Best mobile type antenna for 10 meters

[Obed]

gain over what? How does the antenna get that gain?
Advertising is a license to lie. NO mobile omin-directional antenna provides any actual gain, unless you consider less loss than another as a gain.

 

[Road Squawker]

gain over what? How does the antenna get that gain?
Advertising is a license to lie. NO mobile omin-directional antenna provides any actual gain, unless you consider less loss than another as a gain.

"GAIN" is a multi issue concept.
Directivity increases the power in one direction( at the expense of loss in another direction).
Efficiency , increases the power in ALL directions.

Yes, increasing the efficiency does increase the antenna "Gain".

 

[Obed]

thank your for clearly relating efficiency to gain... though they are not the same thing at all, you made it clear that you define gain as having the least loss.
you also related that the true gain of any antenna is by robbing power from one area and putting it into an area, thereby, gain in that direction...well done.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

One antenna can have gain over another antenna by being more efficient. This is because you are comparing two different antennas. Both antennas may exhibit less than unity gain however one may have a couple more dB gain over the other by virtue of being more efficient. When talking about gain there must be a reference. A simple dipole on the 2m band may have 20 dB or more gain if the reference is a rubber duckie antenna.

 

[Obed]

One antenna can have gain over another antenna by being more efficient. This is because you are comparing two different antennas. Both antennas may exhibit less than unity gain however one may have a couple more dB gain over the other by virtue of being more efficient. When talking about gain there must be a reference. A simple dipole on the 2m band may have 20 dB or more gain if the reference is a rubber duckie antenna.

that is exactly my point, if you are going to say gain, you have to have a reference point for that to mean anything.
On these types of issues you never see them say what they mean by gain... dBi, dBd, or dBgclug (garbage can lid under ground)...to say it has gain when you mean it simply is more efficient than another (without saying what that other is) is marketing hype, getting folks to spend their money with little to no actual benefit...
for ex... quarter wave or 5/8 wave, which is better.. the simple truth is it depends on how you are going to be using it....I guess that is the logical results of a question pool where folks do not have to understand the a, b, c, or d they choose for an answer.

 

[Road Squawker]

....I guess that is the logical results of a question pool where folks do not have to understand the a, b, c, or d they choose for an answer.

you mean dummies like this guy? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...dz2IxsdzJj6qJyGcnWZC2A&bvm=bv.117604692,d.eWE

 

[Obed]

you mean dummies like this guy? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfqJ3r9dnLAhUGLyYKHV3DB7gQFgg6MAU&url=http://www.w8ji.com/VHF%20mobile%20vertical.htm&usg=AFQjCNHP5roTdz2IxsdzJj6qJyGcnWZC2A&bvm=bv.117604692,d.eWE

he lays it out real well... first he says that there is no ACTUAL gain... then lays out the theoretical gain, shows the angles of radiation... shows the dBi and dBd relationship...and in the dBd it is zero gain to negative gain (loss)... sort of how it should be done. his dBi to dBd figures are a bit off, but the principle is correct.

 

[Road Squawker]

thank your for clearly relating efficiency to gain... though they are not the same thing at all, you made it clear that you define gain as having the least loss....

its obvious that you don't understand terms like "multi issue concept".

if I use the SAME antenna and it radiates "X" power, and then change the Q of the antenna so it radiates MORE (or possibly less) than "X", it has by DEFINITION changed the Gain.

A transmitting antenna with a gain of 3 dB means that the power received far from the antenna will be 3 dB higher (twice as much) than what would be received from a loss less isotropic antenna with the same input power. Note that a loss-less antenna would be an antenna with an antenna efficiency of 0 dB (or 100%).

Yes, increasing the efficiency does increase the antenna "Gain".

Heck, this is BASIC antenna theory.

 

[Obed]

its obvious that you don't understand terms like "multi issue concept".

if I use the SAME antenna and it radiates "X" power, and then change the Q of the antenna so it radiates MORE(or possibly less) than "X", it has by DEFINITION changed the Gain.

A transmitting antenna with a gain of 3 dB means that the power received far from the antenna will be 3 dB higher (twice as much) than what would be received from a loss less isotropic antenna with the same input power. Note that a lossless antenna would be an antenna with an antenna efficiency of 0 dB (or 100%).

