Marconi testing New Top One vs. Gain Master

[Marconi]

Personally I don't figure anything regarding radio waves are constant.

I understand that stuff on the surface of the Earth affects our signals, but I can't see the signals, so I don't know or claim to know what affect stuff has on a specific signal. IMO, some stuff likely adds to some signals and diminish others. It's really hard to say for sure unless you can see the waves and how they respond or reflect. I don't tend to worry much about stuff I have absolutely no control over.

Gamegetter, can you be more specific as to your point relative to this discussion?

 

[gamegetter]

that anything out there in the environment that may attenuate signal, is going to attenuate signal for both of the antennas you are testing so that the objects should be of no concern for the test because the effect would be in both attenna results

 

[Marconi]

Hopefully I won't say anything that kills the momentum of this thread. . .
I believe the height of your NTO will produce greater performance as you go up. Unfortunately for me, there seems to be a limit to what I can see given the landscape around me. Looking forward to it.

Homer, I can't be sure that this NTO will respond like my Old Top One, but I expect it to respond nicely on raising the 4' feet to get the bottom up as high as the Sigma4, and then when I raise it another 5' - 6' feet to get the antennas centers near the same height we'll just have to wait and see.

I may be wrong, but I think we may be the only two around here that believe the AstroPlane is really a rather remarkable antenna, at just about any height, while considering that its radiator is only 4' feet long. Such a consideration by some seems to creates a world of disbelief...even to consider the AstroPlane anywhere near viable. The issue of the radiator length is the single thing that sets guys off and strains their understanding.

As I've told you before you are the first ever to try and check out or duplicate what I find using this little antenna. Starduster tried his best a while back, but just didn't quite get to the point of determination and seems to have given up. For me that is a shame, because from all appearances SD'r showed to do excellent work and had the snap to wonder if or why, and not be all swallowed up in crusty old tails from the CBBS world around us.

All talk and no show.

 

[Marconi]

I agree with you gamegetter, excepting maybe some particular angles may cause a different response to one antenna over the other. This is in part why some folks object to testing side-by-side...among other things. Your assumption is also another reason why comparion reports noting signals from only one or two particular stations can skew results too. The fewer samplings of signals can ill-affect results by not ruling out the highs and lows in a weighted average test.

In my recent testing, I attempted to test every antenna by itself and then do the same on the two different mounts in an attempt to prove or disprove this consideration if possible. I have not yet tried to rehash those responses, but during the process I did not find anything as a glaring example of a problem.

I did discover however, that the mount in the clear and out back seemed to be just a bit noisy compared to my new mount near my shack. That said however, that didn't seem to ill-affect the guys signals, but the truth will be when I take the time to rehash and cross check the antenna data I've collected thus far.

I know there are three antennas that have not been switched and tested between my two mounts, the I-10k, Sigma4, New Top One. I might try and do that as weather permits even though I've recently lost three of my regular contacts I used on all my previous comparisons. That alone may make such further comparisons useless as the base line from old reports will no longer apply. But we'll see.

I'm in the process of removing my GM now, and testing my Sigma4 by it self next to my shack, then I plan to put my NTO out back and try it out there side-by-side with the S4 and then remove the S4 and test the NTO by itself.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[MrSuburban]

that anything out there in the environment that may attenuate signal, is going to attenuate signal for both of the antennas you are testing so that the objects should be of no concern for the test because the effect would be in both attenna results

Up to a point but that isnt neccesarily true since a antenna with a higher angle of radiation those same obstacles may not attenuate the signal as much.

 

[gamegetter]

and in this case i believe both antennas are advertising an angle of radiation perfectly horizontal, are they not?

 

[HomerBB]

Homer, . . .

I may be wrong, but I think we may be the only two around here that believe the AstroPlane is really a rather remarkable antenna, at just about any height, while considering that its radiator is only 4' feet long. Such a consideration by some seems to creates a world of disbelief...even to consider the AstroPlane anywhere near viable. The issue of the radiator length is the single thing that sets guys off and strains their understanding.

As I've told you before you are the first ever to try and check out or duplicate what I find using this little antenna. . . . wonder if or why, and not be all swallowed up in crusty old tails from the CBBS world around us.

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud. While I'm not as educated as some, and certainly lack the valuable experience they have, one of my strong suits is in reading comprehension. As terminology becomes more familiar my understanding grows. What I have grasped, however, leads me to complete bafflement sometimes. When I realize there are some who considering antenna performance favor what boils down to a defense of the "status quo".

