Marconi testing New Top One vs. Gain Master

[HomerBB]

I am not saying that people are forcing a disadvantage on the AP. Iam saying that people are not utilizing the designed advantage of the AP.

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

MrSuburban,

What you find difficult to accept is that:
1. a precedent isn't a rule
2. when rules do exist, even rules have exceptions
3. if any antenna is compelled to be used beneath its design parameters it will not work to it maximum potential.

Put the V4k on the ground and it will not demonstrate its potential. Put a multi-element Yagi on the ground and it will not do what it is designed to do.

You say keep the AP on the same 36' pole as the Imax2k or the V4k, etc and there is parity in the comparison. The problem with that thinking is that all these other antennas were designed to be at their comparative potential mounted on the same height pole, the AP was not. It was designed to be raised to the maximum legal limit.

Under an 18' 1/2ƛ the pole would be 42' tall to be at maximum legal height.
For a 22.5' 5/8ƛ the pole would be 37.5' tall, and for a 27' 3/4ƛ the pole would be 33' tall. For the AP, the pole is 48' tall.

I realize only the FCC cares in the least about legal height limits nowadays, but in the era the AP was designed, and from the standpoint of "making a better, easier antenna" the manufacturers sought a marketing advantage within the parameters of the legal height restriction. Ignoring that simple reality is to not even test the antenna as presented from the manufacturer.

Yes, height is a measure of the difference is antenna designs. Yes, a 5/8ƛ is designed to give a height advantage over a 1/2ƛ, etc. But the advantages of the 5/8 over the 1/2 is not just because it sticks up higher, but because the properly made 5/8 has an inherent design advantage of a better TOA. When one compares antennas, and every one of the comparisons so far have centered around the discussion of near field/far field, directly associated with TOA, of each antenna, as an element of design, which is a part of the comparison or the point of testing/comparing is moot, we assert design. Mount any antenna higher and it works better, but there is a point where the wave length size of a given antenna ceases to deliver an improvement due to that's all it has to give.

Additionally, I haven't ever said to not test antennas on the same pole. I've said the whole story of an antenna is not told by ONLY testing them that way.

I do appreciate the very obvious fact that you have not entered the discussions favoring one antenna over the other. It's refreshing.

I think it is me, not Marconi who has been a bit of a horse beater on this one, after all, I have made a statement in favor of considering the parameters of design in antenna testing on two threads, twice on one thread, and once plus this reply on this thread. I think it may be less of a beating of a dead horse than a swim up against the tide of embedded predisposition.

I think there is something to learn from all angles of testing. I believe a good walk around a car, a look under the hood, a test drive, consumer reviews, blue book value, and a carfax report would not be too much to consider when thinking of a car purchase.

:
"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."

Can we now raise the AP up 2.5' higher to its 6' center? Or is it still like this:

Remember that the maximum radiation of a antenna will be at the feedpoint (high rf current area) . . .

There lies our problem, the game changes by the moment.

I am not wanting to argue this. Like yourself, I am simply making these things a matter of public record so those who read can consider all the information, the variety of perspectives, and the whole truth of why antennas differ in their designs.

Respectfully,
Charles/Homer

 

[gamegetter]

just wondering why the new top one is listed by sirio as 1/4 wl when it was modeled after the ap?

 

[MrSuburban]

I am not saying that people are forcing a disadvantage on the AP. Iam saying that people are not utilizing the designed advantage of the AP.


MrSuburban,

What you find difficult to accept is that:
1. a precedent isn't a rule
2. when rules do exist, even rules have exceptions
3. if any antenna is compelled to be used beneath its design parameters it will not work to it maximum potential.

Put the V4k on the ground and it will not demonstrate its potential. Put a multi-element Yagi on the ground and it will not do what it is designed to do.

You keep saying the AP was designed to be used at 60' So the AP is no good at 90' or any other height besides 60' ? what happens when they are mounted lower?


Put the Astro Plane on the ground next to the V4k and test them and neither will perform to it's potential but one will outperform the other.


