gizmotchy vs. maco

[marven]

Gizmotchy antenna

For anyone interested, the review from CB Magazine can also be found at Gizmotchy antennas website.
Also several pictures and reviews and testimonials, from very knowledgeable users. www.gizmotchy.com

marven :shock:
Not Grumpy, he was probably insulted by that.

 

[marven]

gizmotchy antenna

To respond to the original question;

The Gizmo antenna, and for that matter, several beam antennas, can be operated verically or horizontally polarized or both.
There have even been antennas that were circularly polarized. Lou Franklin describes one on his website. www.cbcintl.com

As a further note; "Attenuation from cross-polarization can exceed 20 db at 27 Mhz, and some CB base antennas are purposely designed with switchable or dual-polarization to take advantage of this." Lou Franklin (Understanding & Repairing CB radios)

marven :roll:

 

[Master Chief]

Tell you what Marv, I'll stop calling you a fool despite the fact that you say foolish things. I'll just say, "That was a foolish thing to say." Hopefully that will take care of your "name calling" issue.

Is this your example of a "technical" article?
http://www.gizmotchy.com/technicalreviews.html

I've also read the customer reports and found it amusing that the Antron 99 is listed on the 2M page. Still, the technical aspect to the entire site is lacking.

I'm sure the Gizmotchy is a fine antenna. I would be a FOOL to say otherwise as so many people use and like them. I never said it wasn't and I want to be clear on that.

BUT! It does not have 19db of gain. This is my issue; the gain claim! M2 and Force 12 model, build, and test their antennas using known and accepted testing parameters. Their results are very similar. Force 12 went one step further by publishing this:
http://force12inc.com/F12-ant-specs-r31.htm

Want some more? How about this:
http://www.championradio.com/publications.html (I have both reports and discussed them with the author in person)

Again, what does Gizmotchy know that the rest of the antenna building world not know? If their designs are so good that you can get 19db gain on a short boom, why hasn't the ham companies picked up on the designs. Why instead do the ham companies use LONGER booms to get the optimum results?

Telling anyone, especially on this forum, that a 5-element, short boom, beam has anything near 19db is foolish. Also, how do you get 4db by adding ONE element?!

Does the Gizmotchy work? SURE! EVERYTHING WORKS! I've seen screen doors get loaded up and talk across the USA. I've seen wires talk around the world. EVERYTHING WORKS! Even light bulbs! Again, there is NO argument that the Gizmotchy works, but only that it claims to have 19db of gain.

Lets stop propagating the gain lie.

I don't know what you were referring to when you said I had something to sell. I'm not selling anything out here. As a matter of fact, everything I have to offer is given freely.

As a further note; "Attenuation from cross-polarization can exceed 20 db at 27 Mhz, and some CB base antennas are purposely designed with switchable or dual-polarization to take advantage of this."

Do you even understand what is being discussed here? What the author is saying is that you will see a 20db of LOSS ("attenuation") by switching from vertical to horizontal, and vice-versa. This is widely accepted and it appears you are using this fact incorrectly in reference to the discussion at hand.

I know you run a CB shop in Colorado and I know you are a dealer of Gizmotchy antennas. I hope you are successful in selling them and I'm sure Gizmotchy is a fine company, but do your customers a favor and stop telling them they will get 19db on a short boom yagi antenna.

BTW, I'm still waiting to see these "facts" you keep speaking of.

 

[Skyscraper]

You are so right MC. These gain claims are just plain funny! Joe Gunn company maybe the funniest. Maco is off too. They aren't as bad. But I know my 5 element Maco is not 15db gain like they said. It is more like 10.5-11db. Just like my old Hygian. MC I once loaded up a shopping cart! lol.

 

[bob85]

i have experience with the jogunn 4x4 star and the polaris comet,

both antennas work pretty good but nothing like 19db gain,
i would rate the polaris as comparable to my 5 ele flatside and better constructed than the jogunn,

the polaris mounted@ 48ft to boom beat my original sigma4 @73ft to feedpoint easily on the vertical polarity,

i do not see anything in the giz that would make them much if any better than the polaris, they look to have a similar spacing and boom length which leaves the gammas,
i cannot see gammas and possible slight difference in spacing giving massive gain increases.

 

[marven]

Gizmotchy antennas/?

