half wave antennas not needing ground elements?

[CDX-007]

that would turn you from female to male Booty,lol.which is indeed a dramatic difference.

as for .64 waves,do you not think its a bit suspect the only place you ever see .64 waves mentioned is cb forums? a bit like magic swr grease.

no doubt descending from a certain manufacturers over hyped claims to outdo competition when cb was at its peak of popularity.

why is it you never see this magical antenna mentioned in any antenna books,in any professional antenna context or why is it you don't see manufacturers discontinuing 5/8 waves in favour of .64 waves as the gains claimed seem incredible for the price of an extra 6 inch of aluminium.

i'll tell you why,like just about every other claim you read on cb forums,not to mention the boxes of some well known brands of antennas like the A99,because those companies realised most cb'ers were gullible!!!

the simple fact of the matter is the only thing that will improve one 5/8 wave over another is using less lossy coil materials or better coil design or a more efficient matching system and using full size radials instead of shortened ones which all cost premiums,outwith that a 5/8 wave is a 5/8 wave.if they were all built using equal quality materials they would all perform the exact same.

heres another point you might want to consider,both your 5/8 wave or .64 wave can only be that on ONE single frequency,how many people only use one frequency?

above and below that frequency they will either be more or less of those fractions,infact you go much above that frequency your .64 will soon be in the region of increasingly high radiation angle as it passes the optimum radiator length in relation to fraction of a wavelength.you go in the opposite direction it won't be far till that .64 becomes a 5/8 wave.

same is true of a 5/8 wave.

6 inch of aluminium giving 6db gain,if that was the case linears would have parallel 6 inch pieces of aluminium instead of transistors.

:glare: You seem to be badmouthing a proven antenna theory-based design, and those who, like me, have noticed it seems to outperform the .625 when looking for the best performance we can get, regardless of the name, design, color, etc.

A .64 is not a .625 so they are going to be different, different patterns, different performance, though maybe not an Earth shaking difference, what's wrong with slight improvements? - Wolf .64, Taylor GLR4 .64, R/S .64, Penetrator .64, Mr. Coily .64 Enforcer...

And you mentioned the frequency change and the difference it would cause, well you have to go quite a ways in frequency to need to adjust your antenna 6.5".
If a .64 is set for the top end of the band where the wave length is shortest, Ch.40 (275.8") it's still longer than a .625 tuned for the bottom of the band where the wave length is longest, Ch.1 (273.5").

And as far as 6dB gain, everyone should know by now that most radio S-meters, whether Amateur or CB, tend toward less than 6dB dB-per-S-unit, especially toward to lower end of the scale, unless it's maybe an old Collins 75A-4.

In another forum I posted this link to a website where a guy tested his Amateur radio meter and found an average of 1-3dB per S-unit.

I don't find it at all unreasonable to see 2-3dB from a lower TOA design, especially further away, like 75-85 miles, where it's going to show up even more dramatically.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

well , i dont know what to say . i both respect and appreciate how much moleculo and 007 have helped me , but jazz you make some good points , you also know a lot about antennas too . the s-unit of improvement 007 got should have been tempered with the fact that s-meters can vary a lot . so i was wrong to just convert it to a 6 db gain figure . and ill apologize to 007 for that now . but there was something happening to make that "more" happen regardless of how much it actually was ... more is more .

 

[jazzsinger]

:glare: You seem to be angrily badmouthing a proven antenna theory-based design, and those who, like me, have noticed it seems to outperform the .625 when looking for the best performance we can get, regardless of the name, design, color, etc.

A .64 is not a .625 so they are going to be different, different patterns, different performance, though maybe not an Earth shaking difference, what's wrong with slight improvements?

And you mentioned the frequency change and the difference it would cause, well you have to go quite a ways in frequency to need to adjust your antenna 6.5".
If a .64 is set for the top end of the band where the wave length is shortest, Ch.40 (275.8") it's still longer than a .625 tuned for the bottom of the band where the wave length is longest, Ch.1 (273.5").

