gizmotchy vs. maco

[freecell]

the original questions posted have been answered. as to the difference between the 105hv and the 5el giz, there is none.

if the giz has the claimed gain then that can be proven by following the test procedure i outlined earlier. if it does have the claimed gain then the 5el giz with a stock 40 ch radio will keep up with a 1.3KW station into a 1/4 wave ground plane. it never has, it won't now and it never will.

all the math i presented is common knowledge to those who do understand the principles of electromagnetic radiation. if you have the equipment to perform the test i outlined (since you obviously don't understand the math) you would see and hear it for yourself or you can retain your sense of false security and fortify your opinion by not performing the only test that will mean anything to you. the math and the facts are inarguable and the only thing left is the experience.

anyone who's ever done business with me will tell you that i don't have any opinions.

if you're looking for real content and sources i suggest you learn how to use a search engine. everything i have posted is heavily referenced if you know which search terms to use. unfortunately i don't have time to teach you how to use your computer and furthermore i don't need access to the sources or content because for me it's all second nature.

"Now I've learned that everyone of them got it wrong, except for one guy!!"

all you have learned is how to repeat what someone else has said without asking any questions or taking the time to understand the math and the principles behind his rather ludicrous statement.

i'll answer the original posters main question one more time.
you're wasting your time and money ditching the m105hv for a giz 5el. both antennas are of a balanced design being used with an unbalanced feedline so there's room for improvement in both of them there. impedance matching is efficient enough, resonance is an unknown as it can only be established on a per case basis and the pattern symmetry leaves plenty of room for improvement since the BALanced - UNbalanced condition exists in both of them and causes pronounced pattern skewing. they both make use of dual feedlines and both of them miss the boat when it comes to handling skywave propagated signals with a minimum of fading.

the manufacturers gain rating for BOTH antennas is a fable (15.5 db. / M105hv, 19db / Giz 5el.) and the latter is the taller fable of the two. neither of the two antennas mentioned are capable of the gain figures posited by the manufacturers and the only motivation behind either of the figures is sales based of inflated numbers. properly assembled, adjusted and installed there's not a wits bit of difference between the two of them. furthermore the REAL GAIN of either of the arrays in question is 3 - 5 DB. LOWER than the figure quoted for the 105hv.

 

[Switch Kit]

Switch Kit wrote:
However, the original question seems to have been ignored.
Testosterone or ego? I'm not sure why, and don't really care.

Very good observation Marv , sometimes it seems like it can be so bright in here that it can have a blinding effect. Peace



Gosh darn it Chief !! I at least would have hoped you would have qouted me at the least ............... but IM thinking something that I said must have hit between a rock and a hard place maybe ? but then again , I was just agreeing with Marvin. I learned a long time ago that there are somethings in life that just don't warrent a second thought. You know how things can go over your head ? Some times there just better off that way.

 

[Master Chief]

I was just agreeing with Marvin.

There is no chest-pounding or ego scratching going on in here. If someone made a post that they get 100 watts out of their Cobra 29, the world would come down on him!

This is the same thing. What is being argued is that a 5-element beam on ANY band at ANY boom length will not and can not produce anything near 19db of gain. Add to that the lack of any technical data to support those claims and you will see why it is being challenged by people who KNOW and UNDERSTAND antenna theory.

We are much smarter then they were in the 60's. We use computers to do the massive number crunching. Then we test actual antennas against the computer models in order to prove or disprove a design. Its safe to say that we know what we are doing.

Also, its not unheard of for antenna manufacturers to inflate gain claims in order to sell an antenna.

The thing is, its FOOLISH to keep perpetuating a lie in the face of conflicting proof. Not theory, but PROOF.

Agreeing with marvin is not the safe way to go. He has yet to "rest his case". He has yet to provide a single technical article. His arguments are without substance. I suspect marvin is a good person and I'm sure he is happy with his antenna and that it performs well for him. But, he is misguided by sticking to unreasonable claims of antenna gain figures.

