-
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.
Marconi comparing New Top One vs. Old Top One
- Thread starter Marconi
- Start date
Tuner, can you tell me if the bottom hoop is physically well above the highest peak of your roof and those of your neighbors like it looks?
Or, could that just be an illusion due to the perspective for this image?
We know how high the antenna is, can you give us an idea of the height of the roof peaks in question, and the edge of your roof where the mast is mounted with a bracket? I'm guessing the bottom hoop is currently about 23' above the ground and your roof peak may be about the same height with your neighbors even higher. So, the antenna is a lot closer to the roof than it looks in the image.
Or, could that just be an illusion due to the perspective for this image?
We know how high the antenna is, can you give us an idea of the height of the roof peaks in question, and the edge of your roof where the mast is mounted with a bracket? I'm guessing the bottom hoop is currently about 23' above the ground and your roof peak may be about the same height with your neighbors even higher. So, the antenna is a lot closer to the roof than it looks in the image.
Last edited:
So what are your final findings with the new Top One? Is it better or the same as the olde AP? Im curious as i might get a new Top One to play with....
Staybolt, based on my real world experiences the New Top One is a little better than the original. It matches better and the bandwidth is 5.1 MHz compared to the Old Top One at 3.9 MHz.
The NTO shows to be less noisy in the video above, but this static issue I raised has not been specifically tested by me. However, based on the video you can clearly see and hear this static response. I have also seen a video on YouTube by one of our CB buddies in England that talks and demonstrates something similar. I will ask on Charlie Tango if anyone remembers who it was or knows the link to such a video.
Earlier I also asked Homer about this question of noise (static), hoping he could confirm or deny this issue while he was using his original A/P compared to another of his vertical antennas. Maybe he'll come on at some point and tell us if he has ever detected something similar or not.
It won't answer the question I've raised here, but maybe it might help to explain possibly what we see in the video...where static maybe interfering with the transmitted signal as well as the RX on our transmitter.
Here is the video I was talking about regarding static. Watch close at about 1:20 minutes into the video.
Sirio Gain Master vs Antron 99 - YouTube
I can't be sure, but maybe this shows us how static can affect both TX/RX. You can actually hear the static on FM transmit in this video, and you can see the effect of the static even when the squelch is set to quieten the radio. I can't explain why only one of the stations of the three tested...produces the noise we hear excepting it was the weakest signal and maybe was farther away.
This is not the same thing I was talking about, but it does show how static or ambient noise can also affect transmit.
Also note the FM dead key for each antenna. The GM is just above 1 on his meter, and the A99 is above 4 when they are not talking. They key and talk pretty fast, so you have to watch carefully.
Sirio Gain Master vs Antron 99 - YouTube
I can't be sure, but maybe this shows us how static can affect both TX/RX. You can actually hear the static on FM transmit in this video, and you can see the effect of the static even when the squelch is set to quieten the radio. I can't explain why only one of the stations of the three tested...produces the noise we hear excepting it was the weakest signal and maybe was farther away.
This is not the same thing I was talking about, but it does show how static or ambient noise can also affect transmit.
Also note the FM dead key for each antenna. The GM is just above 1 on his meter, and the A99 is above 4 when they are not talking. They key and talk pretty fast, so you have to watch carefully.
Last edited:
I think there are some concepts here that are out of reason about 'noise'. Antennas are terrible noise 'filters', they just can't/don't do that without reducing their efficiency. (Another aspect of that 'reduced efficiency' is usable signal bandwidth which is indirectly proportional to efficiency. The 'wider' the band width the less efficient the antenna, which also seems to be what's happening in the examples given here, right?)
Atmospheric noise doesn't affect a transmitted signal. It certainly does affect how that transmitted signal is received. So that 'distinction' is invalid to start with.
I think it's fine to question things, but there are limits to what's validly questioned.
- 'Doc
Atmospheric noise doesn't affect a transmitted signal. It certainly does affect how that transmitted signal is received. So that 'distinction' is invalid to start with.
I think it's fine to question things, but there are limits to what's validly questioned.
- 'Doc
Tuner, can you tell me if the bottom hoop is physically well above the highest peak of your roof and those of your neighbors like it looks?
Or, could that just be an illusion due to the perspective for this image?
We know how high the antenna is, can you give us an idea of the height of the roof peaks in question, and the edge of your roof where the mast is mounted with a bracket? I'm guessing the bottom hoop is currently about 23' above the ground and your roof peak may be about the same height with your neighbors even higher. So, the antenna is a lot closer to the roof than it looks in the image.
Thankstuner said:
You are close, but it looks high enough that I would consider it in the clear and for sure the Imax is high enough.
Tuner, here is a pretty simple mount I use at the base of my antenna just to secure the bottom. I use a 4 section 40' foot push up pole. I attach the antenna to the top section with it laying down. Then I pick the whole thing up and walk it up...with the bottom end in the dirt right close to the base of the mount.