And as far as 6dB gain, everyone should know by now that most radio S-meters, whether Amateur or CB, tend toward less than 6dB dB-per-S-unit, especially toward to lower end of the scale, unless it's maybe an old Collins 75A-4.

In another forum I posted this link to a website where a guy tested his Amateur radio meter and found an average of 1-3dB per S-unit.

I don't find it at all unreasonable to see 2-3dB from a lower TOA design, especially further away, like 75-85 miles, where it's going to show up even more dramatically.

proven by whom exactly?

as for the difference caused by frequency change,i wasn't referring to 40 ch radios,most big antennas are used on export spec radios covering anywhere between 900 khz and 4 mhz and more nowadays.the fact still remains both types of antenna can only be those exact fractions of a wavelength on ONE frequency.

as for 2-3 db for lower toa you'd need one hell of a high mast and plenty of flat surrounding country not to mention a substantial amount of powr to realise that on 27 mhz,and most of your low takeoff angle would be due to mounting height above ground,not the extra 6 inch of aluminium.

most cb s meters are lucky if they have 1db between s points let alone 6db.some amateur radios are even worse,where 9+60db signal reports are common even from emperor ming.

if you were seriously looking for the best performace you can get,you wouldn't be messing around with any vertical monopole antennas,as beams and quads will easily tear them apart.thats proven antenna theory,not the figment of some engineers imagination.

just out of curiosity,i notice all the .64 antennas you quote are all cb antennas,how many ham antenna manufacturers or for that matter professional broadcast antenna manufacturers make .64 antennas?

why are you comparing them halfwave apart, you have to compare them in the exact same location in as short a time scale as possible to get any meaningful results that aren't affected by geography or atmospheric conditions.

 

[jazzsinger]

I think maybe that information could be the Genesis of the CB BS story about the .64 wavelength antenna back in the 70's or early 80's.

That wouldn't surprise me Eddie.

 

[CDX-007]

Sorry for the long break, I took some time for Dinner.

proven by whom exactly?

Check the ARRL handbook.

i think you are letting antennas built with better quality materials/design and nostalgia for your penetrator 500 overcome you sense of realism.

No, antenna theory is still functioning correctly last time I checked, but you're welcome to think whatever pleases you.

as for the difference caused by frequency change,i wasn't referring to 40 ch radios,most big antennas are used on export spec radios covering anywhere between 900 khz and 4 mhz and more nowadays.the fact still remains both types of antenna can only be those exact fractions of a wavelength on ONE frequency no matter how you try to mask it with fancy calculations.theres a whole world of cb outside the fcc 40 channels.

Well then I guess we're all still in trouble because even with a 5/8 as you go further and further up in frequency even the 5/8 will become longer than a .64 so I guess we better scrap all the ½, 5/8, .64, ¾ and .82 antennas out there and all go get ¼ wave GPs because they are so broad-banded, - if that's the only important factor...

as for 2-3 db for lower toa you'd need one hell of a high mast and plenty of flat surrounding country not to mention a substantial amount of powr to realise that on 27 mhz,and most of your low takeoff angle would be due to mounting height above ground,not the extra 6 inch of aluminium.

I had about 40' of elevation from the ground to each, and the station I was referring to is about 2200' so it's almost line of sight... but I don't see your point. How does that negate antenna theory?

most cb s meters are lucky if they have 1db between s points let alone 6db.some amateur radios are even worse,where 9+60db signal reports are common even from emperor ming.

Huh?

if you were seriously looking for the best performace you can get,you wouldn't be messing around with any vertical monopole antennas,as beams and quads will easily tear them apart.thats proven antenna theory,not the figment of some engineers imagination.

I built my 1st 4 element Quad in 1988. But we're talking omnis here, and an omni is sometimes the only correct antenna for the application, such as morning SSB rag-chew where twenty different stations are in every different direction and distance.

as for me being angry,i wasn't angry,merely pointing out the cb world is full of it and only the gullible succumb to it.