None of this means that the Gizmotchy is a bad antenna! All it means is that it does not have 19db of gain. Simple.

 

[1200RI]

Check out the gains in the lower left corner

http://diana.bib.uniurb.it/arrl/yagi.htm

 

[freecell]

that's more like it........ 5 el. on a 25 foot boom, 10 - 10.5 dbi..tnx for the link.

"is 3 - 5 DB. LOWER than the figure quoted for the 105hv."

 

[marven]

Gizmotchy v/s Maco

I am still hoping, that at least some of you can hear what I am saying.

It's not that I don't enjoy reading the tech stuff. I do!!


The thing I'm frustrated with, is the inability to cover the subject, with integrety.

A. In a informative way, so that we can know if we are comparing the same things. The misrepresentation of facts, to try and prove a point doesn't do the subject justice.

B. Doing the above without the attitude that turns people away from reading or posting on the forum. AS stated, some may think they know this subject thoughly, but if you can't or wont list your references, you are keeping someone from quickly checking for themselves, ie; a potential customer, or someone even very knowledgeable. Your also keeping some from actually learning more, from additional study. ( A stated reason for this forum ) Time is money! If your going to take the time to post, finish the job.


I posted the CB Magazine review in the hope that one of you, having done more than read, would post the actual test findings and methods used. An experiment is meaningless, if it can't be duplicated. And I don't mean by just the original tester. The CB Magazine review posted actual measurements, abet roughly. Theory won't disprove it. The only thing that is sure are more tests, and I'm not taking computer modeling. That is still unproven theory.


I know that you all disagree with everything posted by me.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying you aren't providing enough substance and actual field tests.


An example of what I mean is "Freecell" , "Radioman" on Cb Tricks, for the subject of mics. The way he went about the review comparisons were very informative, and confirmable.

We have a few antenna test comparisons on here, but I'm not seeing anything to convince someone to buy anything. I'm seeing theoretical discussions, not nearly enough evauations.



I have been looking at where I want to spend my advertizing dollars, on these forums. The question I haven't answered is "Where am I going to get the most bang for my bucks?". I'm also looking at the responses from the different questions asked and answers given.
My experience tells me that customers don't want college classes, they want real world findings. And after all is said and done, Isn't that one of the reasons for this forum?.

Taking a manufacturer to task for the advertised ratings is one thing. Taking a potential advertizer to task for those ratings, is unprofitable.
In most cases, all that happens is people quit reading.
And asking an advertizer to do your job, isn't fair to anyone.

Claiming to be an expert means you know more than theory. You can't ask every storekeeper to run hours of computer simulations and Rf field propogation experiments. And the customers won't either.

The reason I mention this is "Grumpy" is a good guy and retired. What you all did from his posting, I can't believe, and I've seen it with my own eyes.

My Gizmotchy tests aren't complete yet. May not be for years, I have to wait for time and weather. However, I have compared a Maco 5 element to a Gizmotchy 5 element under some exacting field conditions, and for me the Gizmotchy wins.
Am I able to prove it? Only to myself, so far, testing continues.


Just my .002 cents!
marven :roll:

 

[DRM1983]

i'm a newb,i don't really understand technical lingo about antenna theory/propagation.....

but i think what i have gathered from the thread is....

if it is a yagi,it is a yagi,EX: 4 ele yagi vs 4 ele yagi....there is probably not going to be hardly any difference if the ele spacing is =.....and there is no magic formula for overratted antenna claims....longer boom = more foward gain @ the exspense of a small band width...

this remind me of the a99=9.9dbi)where i live,when we talk on 11m,its a run what ya like(or can afford)and dont aregue the facts even,believe what ya want(a99 9.9dbi,LMAO)dont beat these foolish people with intelligence like a dead horse,you can lead a horse to water,but you cannot make him drink it type thing.......

there are actually people that really believe a a99 with give them gain......but what they do not understand,is that to have "gain" it has to achieve this over another device...not over thin air,LMAO....