When I get it pushed up straight I carefully lift it up onto a patio stone to keep the base of the P/U out of water and off of the soil. Then I attach several gate clamps between the P/U Pole and the 1.25" x 6' heavy wall treated water pipe that is 3' feet in the ground, as noted in the image above.
I don't attach anything to my house, doing so is destructive to the house and that can cost big money to fix. So I place the antenna about 1' foot away in a convenient 90* degree corner of the house. Here I can place my ladder on the edge of the roof, attach my guy lines, coax if necessary, and if I loose control of the antenna a little I can lean it into the corner.
If I push the pole all the way out, I try to use two sets of guy lines about 10' feet apart, and I try to set the top guy line bracket close to the base of the antenna. When I tension my lines I leave a little slack for the top guy lines, and get a bit tighter with the lower setup. This allows the top to sway a bit, but stops the middle from bucking very much. IMO, this swaying a little tends to take some of the wind load off of the antenna base and mount area.
I plan the antenna location so I can use 4 guys lines attached to a sturdy tree, a light pole, or a good sturdy fence post. I use 3/16th double braided polyester antenna rope for my guy lines. My yard is small too, but I manage.
Tuner, here is a pretty simple mount I use at the base of my antenna just to secure the bottom. I use a 4 section 40' foot push up pole. I attach the antenna to the top section with it laying down. Then I pick the whole thing up and walk it up...with the bottom end in the dirt right close to the base of the mount.
When I get it pushed up straight I carefully lift it up onto a patio stone to keep the base of the P/U out of water and off of the soil. Then I attach several gate clamps between the P/U Pole and the 1.25" x 6' heavy wall treated water pipe that is 3' feet in the ground, as noted in the image above.
I don't attach anything to my house, doing so is destructive to the house and that can cost big money to fix. So I place the antenna about 1' foot away in a convenient 90* degree corner of the house. Here I can place my ladder on the edge of the roof, attach my guy lines, coax if necessary, and if I loose control of the antenna a little I can lean it into the corner.
If I push the pole all the way out, I try to use two sets of guy lines about 10' feet apart, and I try to set the top guy line bracket close to the base of the antenna. When I tension my lines I leave a little slack for the top guy lines, and get a bit tighter with the lower setup. This allows the top to sway a bit, but stops the middle from bucking very much. IMO, this swaying a little tends to take some of the wind load off of the antenna base and mount area.
I plan the antenna location so I can use 4 guys lines attached to a sturdy tree, a light pole, or a good sturdy fence post. I use 3/16th double braided polyester antenna rope for my guy lines. My yard is small too, but I manage.
An antenna can be made to be wider in bandwidth and have the same efficiency or even greater efficiency than it previously had when it displayed less bandwidth.
Efficiency is the percentage of receive signal or transmitter power that is not radiated, or wasted, by the antenna due to conductor/matching device losses.
Bandwidth is the width of the band of frequencies wherein the peformance of the antenna does not suffer due to a transmission line characteristic impedance mismatch created by the changing impedance characteristics relative to frequency change of the antenna.
A wider bandwidth antenna can be constructed to offer an increase in efficiency.
Consider a cage dipole; It is constructed thusly to increase bandwidth and at the same time efficiency is increased due to the increased suface are of the conductors available to offer less of a 'skin effect' loss associated with conductor losses.
Last edited:
This is similar to what some said about the Gain-Master. If it could provide a 1.2:1 VSWR over 5 Mhz, the matching network must have high loss. Just because inefficient matching networks often produce wider bandwidths does not mean you can assume all antennas with wide bandwidth have to contain high loss too.
Shockwave, we've been reading guy's claims about matching losses for years. In particular with the I-10k guys arguing that the trombone matcher is the best, and beats a gamma match hands down.
I'm not sure I know how such losses are determined.
You mention the GM, do you think the GM's matching design is in fact low loss? If so, how do you know and how is it determined?
Well, at least one of us is familiar with this subject matter.
You mean you are unfamiliar with the terms of "antenna efficiency" and "antenna bandwidth"?
If so, then why would you use them in a rambling statement?
If you were talking about antenna "Q" then why would you not include that term in your posting?
You specifically used the terms "bandwidth" and "efficiency"; Not once did you use the term "Q" in the post I made reference too.
I am reasonably well read in this subject matter, well enough to realize when someone is rambling too much without clear meaning and is making the subject matter more confusing than what it really is.
With that in mind, I think it must be you who are mistaken.
Maybe the trombone match on the I-10k is more efficient due to less loss due to the physical size of the trombone offering less 'skin effect' losses.
But what we are talking here with the difference between a tapped "RINGO" style inductor as opposed to a physically larger tapped inductor (trombone) is 'fly-shit-in-the-pepper'.
The difference in no way accounts for the claims made for this antenna with specific reference to the "TROMBONE" as being the principal in the matter.