If you wanna compare a Yagi to a Quad do you put the yagi up so it's boom height is where the top of the quad is? Dont answer that because I assume you will say Yes. LOL j/k

I realize only the FCC cares in the least about legal height limits nowadays, but in the era the AP was designed, and from the standpoint of "making a better, easier antenna" the manufacturers sought a marketing advantage within the parameters of the legal height restriction. Ignoring that simple reality is to not even test the antenna as presented from the manufacturer.

Yes, height is a measure of the difference is antenna designs. Yes, a 5/8ƛ is designed to give a height advantage over a 1/2ƛ, etc. But the advantages of the 5/8 over the 1/2 is not just because it sticks up higher, but because the properly made 5/8 has an inherent design advantage of a better TOA.

Let's drop the FCC nonsense when it comes to comparing antennas that has no bearing on a comparision test. A 5/8 wave advantage is it has more capture area the benefit of the added length makes the TOA what it is. So your saying if I mount a 1/4 wave 75' and a 5/8 wave 45' the 5/8 should still perform better because it has a lower TOA? The added height the 1/4 wave has means nothing.

There lies our problem, the game changes by the moment.

I am not wanting to argue this. Like yourself, I am simply making these things a matter of public record so those who read can consider all the information, the variety of perspectives, and the whole truth of why antennas differ in their designs.

Respectfully,
Charles/Homer

The game only gets changed when people try to change the game, feed point height is the name of the game always has been.


Homer I dont take this as a arguement this is how we talk where i am from i dont think any less of you or Marconi or anyone if we dont agree no matter how I may sound hopefully you feel the same. You havent insulted me nor have I you. Just so happens you are a democrat and I am a republican ...LOL

 

[HomerBB]

I am thankful neither of us take this stuff personal.

Do you want me to clarify further? I will assume so.

You keep saying the AP was designed to be used at 60' So the AP is no good at 90' or any other height besides 60' ? what happens when they are mounted lower?
Let's drop the FCC nonsense when it comes to comparing antennas that has no bearing on a comparision test.

You're right. FCC legal limits have no real bearing on antenna performance. Nope, nothing magic about 60' over any other height. The relevance is that the AP was designed to compete with other antennas at the maximum height potential. If one were conscientious regarding height restrictions, which many were when the AP was designed, then the AP was a force to be reckoned with. So whether the height is 60', 40', 100' the AP competes when it is at the uppermost height of all antennas in the competition. It was made to be mounted that way.

If you wanna compare a Yagi to a Quad do you put the yagi up so it's boom height is where the top of the quad is? Dont answer that because I assume you will say Yes. LOL j/k

The answer is NO. And maybe. According to what I want to report. If I want to say the Quad is the best antenna I will report only low height test results with fewer elements. If I want to say the Yagi is best I will report only about higher mount schemes and more elements. If I want to present ALL the relevant information about the designs, I talk about both designs pros and cons. For instance:
If I can't mount my beam high enough to achieve parity between the two designs, and have turn radius issues, I use the design that works best at the lower height, has the smaller footprint, has most gain with 2 or 3 elements, and the better TOA - the Quad.
If height and turn radius is not a problem, and I want the most gain with the least wind load and think harsh weather may be an issue, I get my Yagi up there where the lesser wind loading makes it the best choice because of its design advantages higher up where there is no TOA disparity. I make a decision based on the DESIGN of the antennas.

A 5/8 wave advantage is it has more capture area the benefit of the added length makes the TOA what it is. So your saying if I mount a 1/4 wave 75' and a 5/8 wave 45' the 5/8 should still perform better because it has a lower TOA? The added height the 1/4 wave has means nothing.

