-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
102" whip vs the rest
- Thread starter radioreddz
- Start date
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
bulldog made no comment or claim about one antenna being louder than another in this thread . YOU , decided to take it upon yourself to yet again try to either beat someone into submission or chastise them for not agreeing with you . are you going to bring up the louder antenna thing every time bulldog makes a post ? i do agree that antennas dont make a signal louder , but i absolutely %100 believe that bulldog did his best to give as honest of a review as he could . he has never professed to be an antenna guru or anything other than a enthusiastic end user of the hardware of the cb hobby .
so you left the forum, asked for your account to be removed and then just couldn't stay away?
There are more reasons to stay on this forum than to leave it.
Let me see how it went . . .
"Welcome to our Little Town of 5000 friendly people and 1 obnoxious person."
Let me see how it went . . .
"Welcome to our Little Town of 5000 friendly people and 1 obnoxious person."
I suppose I should have known better then to use that analogy here.
mack keekles
[what advantage as far as performance when will a coil antenna outperfrom a full 1/4 wave with all certainty.
If you mount a 10k on bumper and a 1/4 wave on bumper which will work better?
If you mount a 10k on roof and a 1/4 wave on roof which will work better?
If you mount a 10k on a fender and a 1/4 on fender which will work better?
You can add the rest.[/QUOTE]
In near field or far field? Simple basic physics.
Longer length= more radiating area
Longer length= more capture area
Any antenna shorter in physical length than 102" needs a loading coil so it can be resonant. Loading coils, contrary to much advertising hype do not make any gain on tx or rx.
Less length= less radiating area
Less length=less capture area
Still having problems understanding the theory?
Take a tape measure, measure a 102" antenna.
Then measure a coil loaded antenna.
By all means please come back to this thread and post the results of your length measurements.
So in theory in the "near field" of the antennas you are comparing
given that both RF exciters are identical in every aspect, you will basically see no difference in performance. Power handling capabilities excluded. This topic is about antenna performance not Power ratings.
In the "far field" length of radiator (as long as it is less than .64 wl, but we are discussing 102" ) will come out on top every time for tx and rx.
It is math, the numbers tell it like it is.
If you mount a 10k on bumper and a 1/4 wave on bumper which will work better?
If you mount a 10k on roof and a 1/4 wave on roof which will work better?
If you mount a 10k on a fender and a 1/4 on fender which will work better?
You can add the rest.[/QUOTE]
In near field or far field? Simple basic physics.
Longer length= more radiating area
Longer length= more capture area
Any antenna shorter in physical length than 102" needs a loading coil so it can be resonant. Loading coils, contrary to much advertising hype do not make any gain on tx or rx.
Less length= less radiating area
Less length=less capture area
Still having problems understanding the theory?
Take a tape measure, measure a 102" antenna.
Then measure a coil loaded antenna.
By all means please come back to this thread and post the results of your length measurements.
So in theory in the "near field" of the antennas you are comparing
given that both RF exciters are identical in every aspect, you will basically see no difference in performance. Power handling capabilities excluded. This topic is about antenna performance not Power ratings.
In the "far field" length of radiator (as long as it is less than .64 wl, but we are discussing 102" ) will come out on top every time for tx and rx.
It is math, the numbers tell it like it is.
There are more reasons to stay on this forum than to leave it.
Let me see how it went . . .
"Welcome to our Little Town of 5000 friendly people and 1 obnoxious person."
I wouldnt classify yourself as obnoxious, you seemd like a decent guy. Oh well.
I see you been reading my posts, all ready made these points.
Me? I am not having a problem with any type theory I think you are a little misguided as to who needs the theory lesson. You are stating facts I have already made sorry your a little late to the party.
Perhaps you need to explain this to Kale the designer of the 10k and some of the followers, your trying to tell me shit I learned 30 yrs ago and posted in this forum numerous times. But thanks for telling these other guys what I have already said maybe they will buy into it
Last edited:
Doesn't matter, 0.625 or 0.640, the subject is still a 0.25 wave length antenna loaded or not. If you can manage a 0.625 or 0.640 wave length antenna on a mobile, you are doing better than most people! If that 0.625/0.64 antenna is loaded, and still less than about 8.5 or 9 feet tall, you are talking about comparing the performance to a 0.25 wave length antenna, and it will fall short. Performance, the resulting radiation pattern, is determined by overall antenna length, not the length of the wire used for loading. "Apples" and "oranges"...
- 'Doc
- 'Doc
(QUOTE) Me? I am not having a problem with any type theory I think you are a little misguided as to who needs the theory lesson. You are stating facts I have already made sorry your a little late to the party.
By Perhaps you need to explain this to Kale the designer of the 10k and some of the followers, your trying to tell me shit I learned 30 yrs ago and posted in this forum numerous times. But thanks for telling these other guys what I have already said maybe they will buy into it[/QUOTE]
You asked the questions, not anyone else. If you all ready know the answers to your questions then why take up the bandwidth?
By Perhaps you need to explain this to Kale the designer of the 10k and some of the followers, your trying to tell me shit I learned 30 yrs ago and posted in this forum numerous times. But thanks for telling these other guys what I have already said maybe they will buy into it[/QUOTE]
You asked the questions, not anyone else. If you all ready know the answers to your questions then why take up the bandwidth?
Do you just post without reading or do you just like taking up bandwidth? Even though you were actually trying to be a ass you just confirmed what I said. I was asking the question to a specific person who made a statement regarding the 102". Thanks for playing.