Especially when they discount good antenna theory and factual info.

just out of curiosity,i notice all the .64 antennas you quote are all cb antennas,how many ham antenna manufacturers or for that matter professional broadcast antenna manufacturers make .64 antennas? maybe its because their clientelle ain't as gullible as cb'ers.

No, it's mostly because either they do and for simplicity call it a 5/8, or because a 5/8 - .64 would be way too long to be constructed well enough to withstand serious wind and weather for the band application, such as 15m (30')-160m (320'). And I know of many Amateur operators who have some old CB 5/8, .64 or equivalent up, and shortened for 10m or 6m.

and if you knew so much about antennas why are you comparing them halfwave apart,anyone who knows anything about antennas knows you have to compare them in the exact same location in as short a time scale as possible to get any meaningful results that aren't affected by geography or atmospheric conditions.

A half-wave separation is the best for side-by-side real-time comparisons due to that being a null and therefore each antenna tends not to be affected by the other. I already explained that, and that the only one I was really interested in getting a signal report from was exactly the same distance from both, (perpendicular to a line running between both) and that I had done as much as I could to make it as fair as possible, down to even cutting in half a piece of 9913 so each would have the identical type feed line.

I do truly dig the Penetrator 500 BECAUSE it holds it's own to this day, not because I imagined it, and Jazzsinger, I was truly hoping the I-10K would trounce the Penetrator, that would mean I would have found a way to get BETTER performance. Saying I'm only being nostalgic is ridiculous. That's discounting everything I've measured in favor of some ancient aluminum-love affair.

To me it sounds like you just want to argue. - Sorry, that's just my take, and I'm not interested in more of it.

Oh and Booty, no, sorry, I didn't say that well - sounded too confrontational.
I just meant that it's pretty much a known fact that S-meters aren't truly 6dB-per, and I'm still surprised when I see that quoted. It's more wishful thinking than a realized fact.

Here's another one I found of interest: http://www.seed-solutions.com/gregordy/Amateur%20Radio/Experimentation/RawData.pdf

 

[1342]

:glare: You seem to be angrily badmouthing a proven antenna theory-based design, and those who, like me, have noticed it seems to outperform the .625 when looking for the best performance we can get, regardless of the name, design, color, etc.

A .64 is not a .625 so they are going to be different, different patterns, different performance, though maybe not an Earth shaking difference, what's wrong with slight improvements? - Wolf .64, Taylor GLR4 .64, R/S .64, Penetrator .64, Mr. Coily .64 Enforcer...

And you mentioned the frequency change and the difference it would cause, well you have to go quite a ways in frequency to need to adjust your antenna 6.5".
If a .64 is set for the top end of the band where the wave length is shortest, Ch.40 (275.8") it's still longer than a .625 tuned for the bottom of the band where the wave length is longest, Ch.1 (273.5").

And as far as 6dB gain, everyone should know by now that most radio S-meters, whether Amateur or CB, tend toward less than 6dB dB-per-S-unit, especially toward to lower end of the scale, unless it's maybe an old Collins 75A-4.

In another forum I posted this link to a website where a guy tested his Amateur radio meter and found an average of 1-3dB per S-unit.

I don't find it at all unreasonable to see 2-3dB from a lower TOA design, especially further away, like 75-85 miles, where it's going to show up even more dramatically.

agree to agree like cdx said first of all a s unit is usually between 3-6 db depending so divide that by 2 and you have 3 instead of 6 add that and 5.5 db comes to mind sounds about right.but who can really go buy db numbers based on antennas everyone has a db number do they really tell you anything!

 

[jazzsinger]

Sorry for the long break, I took some time for Dinner.

we all have to eat

Check the ARRL handbook.

ARRL HANDBOOK IS ALWAYS RIGHT?

