wire covered to prevent breakage then wrapped inside outer sleeve . that's a considerable amount of attenuation about 4% . Yes! it makes a difference in receive
-
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.
Mobile Mobile antenna choice
- Thread starter 530
- Start date
wire covered to prevent breakage then wrapped inside outer sleeve . that's a considerable amount of attenuation about 4% . Yes! it makes a difference in receive
4% sounds high to me, although I guess it depends on the covering. It would have to be awfully thick and not an optimal material for the job to get to be that bad.
Ever hear of reciprocity? When it comes to transmitting and receiving, whatever affects one will affect the other equally, so if it affecting your receive it will also affect your transmitted signal.
And even if you get to 4% attenuation (that is a 0.177 dB loss btw) its not nearly enough to be noticeable. We are talking significantly less than a needles width on even a really bad s-meter...
The DB
the reference was to one antenna being quieter hence mention to receive.
Wilson had posted Q in advertisement, others i haven't seen.
DB I'm interested in the equation you used to derive that number. not questioning it just would like that in my arsenal.
the 4% I read regarding covering used. PVC, rubber and this SS has 2 coverings. no math used on my end. however through many test, nothing scientific just changing and comparing, the difference is very noticeable. The question had already arose in another thread here maybe on that very question. Is it the antenna or the covering or lack thereof.
I'm interested in a hard number derived by legitimate test equipment myself and often wondered if the perverbial coil antennas transmitted Capitol better than signals
Wilson had posted Q in advertisement, others i haven't seen.
DB I'm interested in the equation you used to derive that number. not questioning it just would like that in my arsenal.
the 4% I read regarding covering used. PVC, rubber and this SS has 2 coverings. no math used on my end. however through many test, nothing scientific just changing and comparing, the difference is very noticeable. The question had already arose in another thread here maybe on that very question. Is it the antenna or the covering or lack thereof.
I'm interested in a hard number derived by legitimate test equipment myself and often wondered if the perverbial coil antennas transmitted Capitol better than signals
previously I noted that all the antennas that are marketed all advertise the same bandwidth.
which then I asked what antenna would be a more narrow bandwidth.. I'm still waiting for that answer.
The decibel equivalent of 4% loss? I used an online decibel calculator. I like this one here. I used 100 for value 1 and 96 for value 2. Make sure it is set to power.
The DB
I can't tell you the bandwidth, efficiency, or the "Q" for any of these antennas. However, based on my own personal experiences years ago with my mobiles...I would guess all these 1/4 waves would likely perform pretty close to the same. That is assuming good installs with all comparisons made on the same mobile setup...within a reasonable time frame considering obvious conditions locally.
Other than for antennas with substantial matching losses, I can't tell you why some antennas seem to operate quieter than others. I seem to recall, "quite receive" is not a quality that is always consistent either. However, with that said and within reason...I don't believe all the claims we often hear repeated...about plastic vs. metal in antennas.
530, I voted for 5'-6' Skipshooter, simply based on your reporting to us that the Skipshooter worked fine and made lots of good contacts. I figure the Predator 10K is an equally good antenna. However, based on its low cost...the Skipshooter is just more practical in every way as I see it.
I think you have both these antennas, what do you think about their differences in noise?
Last edited:
Thanks. As i said in a reply with a test with a base station Ss receive got quieter but the carrier did not change on receive compared to Predator. Transmit the Predator did a hair better, and I mean a hair, as per their own response. Also I did notice in my town there's a spot where the noise level really raises buy some electricity boxes and that used to do 6 pound carrier and now it only does about 4+.
I ran that RS antenna for years & I tortured it ! I've put more watts through it than it was designed for ! Must say it worked & never shot off my roof like a Bottle Rocket !
I've said it before My receive on my Styker Mag Mount is 10x better than my A-99 @ 48' too the tip . Just today chatting in the mobile w/ a guy 20+ miles away , came home , turned on base & could hardly hear him . But we all know receive on A-99's Suck ! But they do get out , just was there was a happy medium w/them .
I've said it before My receive on my Styker Mag Mount is 10x better than my A-99 @ 48' too the tip . Just today chatting in the mobile w/ a guy 20+ miles away , came home , turned on base & could hardly hear him . But we all know receive on A-99's Suck ! But they do get out , just was there was a happy medium w/them . 357, I think your experiences with the A99 are well founded. Lots of reports about them being noisy. What I meant was I don't think this issue is due to the FiberGlass or its covering over the wire radiator.
I've had this opinion for a long time. I've had several A99's over the years at different times and in my experience the first antennas was given to me by a friend that bought one in the early days of their becoming popular. It was about 5 years old when I got it, and the guy told me it was broke and did not work. I took it and put it on a 20' foot pushup, and it worked fine for me with a very good match. He further said he found it full of water and he thought it was ruined. I figured the water had just evaporated. Sometime later I figured out the A99 design can be bad about letting water get into the feed line.
It is still working today, after all these years. It is nearly as quiet as any of my other all metal antennas when conditions are nice and quiet.
I had another one that was a bit noisy and one that was terrible with both receive noise and TVI on transmit. I took that one apart and found the shield of the coax inside the mounting section at the bottom was not soldered well and wires were spread all out and had to be touching other wires and the metal mount. I de-soldered the shield and got all the wires straight, and fixed the connection back right.
I added some more wire to the bottom section of the radiator and hung it in a tree. The antenna worked without blacking out my TV and other appliance in my shack and same with the neighbors who were prone to complain.