Master Chief;

You & the above studies are still comparing apples to oranges or some other fruit. I can tell that this is a waste of my time attempting to convince you, as I truly believe you already know better. The industry accepted reference is an "isotropic radiator", not a dipole. The studies you site are not true comparisons for that reason, making everything else irrelevant.

Here is your real world tests, you can go to a dozen or more places, to the reviews actually done. By people who have extensive hands on experience, and read their findings. The reviews already mentioned being examples. The preferences for the "Gizmotchy" were stated!! Still don't like their findings, tough!! Just because you don't like what they say, doesn't negate them. Those are the real world tests!!!

I wonder what you think qualifies you to even have an opinion, compared to some of the people involved. Several had more than 40 years experience with antennas at the time of their reviews. The CB Magazine team had combined experience of over 100 years, from my studies.

Preferences aside, what is your point? Has nothing to do with the original question asked, and only serves to prove you have an agenda. I for one am not impressed with your nitpicking, theoretical attempts to change the facts. Which are the test results, for ANY antennas you don't personally want to approve.

I don't believe that the original poster or anyone else is helped with your attitude here, so far. Not to even mention, you haven't actually addressed the original question. I'm not saying you couldn't have something to contribute, I'm simply saying that your attitude is not positive. I don't think I'm the first one on here, to feel verbally attacked by you either.

On a positive note; In my shop, people don't generally buy antennas because of a db rating. It is usually purchased, because they heard someone using (name their brand) liked it, and want one. Saw their buddy or someone they knew doing things they couldn't with their antenna, and wanted to change. And the cost is usually also a factor, which makes the "Gizmotchy" look very attractive. The Gizmo I'm using was built in 1968, and works very well. It has survived winds in excess of 150 miles an hour. Check the weather reports for the last few weeks in NE Colorado, we have ice and snow you wouldn't expect any antenna to handle, and it's still there, working day in and day out.

Just my .002 cents!

marven :roll:

P.S. I'd still want a Gizmo over any Maco.

 

[freecell]

yeah, if i was trying to con a bunch of people into believing that a 5 element (whatever boom length) anything produced 19db. of gain i wouldn't spend much time in here either and you certainly wouldn't want any prospective suckers (buyers) hanging out in here. furthermore, neither one of you can begin to explain how it accomplishes this ominous feat, simply because it doesn't. the 12db. gain claim for 3 elements is just as ridiculous.

the last time i laughed this hard is when the Whiskey Still antenna rep out of Las Vegas stopped by hawking his wares claiming some equally ridiculous gain figures from his chrome plated and loaded 1/4 wave mobile antennas, right before i told him to hit the road. you would have sworn that he had never had anyone tell him that they couldn't tell their customers that big of a lie and still maintain any credibility in this business. just more bottom feeders trying to make a quick buck off of the gullibility and naivete' of the consumer public. Charles Gizmotchy is no different than the WS rep that tried to con me.

caveat emptor, "let the buyer beware".


they're on ebay too!....

http://www.firecommunications.com/images/14.9dbgain.jpg

more con games on ebay....

http://www.firecommunications.com/14.9dbgain.txt

antenna gain and the isotropic source....

http://www.firecommunications.com/images/antgain.gif

full spherical illumination (360 degrees) of the interior represents 0dbi..
half spherical illumination (180 degrees) of the interior represents 3dbi..
1/4 spherical illumination (90 degrees) of the interior represents 6dbi..
a 1.5 degree segment illumination of the interior represents 43 dbi.. here are some facts regarding antenna gain and the isotropic source. as any idiot can see it's all about antenna aperture and power density. the claims made in regard to the antenna under discussion are impossible.

the only commercially built antennas where the manufacturers have the temerity to claim anything close to 19db. of gain are on 40 something foot booms with EIGHT FULLSIZE QUAD LOOP ELEMENTS. this is where the so-called "facts" turn to bullshit and science takes over. Charles can't fool anyone with half a brain.

if Charles and all of the other "experienced" con men knew what they were looking at here they would understand why these claims are so preposterous. only a "fool" would believe them.

now getting back to the original post/questions........