Yes, increasing the efficiency does increase the antenna "Gain".

nope, you proved i do indeed clearly understand because you just changed the parameters... you gave references to your gain terms...when you give a reference you can demonstrate with a field strength meter (the only truly accurate method) not just theoretically that gain has ocured and what that gain is referenced against...of course the gain figure then given has to be relevant to the user so he can determine if that gain means anything of value to him. You even used the term isotropic, the theoretical reference point...
the folks who try to say that a dipole has gain over a dipole (and some mfg's do that) always tickle me, they are doing their best to part us from our dollars and care little for the truth. Use what ever antenna you like, I do.

 

[The DB]

When it comes to others comments on efficiency, which are true, your first post opened that door.

unless you consider less loss than another as a gain.

I can demonstrate the connection between radiation efficiency and gain with modeling.

Here we have the same antenna made out of different metals and the radiation patterns compared. The copper antenna has a radiation efficiency of 52.69%. The T6 aluminum antenna has a radiation efficiency of 49.03%. The stainless steel antenna has a radiation efficiency of 24.72%. The only difference between these three antennas is the metals used, and those metals alone were enough to cause a change in the antennas efficiency. That change in efficiency directly translated to a change in overall gain. This clearly shows that less loss translates into more gain. This also clearly shows the statement you made in your first post in this thread was wrong.

thank your for clearly relating efficiency to gain... though they are not the same thing at all,

Efficiency is related to gain, but it isn't the only thing that effects gain. By how your posts are written, sometimes you seem to understand this and other times you seem to forget this.

In your third post you posted...

that is exactly my point, if you are going to say gain, you have to have a reference point for that to mean anything.

This statement is perfectly true. Why didn't you simply start with this over said comment that clearly invited the discussion on efficiency? Said discussion on efficiency really had little to do with this point. I mean, is that not what you were trying to say in the first place? Even if the one post in this thread it can relate to is four years old...

You then went on to make a statement that shows that you don't understand the line of discussion in this thread that you yourself started.

And finally, in the same post, you make a statement that can very easily be seen as an insult for any ham that recently upgraded their license here in the US. You really should have stated that differently as I take offense to you thinking that I may be an idiot simply because of how I was tested. Something that, for the record, I had no control over.

Skipping to your last post...

nope, you proved i do indeed clearly understand

No, he didn't. The only person who can prove weather or not you understand is you, and with all due respect, you have yet to demonstrate that. You have made two very different statements, one of which is true, and one of which is false. The problem is you are treating them as the very same statement. In the scope of the efficiency discussion that you started, what Road Squawker said is in fact true. In the scope of your comment on decibels needing a reference, what Road Squawker said does not apply as that has nothing to do with the point he is trying to make.

In your comment on a dipole's gain vs another dipole's gain, you seem to think that in the real world all dipoles are the same. There are many factors that can affect how one dipole would work in comparison to another. Two dipoles with different diameters for example, or two dipoles made out of different materials (such as in the 5/8 verticals in the pattern example above). And that is before you factor in other aspects of a real world environment such as the earth and height, but even ignoring earth quality and height, to say that every dipole is auto-magically equal to every other dipole is simply wrong, both in theory and reality (if you see those as different).


The DB

 

[Obed]

When it comes to others comments on efficiency, which are true, your first post opened that door.



I can demonstrate the connection between radiation efficiency and gain with modeling.

Here we have the same antenna made out of different metals and the radiation patterns compared. The copper antenna has a radiation efficiency of 52.69%. The T6 aluminum antenna has a radiation efficiency of 49.03%. The stainless steel antenna has a radiation efficiency of 24.72%. The only difference between these three antennas is the metals used, and those metals alone were enough to cause a change in the antennas efficiency. That change in efficiency directly translated to a change in overall gain. This clearly shows that less loss translates into more gain. This also clearly shows the statement you made in your first post in this thread was wrong.



Efficiency is related to gain, but it isn't the only thing that effects gain. By how your posts are written, sometimes you seem to understand this and other times you seem to forget this.

In your third post you posted...



This statement is perfectly true. Why didn't you simply start with this over said comment that clearly invited the discussion on efficiency? Said discussion on efficiency really had little to do with this point. I mean, is that not what you were trying to say in the first place? Even if the one post in this thread it can relate to is four years old...

You then went on to make a statement that shows that you don't understand the line of discussion in this thread that you yourself started.

And finally, in the same post, you make a statement that can very easily be seen as an insult for any ham that recently upgraded their license here in the US. You really should have stated that differently as I take offense to you thinking that I may be an idiot simply because of how I was tested. Something that, for the record, I had no control over.