I do not yet know if the AP can kick the beeehind off other verticals. It appears to be a 1/2 wave antenna, but is it bound to all the limitations of all typical 1/2 waves? Not at my QTH so far. Has it the potential for staying with a 5/8? It has so far at my house. But it won't if you mount it on a mobile. It might if you put it in the air where it was designed to go.

Even the V4k, or S4, has by its design apparently overcome the performance limitation inherent in 3/4 to 7/8 antennas. I've read arguments on multiple forums where someone contends that despite the growing evidence to the contrary the 3/4 and 7/8 S4 antennas will not outperform any other of those lengths, or even a well setup 5/8, on the far horizon because of too steep TOA. When this anti-S4 argument is proposed its defenders join to remind the detractors that they should embrace the difference in the design of this antenna and accept its exceptional performance - exceptional in the sense that it doesn't do as other antennas that long do.

Enter the diminutive Astroplane, and when someone attempts to make a argument for considering the way it was designed to compete in the field of antennas, as if it pull might offend all the saints and give the little infant in the manger colic, one and all the defenders of design of the V4k/S4 treat the idea as if it landed on earth on a meteorite. Dare argue for equal consideration.

Of course the AP will in the long run fall behind if forced to operate beneath the horizon of its design, that is, 18' below the overall height of a 5/8 wave, or 14' below a 1/2 wave, or 28' to 24' below a 3/4 - 7/8 antenna. Who would've made an antenna with a negative height limitation built in without reason? Most of the AP, roughly 8', is below the coax connector/same mast height. Such an assumption of intent of the designers/manufacturers of this antenna to purposely disadvantage it is truly inane.
One needs to remember that I ran across this antenna abandoned and bought it for a mere $25.00. My intent was just to buy it and try it. It surprised me.
I'll mount my AP as close as I can to where it was designed to be mounted and see what it does. It is now within 1.5 feet of the mounted 5/8 top most height and performing admirably. That's all I can do for now.

I will find a way to support my theorizing, if never my theory. I may be wrong about the AP, I don't have to be right, after all I'm married, but I will not fail to analyze the antenna's performance, and in doing so not begin with a prejudicial negative. Nor with any other antenna for that matter.

It is an unpopular point of view.

Enough said. I'm looking forward to your . . . how was it said? . . . meaningless results.[/fphp]

Homer/Charles

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

has anyone ever purposely tried an astroplane mounted upside down and documented/compared it to its suggested orientation ?

 

[HomerBB]

Is this your portrait, Booty? Did you shave?

 

[Marconi]

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud. While I'm not as educated as some, and certainly lack the valuable experience they have, one of my strong suits is in reading comprehension. As terminology becomes more familiar my understanding grows. What I have grasped, however, leads me to complete bafflement sometimes. When I realize there are some who considering antenna performance favor what boils down to a defense of the "status quo". Thank God for Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, and Alexander Graham Bell, not to mention Yagi and Uda. I do not yet know if the AP can kick the beeehind off other verticals. It appears to be a 1/2 wave antenna, but is it bound to all the limitations of all typical 1/2 waves? Not at my QTH so far. Has it the potential for staying with a 5/8? It has so far at my house. But it won't if you mount it on a mobile. It might if you put it in the air where it was designed to go.
Even the V4k, or S4, has by its design apparently overcome the performance limitation inherent in 3/4 to 7/8 antennas. I've read arguments on multiple forums including this one where someone contends that despite the growing evidence to the contrary the 3/4 and 7/8 S4 antennas will not outperform any other of those lengths, or even a well setup 5/8, on the far horizon because of too steep TOA. When this anti-S4 argument is proposed its defenders with hue and cry join to remind the detractors that they should embrace the difference in the design of this antenna and accept its exceptional performance; exceptional in the sense that it doesn't do as other antennas that long do.
Enter the diminutive Astroplane, and like the "Little Engine Who Could", when someone attempts to make a argument for considering the way it was designed to compete in the field of antennas, as if allowing anyone to hook the train up to the AP and let it pull might offend all the saints and give the little infant in the manger colic, one and all the defenders of the holy grail of design of the V4k/S4 treat the idea as if it landed on earth on a meteorite. Dare argue for equal treatment under the make them up as you go when it's convenient rules.