"can anybody out here compare the m105hv to the gizmotchy 5 deos anybody have the specs on the gizmotchy 5?????? i just want to know which will out perform the other i guess the giz. runs horz. and vertical at the same time isnt that a downfall?????wouldnt you want to be able to switch back and forth????"

the specifications on the gizmotchy were fabricated and artificially inflated to sell antennas. being able to operate either one or the other polarization exclusively may or may not be a "downfall" or shortcoming depending on your particular use of the array. fixed stations operating horizontally in the presence of vertically polarized "traffic" can be a big plus as vertically polarized signals will be attenuated by as much as 20db., keeping them out of your "ears" and allowing you to focus on the other fixed station with a minimum of interference from the previously mentioned sources. however, when working stations via skywave propagation the signal fading due to polarization loss as the signals rotate on their way from point a to point b can be irritating and depending on the strength of the signals to begin with can cause large portions of the signal to be difficult copy as the signals rotate through the polarization plane not matching the polarization of the antenna in use. this can be demonstrated quite clearly by following the fade and switching polarizations to maintain maximum signal strength. ideally you would want to operate the array in both polarizations simultaneously to minimize signal fading. there are directional antennas on the market already designed for this or any switchable dual polarity antenna (including your 105hv) can be easily adapted for this type of operation with a little feedline magic.

 

[Master Chief]

Marven, I will attempt to answer or refute your comments in order received:

Nobody is comparing fruit. We are talking specifically about the gain claim of the Gizmotchy. We are using the "other" antennas as examples, but not comparing the two.

Where are the real world tests? Still waiting for those.

I think it has been made clear that I know a thing or two about antennas. I certainly don't know it all and continue to learn, but I think I'm qualified to have an opinion on antennas. Many other people out here think I'm qualified also.

My point is (duh), that the gain claims for the Gizmotchy are grossly inflated. You didn't get that? I have no need to approve or disapprove the Gizmotchy antenna. I really don't care if people love them or hate them. I do care that mis-information was being disseminated on this forum however! But, before I went off half-cocked, I wanted Grumpy to explain the claims. This was a service to the original poster.

I have a very good attitude towards antennas and am doing my best to help educate the people on this forum. If you felt verbally attacked, that is your problem. I didn't call you an ass or any other such thing. I only stated that you are a fool if you believe those gain claims, especially with the multiple posts from other QUALIFIED antenna enthusiasts who also say otherwise.

Most people buy antennas for the very reasons you mention. This is more about the buyer's "feelings" than any legitimate factor. Take the A-99 for example. People bought into the hype which the marketing department did a good job promoting. They put it up, it worked, and now they feel good about the transaction. Later, people began to learn the truth about the A-99 and most now see it for what it is......a marginal antenna at best.

I'm perfectly OK with people buying products with their heart, rather than their head. BUT, don't come out here with some ridiculous claims and not expect to be called on it.

Continue to enjoy your Gizmotchy; it matters not to me.

 

[AudioShockwav]

FreeCell:

14.9dB gain. Triple wave. 20KW power handling. Frequency range 26 to 30 MHz. Item(s)
sold AS-IS

That made me blow coffee all over the keyboard, Thanks for the pick me up.

Marven:

M/C has a very good resume, And He is not trying to dis you in any way.
If you would please spend some time and do some research on Antenna Design, you will learn a lot and see why He and others do not buy into the claims made by many of the Co`s that build many types of antennas.

Antenna manufactures cannot change the laws of physics. Antenna design is not magic.
Companys Such as Force-12 and M/Squared have spent very large amounts of time and money modeling, researching and building antennas. If by simply changing the angle of the elements increases gain as much as Giz has claimed, everyone would be doing the same thing.
I am sure it is a well built antenna, but the fact is that the Gain figures clamed are just not going to hold water.
I do encourge you to Read about Gain vers Boom length
And How element Spacing effects gain.
No one here is trying to cutt you down in any way, we would just like you to spend some time looking into how Antennas work, and understand why.
I hope you would take us up on it.