Since the antenna was basically destroyed taking it apart...I did not use it or continue more testing. This was when I began to wonder if the bad TVI claims, I was hearing, could be wrong in claiming the Fiberglass was the problem.
Years later I bought a Sirio Gain Master that was a wire and some coax covered with FG tubing and I've never had a quieter vertical antenna. I also use to hear lots of similar reports for the GM working very well and being very quiet.
This is why I tend to think the A99 and the Imax both suffer the problem of noise a bit, and IMO it may be due to the matching device they use. In addition, I question the construction work at the manufacturing plant too.
BTW, all the A99 antennas I've owned, except the one I took apart, worked very well for me. I also think the antenna design has a tendency to produce CMC and that too might contribute to excess noise.
I can't prove anything in this regard, but this is my experience.
I've had this opinion for a long time. I've had several A99's over the years at different times and in my experience the first antennas was given to me by a friend that bought one in the early days of their becoming popular. It was about 5 years old when I got it, and the guy told me it was broke and did not work. I took it and put it on a 20' foot pushup, and it worked fine for me with a very good match. He further said he found it full of water and he thought it was ruined. I figured the water had just evaporated. Sometime later I figured out the A99 design can be bad about letting water get into the feed line.
It is still working today, after all these years. It is nearly as quiet as any of my other all metal antennas when conditions are nice and quiet.
I had another one that was a bit noisy and one that was terrible with both receive noise and TVI on transmit. I took that one apart and found the shield of the coax inside the mounting section at the bottom was not soldered well and wires were spread all out and had to be touching other wires and the metal mount. I de-soldered the shield and got all the wires straight, and fixed the connection back right.
I added some more wire to the bottom section of the radiator and hung it in a tree. The antenna worked without blacking out my TV and other appliance in my shack and same with the neighbors who were prone to complain.
Since the antenna was basically destroyed taking it apart...I did not use it or continue more testing. This was when I began to wonder if the bad TVI claims, I was hearing, could be wrong in claiming the Fiberglass was the problem.
Years later I bought a Sirio Gain Master that was a wire and some coax covered with FG tubing and I've never had a quieter vertical antenna. I also use to hear lots of similar reports for the GM working very well and being very quiet.
This is why I tend to think the A99 and the Imax both suffer the problem of noise a bit, and IMO it may be due to the matching device they use. In addition, I question the construction work at the manufacturing plant too.
BTW, all the A99 antennas I've owned, except the one I took apart, worked very well for me. I also think the antenna design has a tendency to produce CMC and that too might contribute to excess noise.
I can't prove anything in this regard, but this is my experience.
Last edited:
Thanks Marconi ! You know you are my " Go to Guy " . I ran a Big Stick for years here in the NE , w/ the winds & Wx we get they really stand up , no matter the receive . But I swear when I had my old BS I did that ( I believe ) 7' (?) Firestic replacement on top , w/ the wire in the FS wrap it seemed receive was better ??? Just found & old BS base section that seems good . Am I chasing Ghosts ? I'm sure back then you did the research on the FS on top instead of the factory supplied whip . Just curious & would appreciate your input . Thanks , 73 & God Bless , Leo
. I ran a Big Stick for years here in the NE , w/ the winds & Wx we get they really stand up , no matter the receive . But I swear when I had my old BS I did that ( I believe ) 7' (?) Firestic replacement on top , w/ the wire in the FS wrap it seemed receive was better ??? Just found & old BS base section that seems good . Am I chasing Ghosts ? I'm sure back then you did the research on the FS on top instead of the factory supplied whip . Just curious & would appreciate your input . Thanks , 73 & God Bless , Leo
Marconi , what ever the biggest whip they made , might have been 8' now that I think about it , I used that . Thanks again .
I used that . Thanks again .Not so far, as best I can tell.
I had a marine, no-ground BigStick in the top of a pine tree. It was a 1/4 wave single element radiator with a 1/4 wave coaxial pig tail attached in shrink tubing at the bottom. The feed line attached to the bottom of the pig tail, but I'm not sure about the connections. I didn't think much about antennas back then. It was mounted about 20' feet higher than the top of my HyGain CLR2. I recall, it always seemed I got better reports using the CLR2.
Some years later while I was no longer working my radio, a neighbor gave me a new CB Big Stick, but I never used it.
I think I was probably out of radio when the FireStic came out with that top part. Years later I heard something about the idea, but I didn't think much about it at the time. My old radio mentor said he checked it out and said he didn't see any difference.
Marconi , what ever the biggest whip they made , might have been 8' now that I think about it ,
If you're still talking about the FS, I think it was a bit shorter than what it replaced, but I don't know its length. Wasn't the regular BS a two piece antenna?
After my experience with the marine BS, I never considered their products again. A neighbor gave me a new BS in an unopened box. I never used it. That was long before I got interested in comparing antennas.
Last edited:
Time for my 2 Cents. I ran a Wilson 2000 for years. A friend needed a antenna and bought a Predator 10K and loved it. I decided I had to buy the 10K and try it out. Great made antenna. OK so I put it on my truck. I really notice no difference between the Predator and the Wilson. So I would have to say both great antennas.
I personally would not use a fiberglass antenna because I seem to have a problem snapping them. That is the only reason.
It would be kind of a nice experiment to buy both and do some testing and see which one is better.
I personally would not use a fiberglass antenna because I seem to have a problem snapping them. That is the only reason.
It would be kind of a nice experiment to buy both and do some testing and see which one is better.