go the barrel connector route. so, i also added antother 25 or so feet of coax and a barrel connector. seems to me this would decrease the efficiency a bit, so just imagine what will happen at 20 more feet and one length of lmr400.
BTW, the place im having make my jumper just called me and told me that it would be antother week before they even make it, but im a loyal customer and they do great work. so sorry to drag this out guys, but hey, maybe 1861 will have some warmer temps. to work on his antenna by the time i get mine up. LOL
matt |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 399
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Hey Kid, solitude and a two way radio are not real good qualities to have together. Maybe if you hooked a coax line between your radio and the antenna that would all go away.
No wonder you seem disappointed at times. |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 256
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
HA! i guess i just meant some peace and quiet without the YL asking me to go to the video store before it closes. J/K she is wonderful and even gets on the radio with me sometimes.
i have to say, this antenna just keeps getting better the higher i put it.
i cant imagine that it will begin to decrease in performance at some arbitrary height.
in closing; i am very pleased with the results so far.
matt |
Sixtiesmania
Member
Username: Sixtiesmania
Post Number: 73
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hey Matt,
I was living in vegas for a few years (still do buisness there) and I am now in Hong Kong for a while. I lived in Green Valley, but could only run a dipole in backyard. Apart from AES there, I didn't know of many other radio people. When I get back there, we'll have to catch up!
Cheers
Andrew
739 |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 400
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Hey Kid, I knew what you were getting at.
What was it we were trying to prove here? I think I forgotten what we were trying to do. Did it have something to do with the AstroPlane getting a bad rap on performance when you raise it up above 30 feet like we have been told?
I would just like to hear from 833 what was discovered in his testing that supported the conclusion about height.
|
1861
Intermediate Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
I SURE WISH THE SPRING THAW WOULD HURRY UP . GONNA PUT MY TOP ONE AT 36 FT. FEED POINT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS . I KNOW IT WORKS PRETTY GOOD AT 18 FT. |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 5092
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Marconi,
As Tech833's Forum time is very limited due to his work schedule and family time, you may want to drop him an e-mail to: Tech833 @ copperelectronics.com for a speedier answer to your question.
Hope this helps,
Lon
Tech808
CEF808
N9OSN |
Marconi
Intermediate Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 402
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Well I know that he is probably busy. These boys are waiting on the weather so I can wait too.
Thanks for the suggestion Lon. |
Road_warrior
Intermediate Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 342
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Yeah, the weather hasn't been great
either here in PA, have lots of CB
projects to complete.
JIM/PA/CEF375 |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 261
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 12:40 am: |
|
what were we talking about? HA! i like your sense of humor marconi!
all i know is that the findings we are reporting should be of great assistance to anyone searching this forum.
i dont think im much help in the scientific testing area, as my "tests" are neither controlled nor measured. i just go by the s meter on my radio and the number of skip stations that are rolling in. i am very thorough in reading others test results, but i dont have the space, time, or money needed to make them myself.
i too would like to get 833's opinion on some of this.
matt |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 268
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 11:20 pm: |
|
HEY MARCONI, how about this for a wacky idea.
a set of radials connected to the mast 102" down from the ring. what do you think? i might be showing my ignorance on this one but what the hay!
BTW, i dont know if we're any closer to "proving" anything, but i do know a lot more about this antenna than i did when we started this thread.
i know that you must have 102" of free space below the ring for it to work properly, and that it works better as you raise it. at least up to 39' at the tip.
we have more posts on this thread than any other in this section. think there's much interest in this subject?
sixtiesmania, sorry i missed your post! key up for me on ch.19 anytime, im mostly out there at night. i go by "stratocaster" these days but it sure would be cool to hear a breaker for kid vicious. i havent heard that name spoken in years.
matt |
Sixtiesmania
Member
Username: Sixtiesmania
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 3:40 am: |
|
Hey Matt,
Well I am in Hong Kong now for a while, don't think I'll get through from here on 19am!! So Stratocaster eh?? I should change my name to Hofner or Rickenbaker maybe!! Mind you those are 2 instuments I make my living with being a muso. Hope things are well in vegas. I'll make a posting for when I am returning Stateside towards end of year when this contract is up.
Cheers
739 Andrew in Hong Kong |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 283
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:39 pm: |
|
sixtiesmania, do you have a radio set up in hong kong? im interested to know if there's a "cb scene" in hong kong.
matt |
Sixtiesmania
Member
Username: Sixtiesmania
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hey matt,
well not scene I can find! BUT frs walki talkies are HUGE, they operate at 409 mhz, and they are cheap as anything I have seen in USA. You can get HTs that cover either 400-470 fully, or 130-170, with 3 watts, digital counter, all the options for...about $25!!! Which includes a charger and removble antenna. So you can get a killer HT that covers all FRS-GMRS US frequencies for peanuts. I am a licensed ham and I will be going portable real soon when it warms up here, and I will try 27 mhz as well. How's things in Vegas, god I miss Fry's Electronics!!
Cheers
Andrew
739
CEF#511 |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 396
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 12:05 am: |
|
well the wait is almost over!
ive got the top one up at 44' as of today, but i didnt have time to do any tests before work. i did notice that my swr went up a bit when i went from 24' to 44' to the tip. it was 1.2 on ch.20. now its 1.5. i dint know if thats becouse its too far from the ground right now or not.
i'll start a new post tomorrow when i have more time and some more data for you guys.
hope to hear you on sunday!
matt |
Road_warrior
Intermediate Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 483
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
My uncle finally found a Top One.
Keep us posted as we will be mounting
his soon. Its been a long time since
i had up my old Astro Plane.
How is the Top One with TVI, RFI ect.???
Any problems anyone?
JIM/ PA/ CEF 375 |
1861
Intermediate Member
Username: 1861
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
I STILL HAVE MINE AT 18FT. TO FEED POINT AND HAVE NO RFI OR TVI . IT WORKS PRETTY GOOD . I,M WAITNG TO SEE HOW KID,S WORKS OUT AT HEIGHT BEFORE I DESCIDE TO RAISE MINE. |
Kid_vicious
Intermediate Member
Username: Kid_vicious
Post Number: 399
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
making a new post right now called "top one at 44' to the tip".
check it out.
matt |