Of course the AP will in the long run fall behind if forced to operate beneath the horizon of its design, that is, 18' below the overall height of a 5/8 wave, or 14' below a 1/2 wave, or 28' to 24' below a 3/4 - 7/8 antenna. Who would've**** made an antenna with a negative height limitation built in? Most of the AP, roughly 8', is below the coax connector/same mast height. Such an assumption of intent with the designers/manufacturers of this antenna is truly inane. So I'll mount my AP as close as I can to where it was designed to be mounted and see what it does. It is now within 1.5 feet of the mounted 5/8 top most height. That's all I can do for now.

I will find a way to support my theorizing, if never my theory. I may be wrong about the AP, I don't have to be right, after all I'm married, but I will not fail to analyze the antenna's performance, and in doing so not begin with a prejudicial negative. Nor any other for that matter.

Enough said. I'm looking forward to your . . . how was it said? . . . meaningless results.


Homer/Charles

Homer, I don't think the AP will "...kick the beeehind off other verticals," except maybe when the tips are at the same height, then my bets on the AP. I also agree the AP design is a very well matched center fed 1/2 wave radiator that deals very well with coax feed line issues that can be a common problem for vertical center fed 1/2 wave radiators.

IMO, if the AP's tip is raised closer to parity with longer verticals, maybe within 5' feet of the other antenna's tip, then the AP can hold its own in performance. I think all of my comparison tests thus far confirm that, even going back in time. You say your AP is installed at a tip height that would be 1.5' feet below the tip of your 5/8 wave? If so, then my experience tells me it should be showing a better signal in most cases than the 5/8 wave.

Another plus I find with the AP type antenna is it's noticeably quieter than most...when conditions are very good and a great bandwidth. I suspect this quietness thing I describe here may be due to the higher gain exhibited by larger and higher gain antennas, but I'm not really sure.

For those that won't consider this "quiet" idea presented here, I'll concede that if conditions are bad...then the AP is no better in this regard than others, and all gain type vertical antennas seem to hear static and noise pretty well.

Homer, do you find your AP presenting even a hint of TVI or feed line radiation? Up until I tried to video raising my Old Top One where I had a problem and put a tug on my feed line snagged on my ladder, the antenna was acting badly in this regard afterwords. Prior to that I had noticed no problem at all with my PC speakers.

I mounted the NTO on the same mount using the same feed line and when raised to 34' feet there is no indication of feed line RF at all, even my Field Strength meter reads less that 4.

My Imax is the only other antenna to show signs of TVI and it wasn't really that bad. Even my S4 up there now is not showing any signs and before that my A99 was also fine. I still haven't figured out what the problem is with the OTO, but I do know they can act bad if some part somewhere is the slightest bit loose.

I agree with you completely about your statement on "...not begin with a prejudicial negative," and locked-in idea or view.

Do you ever get any Texas DX in your area? If so and you have ssb then give a call for Ole' Grampa sometimes on 38lsb, CDX 39zero in Texas. We're not that far apart, but sometimes when backscatter is working we might hook up that way...if conditions ever permit.

What call do you use on the air?

 

[Shockwave]

Is there something special with the AP? I think so. I remember giving one to a friend that had a 1/4 wave ground plane thinking the AP wouldn't be much better and that I wouldn't want it. It's been a long time so I can't remember exact signals but the AP made a notable improvement beyond what I expected. It was mounted on a 10 foot pole and as I recall this was important with the AP since it used the pole as a counterpoise. It was better in terms of signal then it was for RFI. Most likely from that dependency on the pole and ultimately the coax (that was not choked) for the counterpoise.

 

[HomerBB]

Homer, I don't think the AP will "...kick the beeehind off other verticals," except maybe when the tips are at the same height, then my bets on the AP.

I don't think so either, but used hyperbole for emphasis. And at its present height It is working well.

I also agree the AP design is a very well matched center fed 1/2 wave radiator that deals very well with coax feed line issues that can be a common problem for vertical center fed 1/2 wave radiators.

IMO, if the AP's tip is raised closer to parity with longer verticals, maybe within 5' feet of the other antenna's tip, then the AP can hold its own in performance. I think all of my comparison tests thus far confirm that, even going back in time. You say your AP is installed at a tip height that would be 1.5' feet below the tip of your 5/8 wave? If so, then my experience tells me it should be showing a better signal in most cases than the 5/8 wave.