No, antenna theory is still functioning correctly last time I checked, but you're welcome to think whatever pleases you.

i do think what pleases me,but always with an open mind and absolutely no sentimentality.

Well then I guess we're all still in trouble because even with a 5/8 as you go further and further up in frequency even the 5/8 will become longer than a .64 so I guess we better scrap all the ½, 5/8, .64, ¾ and .82 antennas out there and all go get ¼ wave GPs because they are so broad-banded, - if that's the only important factor...

that makes no sense,the same would apply to a 1/4 wave too.

if you were so clued up on antenna theory you would know a conjugate match can be achieved on any antenna,resonant or not.which in turn will broadband any antenna without any significant losses assuming transmission line isn't crap.

I had about 40' of elevation from the ground to each, and the station I was referring to is about 2200' so it's almost line of sight... but I don't see your point. How does that negate antenna theory?

no but it does negate the advantage of low take off angle,the receiving station is 2160 feet above you,how the hell does a low take off angle benefit talking to that station.

Huh?

emperor ming was a bit like darth vader,he lived in a galaxy far far away,but you'd still get him 60db over on most ham radios.

I built my 1st 4 element Quad in 1988. But we're talking omnis here, and an omni is sometimes the only correct antenna for the application, such as morning SSB rag-chew where twenty different stations are in every different direction and distance.

thats what rotators are for.

Especially when they discount good antenna theory and factual info.

your idea of good antenna theory/factual info and mine vary significantly.

No, it's mostly because either they do and for simplicity call it a 5/8, or because a 5/8 - .64 would be way too long to be constructed well enough to withstand serious wind and weather for the band application, such as 15m (30')-160m (320'). And I know of many Amateur operators who have some old CB 5/8, .64 or equivalent up, and shortened for 10m or 6m.

sure,i'm pretty certain if there was any merit in .64 they'd be ramming it right down your face in advertising claims,they ain't,does that not tell you anything?

A half-wave separation is the best for side-by-side real-time comparisons due to that being a null and therefore each antenna tends not to be affected by the other. I already explained that, and that the only one I was really interested in getting a signal report from was exactly the same distance from both, (perpendicular to a line running between both) and that I had done as much as I could to make it as fair as possible, down to even cutting in half a piece of 9913 so each would have the identical type feed line.

you can move a car merely 2 feet and s6 signals can increase to s9 or decrease to s1 due to multi path fading/cancellaton,you honestly think your antennas are immune to that?

the ONLY way to test antennas is on the same pole,with exact same feedline and with as little time between tests as possible,and also with multiple tests done to rule out atmospheric changes.

I do truly dig the Penetrator 500 BECAUSE it holds it's own to this day, not because I imagined it, and Jazzsinger, I was truly hoping the I-10K would trounce the Penetrator, that would mean I would have found a way to get BETTER performance. Saying I'm only being nostalgic is ridiculous. That's discounting everything I've measured in favor of some ancient aluminum-love affair.

i don't doubt your penetrator works well,i do doubt it is because its .64 wave though.

what really surprises me is you have so much faith in .64 antennas yet you truly hoped a 5/8 wave trounced it
nostalgia very often over rules common sense.

To me it sounds like you just want to argue. - Sorry, that's just my take, and I'm not interested in more of it.

your entitled to your opinion,lack of interest in what others have to say is what makes learning difficult because by that you are assuming you are correct.a fatal mistake in most instances.

 

[jazzsinger]

agree to agree like cdx said first of all a s unit is usually between 3-6 db depending so divide that by 2 and you have 3 instead of 6 add that and 5.5 db comes to mind sounds about right.but who the hell can really go buy db numbers based on antennas everyone has a db number do they really tell you anything!

gobbledygook,

an s unit is standardised as 6db,most radios use less to give the buyer the impression signals are stronger than what they really are,no other reason.

db numbers tell you everything if you understand how they work,like most electrical theory the trick is UNDERSTANDING what things like db,pep,avg,rms etc actually mean.

the trouble is electronic manufacturers are acutely aware of what these things mean so muddy the waters by manipulating their values on their equipment to present false information to unsuspecting buyers.most people would rather buy a radio that everyone is 30db over s9 on than one that shows true signals,and these companies know that only too well,they prey on gullibility and ignorance to relieve you of your dollars.