I think I understand this question. But I will reply anyhow. What I'm saying about this is the more complete discussion of these antennas will report that at a given height each antenna performs in such a way. But if an antenna of which ever length is used at a particular height it behaves differently, if in fact it does.
But to clarify my position on this point I'll say this. I see no problem with comparing antennas on the same pole without altering the pole height. It is a good test of the antennas. Most people just look for a better antenna for the pole they've got. It makes sense. But that is not the only way to get to the whole story of an antenna

I think I see the disconnect here. On the one hand some like yourself are considering comparisons of a single dimension - one pole height, which works best - while someone like me is looking for more than that. I am interested in the maximum potential of each antenna. To that end it is not possible, IMO, to discover the full potential of a given antenna based on a single parameter test.

Where I see problems with the AP is because this antenna was purportedly made to be replacing other antennas by its ability to be raised to the greatest height the user could go due to it being smaller and lighter, and have even more to gain because of its unique design characteristics. Unless one works the AP with this in mind he fails to discover the design intent of this antenna. A case in point of that is my own. There is no way I could raise a long V4k to a feed point height of 50.5', but I can get the little AP there.
Additionally, at that height I've experienced ice, snow, wind, and thunderstorms. I have removed and repaired both the long Qv4k, and the 5/8, not to mention the A99 I once owned. The light rotor I could afford broke under high winds under the Quad beam, and I could not get my Yagi high enough to see the results I sought on the mast heights I was presently capable of achieving. With all those considerations the AP has been a great find, and so far it has proven a competent competitor to both the Qv4k and the 5/8.

A typical 1/4 wave is a different animal. Choosing it because it is smaller/lighter is not the same. Yep, it is easier to raise up to greater heights, but the advantages of such an enterprise can be better realized, and exceeded, by buying a 1/2 wave, or even a 5/8, etc mounted at the same height on the same pole. How high would one have to raise a 1/4 wave to enjoy the advantages of a V4k? or could he ever at any height do so?

Those are the kinds of questions and answers I think can be answered in other kinds of tests and comparisons.

There lies our problem, the game changes by the moment.

The game only gets changed when people try to change the game, feed point height is the name of the game always has been.

In retrospect I think my game change statement was distracting and not true to my argument. It only helped to leave the wrong impression of what I've so very ineffectively been trying to say. I do not want anyone to quit doing the valuable comps they've been doing in the way they are - same everything, different antenna. I just hope others whose knowledge I highly respect and need will see what it is I'm trying to learn without dismissively ignoring or ridiculing the perspective I'm researching from.

Again, I appreciate your help and patience, and I hope this helps clear things up.

Respectfully,
Homer

 

[HomerBB]

. . . Just so happens you are a democrat and I am a republican ...LOL

Now you've almost crossed the line! :laugh:

 

[MrSuburban]

I am thankful neither of us take this stuff personal.

Do you want me to clarify further? I will assume so.


You're right. FCC legal limits have no real bearing on antenna performance. Nope, nothing magic about 60' over any other height. The relevance is that the AP was designed to compete with other antennas at the maximum height potential. If one were conscientious regarding height restrictions, which many were when the AP was designed, then the AP was a force to be reckoned with. So whether the height is 60', 40', 100' the AP competes when it is at the uppermost height of all antennas in the competition. It was made to be mounted that way.



The answer is NO. And maybe. According to what I want to report. If I want to say the Quad is the best antenna I will report only low height test results with fewer elements. If I want to say the Yagi is best I will report only about higher mount schemes and more elements. If I want to present ALL the relevant information about the designs, I talk about both designs pros and cons. For instance:
If I can't mount my beam high enough to achieve parity between the two designs, and have turn radius issues, I use the design that works best at the lower height, has the smaller footprint, has most gain with 2 or 3 elements, and the better TOA - the Quad.
If height and turn radius is not a problem, and I want the most gain with the least wind load and think harsh weather may be an issue, I get my Yagi up there where the lesser wind loading makes it the best choice because of its design advantages higher up where there is no TOA disparity. I make a decision based on the DESIGN of the antennas.