Skipping to your last post...



No, he didn't. The only person who can prove weather or not you understand is you, and with all due respect, you have yet to demonstrate that. You have made two very different statements, one of which is true, and one of which is false. The problem is you are treating them as the very same statement. In the scope of the efficiency discussion that you started, what Road Squawker said is in fact true. In the scope of your comment on decibels needing a reference, what Road Squawker said does not apply as that has nothing to do with the point he is trying to make.

In your comment on a dipole's gain vs another dipole's gain, you seem to think that in the real world all dipoles are the same. There are many factors that can affect how one dipole would work in comparison to another. Two dipoles with different diameters for example, or two dipoles made out of different materials (such as in the 5/8 verticals in the pattern example above). And that is before you factor in other aspects of a real world environment such as the earth and height, but even ignoring earth quality and height, to say that every dipole is auto-magically equal to every other dipole is simply wrong, both in theory and reality (if you see those as different).


The DB

nicely laid out. Your dissertation on materials is also quite true. I have tested the matials you listed as well as dipoles made out of wire (both solid and stranded) from thermostat wire up thru 10 gauge wires. ( I have the room and I like to play). All of the theoretical issues you mention will affect them and vary from location to location so the test can only consist of what you have.
In my personal testing some were slightly better than others in performance, but for the practical application to most hams, the expensive antennas, with expensive materials actually translate into only more expense.
The thing most are looking for, actual performance, is roughly the same. The expensive, high Q antennas provide slightly better bandwidth, but do little, if anything to translate into higher S meter readings on the other end. The real question is how much more efficient would one have to be to raise the S meter on the other end 1 unit? 2 units? You can not put one on your car or change dipoles in your yard to make that happen.

 

[Sergeant Bilko]

I've been studying for my technician license and have been researching options for maximizing 10 meter comms in my semi truck. I've throughly read through ground plane and mounting information and I have a few questions.

How does ground plane analysis jive with the common placement of cophased 11 meter antennas in use on semi trucks? If this configuration is an exception, or if the ground plane is achieved via placement, can the same be accomplished with the same placement on 10 meter?

Additionally, I'm contemplating a servo rotating design using a high mounted 102" whip that i can install either on the back corner or side of the sleeper cab for use while parked. My original thought was using a ground strap to achieve ground plane however, your analysis indicates that this is insufficient. If I utilized a cophased 102" on each side of the cab, would the servo rotated design perform as well as the fixed mounted cophase designs do on 11 meter? If a ground plane is still inefficient, would the introduction of ground plane adapters resolve the issue, being that the base of the antennas would be about 13 feet above the road surface?

 

[Thomas Reed]

Well sir, you need to post your question in the CB section area of antennas. Not here. You won't get many answers here as this is the amateur radio antenna section.
That being said. Just start a new thread in the CB section of the forum, and you will get more answers this way.
Also when you post, give as much info as possible about things like cost, mast/tower, how much room you have around you. Things like this help a lot. Have a good one and if you need help ASAP, you can PM me and I will try to steer you in the correct direction. Good day sir.

Well sir. It is just as easy to answer. Any good 10/12 meter antenna will serve him just as well.

 

[Thomas Reed]

I have been trying to figure out what antenna to use on my base unit for months, two many different kinds. this is for a simple CB navaho radio

If you can find it, and price is not a big problem for you. Try the Antron 99. It is a good omni directional antenna that will handle your radio just fine. Easy to install, wind resistant, and easy to match to your radio. Back in the CB craze it was one of the more popular antennas on the market.

Now, was that so hard to answer?

 

[Thomas Reed]

Someone mentioned the best mobile antenna for 10 meters is a 100" whip if you don't mind the size. Is this true?? I'm asking because I want both 2 & 10 meters and ran across the Diamond quad band antenna CR8900A. It doesn't seem to have much 2M gain. Would I be better off with a 10M whip and 2M mount and switching coax when I switch bands? Are there any 10M mobiles with gain?

102" is as good as you are going to get for 10m. All the other antennas are made to emulate a 102" antenna. A 102" stainless steel antenna will handle almost anything you hook up to it. As for 2M it is too long for a full wave antenna but you might make it work with an antenna tuner. There are other antennas out there that you can buy that will cover most of the HF bands. But they are stiff, still require an antenna match, and expencive, Honestly you are better off using a 2m and 10 meter antenna and then just use a switch box. Keep your antennas a far apart from each other as possible.