 

[freecell]

unfortunately antenna study involves a little more than measuring voltage output levels and frequency response as in the microphone evlauation alluded to previously.

there is an ample supply of keywords in everything i post and link to and it's a simple matter (as some have discovered) of plugging the terms into your favorite search engine and refining them to locate the content and sources that you're looking for.

for example:

isotropic source, antenna gain and power density there's 110,000 source listings for you. think of the words and plug them in.

and while you're at it plan on locating a comprehensive glossary of the definitions of terms used in the field of study so you can comprehend what you're reading.

it's as simple as that.

oh and btw, the A99 does produce gain when compared to either the isotropic source or the 1/2 wave dipole, just nowhere near 9.9 db.. of it.

 

[bob85]

marven i did post an opinion based on experience of that type of antenna,
admittedly not exactly a gizmo but near enough imho,

i stated it was comparable to my 5 element yagi and nothing near 19db gain,
i even had a go at freecell's maths in full view of everybody here with nothing more than a basic calculator that has no PI feature, so scratch me off that everybody here list of youres please,

imho if 2 antennas ( 4 and 5 ele polaris ) with same boom length as the comparable gizmo same or very similar spacing/taper schedule and matching arrangement are setup correctly and compared then nobody not even old Aesop gizmotchy can squeeze those extra db's and we are talking a lot of extra db's especially when its an old design clearly not optimised in spacing nor feed arrangement for anything but generating more sales,

the original poster wanted to compare the two antennas from the makers specs or peoples own experiences,
i gave my experience of that type of antenna and since both makers claim unrealistic db gain figures then imo he needs to be made aware of that,
i am not knocking either antenna just the claimed gain,

i dont see where i posted anything tactless insulting or inaccurate and i certainly am not misrepresenting anything to prove a point,
i for one am not here to buy sell or promote my wares, its all about the learning,

take care

 

[marven]

Gizmotchy/ Maco

My apologys for using the word "all". Your right, there were exceptions.

Which also is the basic point, of my prior threads.
marven

 

[freecell]

if any commercially built antenna had a shot at achieving a gain figure anything close to 19dbi. this one would be it........ in any case the gain figure attached to the L8 is the least exaggerated of the bunch.

http://www.signalengineering.com/lightning_8.html

just compare the 3db. beamwidth pattern of this array to the one provided for the 5 el. on a 25 foot boom i linked to earlier in this thread from the page provided by 1200RI....

http://diana.bib.uniurb.it/arrl/compare.gif

 

[AudioShockwav]

The reason I mention this is "Grumpy" is a good guy and retired. What you all did from his posting, I can't believe, and I've seen it with my own eyes.

This Was NEVER about Grumpy, He has been here a long time, and hell I am even a member of HIS forum(altho it has been a while since I logged in) if that is what you are thinking, that was never intended.
This is about the Gain figures reported by the guys that Build them.



Marvin, I admire you devotion to the Antenna, even If i can not agree with the posted gain figures.
And on this forum at least, you are entitled to your opinion.


73
Jeff

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Now I know why I have been avoiding this thread until now. All I will say is that although the Giz may be a good antenna the gain figures are:

 

[Master Chief]

Re: Gizmotchy v/s Maco

I am still hoping, that at least some of you can hear what I am saying. It's not that I don't enjoy reading the tech stuff. I do!! The thing I'm frustrated with, is the inability to cover the subject, with integrity.

Integrity? I've heard you loud and clear! I just don't agree with you.

A. In a informative way, so that we can know if we are comparing the same things. The misrepresentation of facts, to try and prove a point doesn't do the subject justice.

There have been no misrepresentation of any facts. We are comparing antenna gain figures by element and boom length. Post after post have said that the gain figure claimed for the Gizmotchy is impossible. I've posted similar results and 1200RI just drove a nail in the coffin. Whether we talk about dbd or dbi, 19db for the Gizmotchy is still impossible. If you want to discuss db-somethin, then please clue us in to what the "something" is! A dummy load? You have yet to say what we are or not comparing to. The rest of us, and the entire antenna building world, recognizes dbi and dbd. You should try it too!