I think I understand this question. But I will reply anyhow. What I'm saying about this is the more complete discussion of these antennas will report that at a given height each antenna performs in such a way. But if an antenna of which ever length is used at a particular height it behaves differently, if in fact it does.
But to clarify my position on this point I'll say this. I see no problem with comparing antennas on the same pole without altering the pole height. It is a good test of the antennas. Most people just look for a better antenna for the pole they've got. It makes sense. But that is not the only way to get to the whole story of an antenna

I think I see the disconnect here. On the one hand some like yourself are considering comparisons of a single dimension - one pole height, which works best - while someone like me is looking for more than that. I am interested in the maximum potential of each antenna. To that end it is not possible, IMO, to discover the full potential of a given antenna based on a single parameter test.

Where I see problems with the AP is because this antenna was purportedly made to be replacing other antennas by its ability to be raised to the greatest height the user could go due to it being smaller and lighter, and have even more to gain because of its unique design characteristics. Unless one works the AP with this in mind he fails to discover the design intent of this antenna. A case in point of that is my own. There is no way I could raise a long V4k to a feed point height of 50.5', but I can get the little AP there.
Additionally, at that height I've experienced ice, snow, wind, and thunderstorms. I have removed and repaired both the long Qv4k, and the 5/8, not to mention the A99 I once owned. The light rotor I could afford broke under high winds under the Quad beam, and I could not get my Yagi high enough to see the results I sought on the mast heights I was presently capable of achieving. With all those considerations the AP has been a great find, and so far it has proven a competent competitor to both the Qv4k and the 5/8.

A typical 1/4 wave is a different animal. Choosing it because it is smaller/lighter is not the same. Yep, it is easier to raise up to greater heights, but the advantages of such an enterprise can be better realized, and exceeded, by buying a 1/2 wave, or even a 5/8, etc mounted at the same height on the same pole. How high would one have to raise a 1/4 wave to enjoy the advantages of a V4k? or could he ever at any height do so?

Those are the kinds of questions and answers I think can be answered in other kinds of tests and comparisons.


In retrospect I think my game change statement was distracting and not true to my argument. It only helped to leave the wrong impression of what I've so very ineffectively been trying to say. I do not want anyone to quit doing the valuable comps they've been doing in the way they are - same everything, different antenna. I just hope others whose knowledge I highly respect and need will see what it is I'm trying to learn without dismissively ignoring or ridiculing the perspective I'm researching from.

Again, I appreciate your help and patience, and I hope this helps clear things up.

Respectfully,
Homer

Homes, I understand what you are trying to say you look for different benefits of each antenna so to speak... Worst part is the Ap just happens to be a different style antenna why couldnt it be like any other GP and fed from the bottom, we wouldnt be going back and forth. I digress

 

[HomerBB]

Homes, I understand what you are trying to say you look for different benefits of each antenna so to speak... Worst part is the Ap just happens to be a different style antenna why couldnt it be like any other GP and fed from the bottom, we wouldnt be going back and forth. I digress

 

[MrSuburban]

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

Antron 99 also claim gains of 9.9 dbi

 

[jazzsinger]

The relevance is that the AP was designed to compete with other antennas at the maximum height potential.

that could also be construed as the manufacturer trying to give an inferior antenna credibility by mounting it higher than the competition.

i have no doubt the astroplane was a decent compromise antenna, but it just ain't gonna outdo bigger antennas when mounting height is equal and any manufacturing hype claims are nullified.

if you give the astroplane mounting height advantage, where do you stop, give a 1/4 wave gp extra height to make up for its lack of radiator length,add the extra couple of inches to a 5/8 mounting pole to give it equality to the .64 ?

it would go on and on,

the only real way to test antennas is on the same height of mast with all other conditions, coax etc exactly the same, that way you test one design direct against another (nothing else), anything else is seriously flawed thinking, even if thats what the manufacturer recommended years ago to comply with regulations.

years ago when we had height restrictions in the uk no-one would have added an extra bit of pole to test the shortened radiator thunderpole against a full size starduster that it was modelled on, they were just straight swapped.

infact even in 1980 it was well known that a shortened radiator can't match a full size one, so testing was pointless, and the outcome guaranteed to favour the full size starduster,although admittedly not by much as the thunderpole was a decent compromised design with full sized radials.

no matter what antenna builders/manufacturers claim, that hasn't changed in 20 years and probably wont for another 100 years

 

[HomerBB]

The relevance is that the AP was designed to compete with other antennas at the maximum height potential.

that could also be construed as the manufacturer trying to give an inferior antenna credibility by mounting it higher than the competition.