Agreed. It is not only showing better signal, which I will confirm this Spring, but I hear stations I've never been able to hear north of me into SW Missouri. More local audio levels seems improved, too.

Another plus I find with the AP type antenna is it's noticeably quieter than most...when conditions are very good and a great bandwidth. I suspect this quietness thing I describe here may be due to the higher gain exhibited by larger and higher gain antennas, but I'm not really sure.

For those that won't consider this "quiet" idea presented here, I'll concede that if conditions are bad...then the AP is no better in this regard than others, and all gain type vertical antennas seem to hear static and noise pretty well.

Same here.

Homer, do you find your AP presenting even a hint of TVI or feed line radiation? Up until I tried to video raising my Old Top One where I had a problem and put a tug on my feed line snagged on my ladder, the antenna was acting badly in this regard afterwords. Prior to that I had noticed no problem at all with my PC speakers.

I mounted the NTO on the same mount using the same feed line and when raised to 34' feet there is no indication of feed line RF at all, even my Field Strength meter reads less that 4.

My Imax is the only other antenna to show signs of TVI and it wasn't really that bad. Even my S4 up there now is not showing any signs and before that my A99 was also fine. I still haven't figured out what the problem is with the OTO, but I do know they can act bad if some part somewhere is the slightest bit loose.

Not a hint. No complaints from neighbors, no equipment in the house or shack showing any signs. I haven't tested it with a field strength meter.

I agree with you completely about your statement on "...not begin with a prejudicial negative," and locked-in idea or view.

I won't head there again. I am really easy going and try to keep my head down on the forums. I'm here to learn and share. Yet, I am baffled by why this idea about the testing the AP on its own ground seems to so intimidate some.

Do you ever get any Texas DX in your area? If so and you have ssb then give a call for Ole' Grampa sometimes on 38lsb, CDX 39zero in Texas. We're not that far apart, but sometimes when backscatter is working we might hook up that way...if conditions ever permit.

Every great once in a while I get some out of the Houston/Galveston area. I'll listen up for you. In fact, if things don't change I may be in Houston for a family reunion in mid to late June. Perhaps we can get together for a little bit.

What call do you use on the air?

I use World Radio 183, NW Arkansas on SSB most of the time.
On AM it will be 183 NW Arkansas' Razorback Radio Station, HomerBB breakin'

I know, corny, but I get calls back my way. Locally I'm called the Country Preacher.

 

[gamegetter]

i believe that a lot of good old antennas fell into bad times or got lost in the shuffle somewhere along the lines.

look at the the coaxial sleeve for example very few cb'ers us this type despite it's fine quality and even though the sleeve takes up less space and lays the signal smack down on the horizon.

 

[MrSuburban]

Of course the AP will in the long run fall behind if forced to operate beneath the horizon of its design, that is, 18' below the overall height of a 5/8 wave, or 14' below a 1/2 wave, or 28' to 24' below a 3/4 - 7/8 antenna. Who would've made an antenna with a negative height limitation built in without reason? Most of the AP, roughly 8', is below the coax connector/same mast height. Such an assumption of intent of the designers/manufacturers of this antenna to purposely disadvantage it is truly inane.

What I find humourous is you and Eddie :bdh::bdh: about how people are somehow making the Astro Plane some how have a disadvantage and you want to rewrite how antennas are compared to one another.

You seem to somehow forget this a critical fact about antennas, take a 5' coil antenna which is a shortened antenna do you expect it to work as good as a full 1/4 wave. If you raise it up so that the tips are the same it just may, Why because it has more gain? No.

Remember that the maximum radiation of a antenna will be at the feedpoint (high rf current area) raising one feed point higher than the other gives it an advantage no matter how much you guys want the AP or Top one to perfom better.

I unlike others am not touting one antenna over the other just the methods of comparision.



CT Stallion wrote:
"Well then, what about the Avanti Astroplane... doesn't it radiate from the TOP? The short answer is: NO. The Astroplane, unlike the Sigma IV, is a simple 1/2 wave J-Pole. It radiates from the MIDDLE, as all 1/2 wave antennas do."

 

[gamegetter]

the original avanti antennas came in a box labeled 5/8 wave and touted it was the only omni directional antenna that would generate maximum signal strength at the very top of the full antenna height limit