 

[CDX-007]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
Sorry for the long break, I took some time for Dinner.

we all have to eat

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
Check the ARRL handbook.


ARRL HANDBOOK IS ALWAYS RIGHT?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
No, antenna theory is still functioning correctly last time I checked, but you're welcome to think whatever pleases you.

i do think what pleases me,but always with an open mind and absolutely no sentimentality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
Well then I guess we're all still in trouble because even with a 5/8 as you go further and further up in frequency even the 5/8 will become longer than a .64 so I guess we better scrap all the ½, 5/8, .64, ¾ and .82 antennas out there and all go get ¼ wave GPs because they are so broad-banded, - if that's the only important factor...

that makes no sense,the same would apply to a 1/4 wave too.

if you were so clued up on antenna theory you would know a conjugate match can be achieved on any antenna,resonant or not.which in turn will broadband any antenna without any significant losses assuming transmission line isn't crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
I had about 40' of elevation from the ground to each, and the station I was referring to is about 2200' so it's almost line of sight... but I don't see your point. How does that negate antenna theory?

no but it does negate the advantage of low take off angle,the receiving station is 2160 feet above you,how the hell does a low take off angle benefit talking to that station.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
Huh?

emperor ming was a bit like darth vader,he lived in a galaxy far far away,but you'd still get him 60db over on most ham radios.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
I built my 1st 4 element Quad in 1988. But we're talking omnis here, and an omni is sometimes the only correct antenna for the application, such as morning SSB rag-chew where twenty different stations are in every different direction and distance.

thats what rotators are for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
Especially when they discount good antenna theory and factual info.

your idea of good antenna theory/factual info and mine vary significantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
No, it's mostly because either they do and for simplicity call it a 5/8, or because a 5/8 - .64 would be way too long to be constructed well enough to withstand serious wind and weather for the band application, such as 15m (30')-160m (320'). And I know of many Amateur operators who have some old CB 5/8, .64 or equivalent up, and shortened for 10m or 6m.

sure,i'm pretty certain if there was any merit in .64 they'd be ramming it right down your face in advertising claims,they ain't,does that not tell you anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
A half-wave separation is the best for side-by-side real-time comparisons due to that being a null and therefore each antenna tends not to be affected by the other. I already explained that, and that the only one I was really interested in getting a signal report from was exactly the same distance from both, (perpendicular to a line running between both) and that I had done as much as I could to make it as fair as possible, down to even cutting in half a piece of 9913 so each would have the identical type feed line.

you can move a car merely 2 feet and s6 signals can increase to s9 or decrease to s1 due to multi path fading/cancellaton,you honestly think your antennas are immune to that?

the ONLY way to test antennas is on the same pole,with exact same feedline and with as little time between tests as possible,and also with multiple tests done to rule out atmospheric changes,anything else is cb bullshit.but i'm sure you'll argue that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007

I do truly dig the Penetrator 500 BECAUSE it holds it's own to this day, not because I imagined it, and Jazzsinger, I was truly hoping the I-10K would trounce the Penetrator, that would mean I would have found a way to get BETTER performance. Saying I'm only being nostalgic is ridiculous. That's discounting everything I've measured in favor of some ancient aluminum-love affair.

i don't doubt your penetrator works well,i do doubt it is because its .64 wave though.

what really surprises me is you have so much faith in .64 antennas yet you truly hoped a 5/8 wave trounced it,hmmm,do i detect contradiction/lack of faith of your own belief.

nostalgia very often over rules common sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDX-007
To me it sounds like you just want to argue. - Sorry, that's just my take, and I'm not interested in more of it.

your entitled to your opinion,lack of interest in what others have to say is what makes learning difficult because by that you are assuming you are correct.a fatal mistake in most instances.