Jazz, I have conceded that same pole, same equipment is the way to go testing antennas against one another. My point has been to test whether the claims made for the antenna by the manufacturer can be supported by testing the antenna accordingly.

As any old fool would know that as antennas extend in length up to a given point there is additional gain added, so it is fruitless to try to change the rules governing that fact (is this the wrong place to say Daddy always put up the biggest Christmas tree every year to excise the biggest smiles from the kids?). I say in comparison tests regarding the one against the other do it the right way, which is exactly as you say - same pole, same setup.

I want to know more than which antenna out does which antenna. I want to see what the maximum potential of a given antenna actually is under a given set of circumstances, which happens to include whether or not, in this case, the AP does what the builder said it could do.

I do see the point you're making in the quote. Given the amount of discussion we've had about this it should be clear that I've no such motive. Like others, I am simply investigating and anything i experience/find I will post with complete disclosure of all the pertinent facts of the process. I will never claim anything is the same that isn't.

What's the point? discovery of the maximum potential of an antenna under given conditions. I am not trying to prove nor disprove a known fact - longer antennas = better gain - I am looking for the performance potential of the antennas I possess and can mount. In the case of the AP, does it prove to be true that it can perform as well as a longer antenna if raised to greater height. Hopefully, we shall see.

An anecdote.
A fellow came into my place of employment returning a cordless drill/driver he claimed had not lived up to the brand hype. I listened for a while as he railed against the tool and the manufacturer, and everyone who had ever said the brand was a great product. When he wound down a little I asked him which one he had purchased. He told me. I asked him to describe the work he was trying to accomplish with the tool. He did.
I then told him that the brand of tool he had purchased would live up to any of the claims ever made for it, however, the problem he faced was one of design. You see, as I told him, he had purchased a 12 volt tool and attempted to do work suited to the power of an 18 volt tool. I assured him if he would try again the same brand, but operate within the parameters of design for the tool, he would be very happy with his purchase. He followed my advice, in consideration of the design potential of the tool he bought one equal to the task, and became a very satisfied customer.

I have heard the arguments for shorter vs longer. The cry of it is long and loud. Okay.

I refuse to accept that an antenna can not be maximized to its greatest potential by changing certain changeable things. Just because anyone says it is useless to test for the maximum potential of an antenna because it is short is no call for abandoning the shorter antenna. I think it a very stupefying idea. I want to increase in knowledge, and allowing others to tell me because a longer antenna is capable of greater gain than a shorter one there is no reason to see what the shorter one is capable of under the best of conditions will teach me nothing but to abandon my own sense of reasoning to someone else' limited point of view.

You are not wrong, but in this case, the one I'm making, you are trying to play football in a rugby match.

It won't change antenna gain to length ratio, but maximizing the conditions governing an antenna's potential might just improve its performance within the parameters of its design.

We speak of it constantly: "yes, the dipole will work, but keep it away from metal objects" . . . "get that mobile antenna on top of the car for its best performance, it may even help with the SWR" . . . "If you hang it vertically you'll do better considering most CB antennas are run vertically" . . . " if that's the best antenna you can mount right now try to get it as high in the air, and as clear of anything RF conductive, as you can" . . . and the list goes on and on.

Nothing changes but the maximum installation conditions. "Wow, I can't believe the difference moving that antenna from the bumper to the roof made . . ."

Respectfully,
Homer/Charles

 

[jazzsinger]

Jazz, I have conceded that same pole, same equipment is the way to go testing antennas against one another. My point has been to test whether the claims made for the antenna by the manufacturer can be supported by testing the antenna accordingly.