73
Jeff

 

[Hook948]

All you guys forgot to read the fine print or forgot to mention that those gain figures can only happen if the antenna is coated with the special top secret recipe of blended snake oils that have been aged to perfection and then purified through special filtering. This special blend allows the RF to slip off the antenna at a much accelerated rate over the non coated antennas. The RF comes off the antenna elements at just the right calculated speed to where it actually gains velocity the farther it travels. There have been unconfirmed claims that small particles of the special snake oils travel along with the RF and help lubricate the RF so it can travel through the antenna and feed line at the receiving end increasing reception by a average of 10 S units. They don't automatically send the oil with the antenna and don't sell it separately so be sure and request it when ordering! :shock: :roll:

 

[marven]

Gizmotchy/ maco

The sad part of this from my perspective, and I'm sure others will agree.
Is that for all of your claims to the contrary, none of you are following you own advice.

I have spent a considerable part of the last 30 years, studying and testing , assembling and using antennas. Then you want to tell me why it just can't be. And suggest you are the only informed opinions that count.
Except that it isn't just me!!

I also learn from other people, and am not so arrogant as to think I may know everything on a subject. I have an extensive library on antennas, and I also read antenna reviews. Not just from the manufacter, but very educated people.

You all want to take a 19 db rating to task, but nowhere on here has anyone refuted or even argued against the CB Magazine reveiw. I think it's because you can't. Their credibility is your problem.

I've also run several antennas in my time, and I prefer my Gizmo. I make no bones about it, and I'll never say they are the only antennas to choose from. I'm not noticing the same attitude from most of you though.

I truly do try to make informed and knowledgable statements about things I know, and I am still sticking to my assessment. HANDS DOWN, FOR ME IS THE "GIZMOTCHY" v/s the maco.

That was my answer and I'm sticking to it!!! I do have the right to my opinion!!

marven :roll:

 

[Hook948]

Re: Gizmotchy/ maco

I have spent a considerable part of the last 30 years, studying and testing , assembling and using antennas. Then you want to tell me why it just can't be. You all want to take a 19 db rating to task I've also run several antennas in my time, and I prefer my Gizmo. I make no bones about it, and I'll never say they are the only antennas to choose from.
I truly do try to make informed and knowledgable statements about things I know, and I am still sticking to my assessment. HANDS DOWN, FOR ME IS THE "GIZMOTCHY" v/s the maco.

That was my answer and I'm sticking to it!!! I do have the right to my opinion!!

marven :roll:

You are RIGHT, You go with your opinions,findings and feelings. THAT is what counts the MOST! Just curious...In your "30 years, studying and testing", what modeling software do you use and what results did you get when you entered the info on your Gizmotchy? I've been thinking of trying out the 4NEC2 but haven't yet. A friend just got the EZNEC but I haven't had a chance to go over and check it out yet either. Trying to decide.... Edit: Here is a link to info on the 4NEC2.. http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/ I'm sure it's a "get what ya pay for" thing but do you think it would be OK for starters?

 

[freecell]

"Then you want to tell me why it just can't be."

it's all explained in the chart i linked to in my earlier post.
what is explained there doesn't validate your opinion or Charles' ridiculous gain claims. your failure to understand what is depicted there doesn't preclude the truth of the matter either. if you had actually learned or understood anything you've studied all these years then the presentation would be self-explanatory.

 

[davegrantsr]

AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a 5 element beam CANNOT, AND WILL NOT, EVER, ON GODS GREAT EARTH, have 19 db of forward gain, unless, maybe, you were to stack a whole ****load of 'em side by side by side by side by side etc etc etc. it defies the laws of physics, einsteins theory of relativity, the rule of pi, ohms law, and the hippocratic oath. you get the point. 1-5 element beam just ain't doing it. before i hafta leave this forum & go back to the one i left for its stupidity, which, at times like this, is nowhere near as bad, can somebody please stop this insidious stupidity and end the thread. argue about something stupid, such as why a galaxy 88 is so much better then an hr2510. i can deal with the ignorance of somebody who fails to understand that difference because they never had 'em side by side, moreso then a cb radio tech who rewrites science.

 

[Beetle]

It COULD have 19 dB gain. Problem is, nobody is specifying "dB gain over WHAT".

The claim that gain over isotropic, or dBi, is the industry standard may or may not be true; however, if the scholarly writeup is to be given any credence, it MUST specify the parameters of the test.

I notice in virtually all advertising for CB-type antennas that no mention is ever made of the antenna test range: where it is, atmospheric conditions at the time of the testing/comparison, metering used...and on and on. All I ever see are claims that are truly laughable, without any explanations as to how a particular antenna is immune to the laws of physics.