I stand by what i said earlier:

"i think you are letting antennas built with better quality materials/design and nostalgia for your penetrator 500 overcome you sense of realism."

:bdh:

Due to it's now even more appropriate application, allow me to quote... myself:

To me it sounds like you just want to argue. - Sorry, that's just my take, and I'm not interested in more of it.

op:

 

[1342]

gobbledygook,

an s unit is standardised as 6db,most radios use less to give the buyer the impression signals are stronger than what they really are,no other reason.

db numbers tell you everything if you understand how they work,like most electrical theory the trick is UNDERSTANDING what things like db,pep,avg,rms etc actually mean.

the trouble is electronic manufacturers are acutely aware of what these things mean so muddy the waters by manipulating their values on their equipment to present false information to unsuspecting buyers.most people would rather buy a radio that everyone is 30db over s9 on than one that shows true signals,and these companies know that only too well,they prey on gullibility and ignorance to relieve you of your dollars.

so if i understand dbs than that manipulated number will make sense wow!:headbang

 

[jazzsinger]

:bdh:

Due to it's now even more appropriate application, allow me to quote... myself:

op:

what you really mean is i had an answer for everything you stated and you don't like anyone disagreeing with you so you will just opt out rather than face the fact you could be wrong.the technical term for that is pigheadedness.

which makes my quote even more applicable now

"i think you are letting antennas built with better quality materials/design and nostalgia for your penetrator 500 overcome you sense of realism."

op:

 

[CDX-007]

Only one self assured post?

Awe come on, you can do better than that.

I know, how about explaining how a conjugate match can efficiently maintain the matching of a .64 over a broad frequency range.

op:

 

[1342]

what you really mean is i had an answer for everything you stated and you don't like anyone disagreeing with you so you will just opt out rather than face the fact you could be wrong.the technical term for that is pigheadedness.

which makes my quote even more applicable now

"i think you are letting antennas built with better quality materials/design and nostalgia for your penetrator 500 overcome you sense of realism."

op:

you didnt answer anything and the trick is having the proper equipment to get these measurements!which most people dont have.

 

[jazzsinger]

you didnt answer anything and the trick is having the proper equipment to get these measurements!which most people dont have.

did i upset you because i disagreed with your pal who told you how to set up your penetrator for .64 wavelength?

Originally Posted by CDX-007
About 276" (23') should be the magic number of length of the radiator if you want to have basically a .64 Sigma5/8 @ 27.375mHz, and it should have a ring of ~15.75" outside diameter which should be fed at the bolt of the lower of the two 8" ring mounting arms which fold into the center for mounting the ring.
From that feed point to the ground / radials there should be an insulator and a coil connecting ground to the feedpoint of about 10-12 tight turns of enameled 14-16ga, about 1" diameter former, to bleed static to ground.

just a pity he forgot to include the velocity factor of aluminium.

just incase you doubt me,

300/27.375 = 10,95m x .95 (velocity factor of aluminium) = 10.41m x 3.28 to convert to feet = 34.14 feet x 12 to convert to inches = 409.77 inches X .64 = 262.25 inches.

he gave you the dimensions that made your antenna .673 wave =276 inches / 409.77 = .673.



IS THAT A GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER FOR YOU ? MR SUPER DUPER ANTENNA THEORY F@CKED UP ON THE BASICS.

p.s. the only high tech piece of equipment i used was a poxy 2 dollar calculator.

 

[jazzsinger]

Only one self assured post?

Awe come on, you can do better than that.

I know, how about explaining how a conjugate match can efficiently maintain the matching of a .64 over a broad frequency range.

op:

see above post:

All my posts are self assured,just like yours,but i tend to get the basics right before i move onto more difficult stuff