Homer it wouldn't surprise me if it did live up to avanti's claims when given a 10 foot mounting advantage.my limited experience of avanti antennas tells me they rarely don't do what the manufacturer claims,except maybe for the exaggerated db gains that were stated back then.

I want to know more than which antenna out does which antenna. I want to see what the maximum potential of a given antenna actually is under a given set of circumstances, which happens to include whether or not, in this case, the AP does what the builder said it could do.

I appreciate why you want to see if it lives up to avanti's claims.

I do see the point you're making in the quote. Given the amount of discussion we've had about this it should be clear that I've no such motive. Like others, I am simply investigating and anything i experience/find I will post with complete disclosure of all the pertinent facts of the process. I will never claim anything is the same that isn't.

I'm very well aware your motive is from a learning as much as possible perspective (if i'm not mistaken with the further motive of self constructing to avoid paying some of the ridiculous prices manufacturs/retailer ask for), for me a very wise motive to have (why buy it when you can build it and get a better understanding of it?), I also realise that you have loads of integrity when it comes to any claims you make. on those two points i have no doubt whatsoever.

What's the point? discovery of the maximum potential of an antenna under given conditions. I am not trying to prove nor disprove a known fact - longer antennas = better gain - I am looking for the performance potential of the antennas I possess and can mount. In the case of the AP, does it prove to be true that it can perform as well as a longer antenna if raised to greater height. Hopefully, we shall see.

at no point did i think you were trying to disprove known facts, merely trying to find out your own facts.

An anecdote.
A fellow came into my place of employment returning a cordless drill/driver he claimed had not lived up to the brand hype. I listened for a while as he railed against the tool and the manufacturer, and everyone who had ever said the brand was a great product. When he wound down a little I asked him which one he had purchased. He told me. I asked him to describe the work he was trying to accomplish with the tool. He did.
I then told him that the brand of tool he had purchased would live up to any of the claims ever made for it, however, the problem he faced was one of design. You see, as I told him, he had purchased a 12 volt tool and attempted to do work suited to the power of an 18 volt tool. I assured him if he would try again the same brand, but operate within the parameters of design for the tool, he would be very happy with his purchase. He followed my advice, in consideration of the design potential of the tool he bought one equal to the task, and became a very satisfied customer.

i can see the parallel you are making here, that it pays to stick within manufacturing guidelines, sadly when it comes to antennas most guidelines are thin on the ground and those that are there are suspect to hype and bullshit.

I have heard the arguments for shorter vs longer. The cry of it is long and loud. Okay.

up till a point, there reaches a point where the extra lobes induced by the extra radiator length can be counter productive.

I refuse to accept that an antenna can not be maximized to its greatest potential by changing certain changeable things. Just because anyone says it is useless to test for the maximum potential of an antenna because it is short is no call for abandoning the shorter antenna. I think it a very stupefying idea. I want to increase in knowledge, and allowing others to tell me because a longer antenna is capable of greater gain than a shorter one there is no reason to see what the shorter one is capable of under the best of conditions will teach me nothing but to abandon my own sense of reasoning to someone else' limited point of view.

i disagree, i think you will learn loads from maximising potential of any antenna be they long or short. if your smart you learn as much from the things that don't work well as from those that do.

longer may give more gain but its not always the best solution as anyone who uses a starduster to work short skip regularly will testify, they won't be half as successful on short skip running a 5/8 wave over a 1/4 wave gp. its all about take off angle for dx, height is might on line of sight, but not necessarily so on skywave.

the idea is to collect as much knowledge as possible to cover every eventuallity, in that respect from what i've read of your many previous posts your definately headed in the right direction. Add to that your willingness to get your hands dirty and learn from the practical side rather than just accept what you read i know you will find success.