B. Doing the above without the attitude that turns people away from reading or posting on the forum.

4 pages and still going!

AS stated, some may think they know this subject throughly, but if you can't or wont list your references, you are keeping someone from quickly checking for themselves, ie; a potential customer, or someone even very knowledgeable.

What? We are all talking about dbi or dbd. I even posted a link to Force 12's website and their testing/rating system. So much for not posting references. Just in case you want more, how about the ARRL Antenna Book, Reflections, The Physical Design of Yagi Antennas....... You are the only one to not clarify the "what" in "db-what".

Your also keeping some from actually learning more, from additional study. ( A stated reason for this forum ) Time is money! If your going to take the time to post, finish the job.

Ummm freecell posted all kinds of good info. So much for not finishing the job.

I posted the CB Magazine review in the hope that one of you, having done more than read, would post the actual test findings and methods used. An experiment is meaningless, if it can't be duplicated. And I don't mean by just the original tester. The CB Magazine review posted actual measurements, albeit roughly. Theory won't disprove it. The only thing that is sure are more tests, and I'm not taking computer modeling. That is still unproven theory.

I asked once before, is THIS the CB Magazine review you are referring to? http://www.gizmotchy.com/technicalreviews.html
If it is, it is NOT a technical review and yes, THEORY does disprove it. How many more test results do you need to see? Computer modeling IS proven; not perfect, but real real real close! Close enough to be reliable!

I know that you all disagree with everything posted by me. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying you aren't providing enough substance and actual field tests.

Not everything you posted, just your futile attempt to hold onto the 19db thing.

We have a few antenna test comparisons on here, but I'm not seeing anything to convince someone to buy anything. I'm seeing theoretical discussions, not nearly enough evaluations.

Most of us are not trying to get anyone to buy anything. We just want to clarify that the Gizmotchy does not, will not, can not, EVER, have 19db gain.

I have been looking at where I want to spend my advertising dollars, on these forums. The question I haven't answered is "Where am I going to get the most bang for my bucks?".

Best bang for your buck; have a good website and stop arguing about topics you clearly know nothing about.

I'm also looking at the responses from the different questions asked and answers given. My experience tells me that customers don't want college classes, they want real world findings. And after all is said and done, Isn't that one of the reasons for this forum?.

Speaking for myself, I'm here to learn and to dispel the myths surrounding our radio hobby. Of all the forms on the Internet concerning CB, this is the BEST!

Taking a manufacturer to task for the advertised ratings is one thing. Taking a potential advertiser to task for those ratings, is unprofitable.

Grumpy wasn't taken to task, he was asked a simple question.

In most cases, all that happens is people quit reading. And asking an advertiser to do your job, isn't fair to anyone.

I would hope you would want to tell your customers the truth about the products you sell.

Claiming to be an expert means you know more than theory. You can't ask every storekeeper to run hours of computer simulations and Rf field propagation experiments. And the customers won't either.

I'm not asking you to run anything. I'm only hoping that you will learn from those who HAVE!

The reason I mention this is "Grumpy" is a good guy and retired. What you all did from his posting, I can't believe, and I've seen it with my own eyes.

You see it but don't believe it? Now there is a problem! As far as Grumpy goes, he was asked a simple question. If he did not have the answer, then all he had to say is "I don't know, these are the manufacturer's claims." Instead, he said nothing and you popped in here saying the claims are true. The focus is NOT on Grumpy, but YOU.

My Gizmotchy tests aren't complete yet. May not be for years, I have to wait for time and weather. However, I have compared a Maco 5 element to a Gizmotchy 5 element under some exacting field conditions, and for me the Gizmotchy wins. Am I able to prove it? Only to myself, so far, testing continues.

Good GOD man, its been 30 years! When will you be done? In all seriousness, I don't doubt that the Gizmotchy beats the Maco. This was never the issue I had. My issue was the 19db thing. Are you hearing me yet?

 

[freecell]

all we want to know is where the other 70X came from........