You are not wrong, but in this case, the one I'm making, you are trying to play football in a rugby match.

lol, not sure if you mean american football or real football (what you guys call soccer) having played both football (soccer) and rugby in my youth i appreciate what your saying, wtf is it with an egg shaped ball anyway, whats that all about? the real irony of those two games is when you play soccer its easier to kick the ball over the bar than score, yet in rugby where its meant to be kicked over the bar its easier to kick it under, i never did get those two sorted out, probably why i don't play either now, much easier rolling a couple of joints and playing fifa 2010 on the ps3.

It won't change antenna gain to length ratio, but maximizing the conditions governing an antenna's potential might just improve its performance within the parameters of its design.

We speak of it constantly: "yes, the dipole will work, but keep it away from metal objects" . . . "get that mobile antenna on top of the car for its best performance, it may even help with the SWR" . . . "If you hang it vertically you'll do better considering most CB antennas are run vertically" . . . " if that's the best antenna you can mount right now try to get it as high in the air, and as clear of anything RF conductive, as you can" . . . and the list goes on and on.

Nothing changes but the maximum installation conditions. "Wow, I can't believe the difference moving that antenna from the bumper to the roof made . . ."

Respectfully,
Homer/Charles

yeah some changes can make a huge difference, i've seen several s points increase on line of sight between here in scotland and northern ireland by only moving the car a foot or two, but i'm sure that change would have been noticed no matter what antenna i used, if everything else is even then only the antennas on test are the variables, the way it should be.as long as you make the same changes/improvements for both antennas then the difference between them would still be the same had you not made improvements.

my previous comments were made in general and definately not aimed at you Charles, i think i have a good understanding of your motives, you've never hid them. good luck with your learning,

 

[hotrod]

BUMP i know this is old. but ive been reading your reviews
marconi and vids on you tube .i live in a bit of a valley
with hills on my east and west. but fairly flat north and south.
but i have no close trees or buildings. and have some limited height restrictions
heres my current setup. sirio 2016 mounted 30 feet to tip.ya thats only 10 feet
off the ground. if i got a NTO a put its tip at 30 feet do u think i would see a improvmement
the NTO would have a very clear view from the valley

 

[Marconi]

BUMP i know this is old. but ive been reading your reviews
marconi and vids on you tube .i live in a bit of a valley
with hills on my east and west. but fairly flat north and south.
but i have no close trees or buildings. and have some limited height restrictions
heres my current setup. sirio 2016 mounted 30 feet to tip.ya thats only 10 feet
off the ground. if i got a NTO a put its tip at 30 feet do u think i would see a improvmement
the NTO would have a very clear view from the valley

Well Hotrod, it you look at my stuff you'll notice that all of my antennas are pretty close in performance.

What is the problem with your 2016?

I would think that antenna should work pretty good in your case, except it may show a bit low angle for the hills to the east and west and at such a low height. Is this the kind of problem you sense at your location, with local contacts?

What are you hoping to improve, DX, local, or both?

 

[HomerBB]

Somehow i missed your responses to my post, Shockwave. Thanks so much for taking the time. I appreciate your answers.

 

[hotrod]

Well Hotrod, it you look at my stuff you'll notice that all of my antennas are pretty close in performance.

What is the problem with your 2016?

I would think that antenna should work pretty good in your case, except it may show a bit low angle for the hills to the east and west and at such a low height. Is this the kind of problem you sense at your location, with local contacts?

What are you hoping to improve, DX, local, or both?

trying to improve on local chat.cant raise it anymore 30ft to highest
pouint is max. which its already at.i do ok north and south with 30 watts pep
on ssb. but going east or west theres big hills on both sides and up and down valleys
thru out. really get difficult.now i usually just turn on my amp and go for it
but i wanna try to utlize my antenna best i can.and what im thinking
is being the top one is shorter it would take more to get it up to around 30ft.
maybe give me a slight edge.basically in most of your vids ive seen of yours the
top one had a height disadvantage .but in my case they would be equal at tips
might even try to sneak it up higher being its much shorter and lighter.marconi
have you made any vids with the top one and gainmaster tips the same height.
or even giving the top one a slight height advantage.only cause this is most likely
how i would do mine if i decide to go that way