• 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.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

my dilemma

BIONIC_TEXAN88

Active Member
Aug 1, 2005
479
15
28
TEXAS PINEYWOODS
I have a magnum 257 that covers 10m and 11m. Ideally I was trying to tune 1 antenna to tune low on 10m and 11m so I could use an amp inline.

I have a wilson 5000 mag mount on top of the cab of my f150. I tried and tried but couldnt get the swr good on both 10 and 11. I could either trim it down good and have a 1.2 to 1.3 on 10m and then have a 2.5 on 11m or use my longer stinger and have the opposite readings.

for grins I put back on my 102" thats mounted to the center of my toolbox (grounded well to the frame). I have a 1.2-1.3 on 10m and 11m now. It doesnt seem to matter where I am at!!

I think I found my new setup. ;)
 

Yep,those 102's have a nice bandwidth. I used to do exactly what you are doing with mine.I could'nt get quite into the FM portion of 10m above 29.000 but I could cover the SSB protion quite nicely.Now I just run a homebrew 111" antenna for 15m and hit the auto tune button on my tuner for whatever band I am on from 40m-6m. ;)
 
yep, they say the wilson 5000 is pretty broadbanded, but not near as the 102" in my findings.

hell, she was below 1.5 under 11m and on in to 10m (at least where I am allowed at 28.3-28.5)

what I am wondering though is what the difference made. was it the better grounding as a hard mount? was it the lack of a coil????

i am betting a lil of both.
 
FL Native said:
remove the spring when you want to talk on 10 meter. that shoud do it.

i already have it removed. I have a 10k stud mount thru the toolbox and no spring. she has less lean back at highway speeds and it didnt make much difference at all on the swr on 11m. the 102" is so springy as it is, aint nothin gonna hurt it.
 
I think you still have a 'problem'. No antenna is that broad banded unless it's adjustable or uses an adjustable matching device. Why are you seeing what you are seeing? Beats me, but I can tell you it isn't 'right'. If you are satisfied with it then who cares? Use it.
- 'Doc
 
W5LZ said:
I think you still have a 'problem'. No antenna is that broad banded unless it's adjustable or uses an adjustable matching device. Why are you seeing what you are seeing? Beats me, but I can tell you it isn't 'right'. If you are satisfied with it then who cares? Use it.
- 'Doc

yeah, it was crazy how low it was. I think I am gonna go down to the shop and get the mfj analyzer on it to see what it really is.
 
You may get some reading that will realy make you scratch your head and say "Huunh? WTF?" I know I did.I still can't figure out how the SWR meter said one thing and the analyzer said it should be impossible. :?
 
Well guys this is one among the points about a 1/4 wave whip I was trying to suggest to the guys in the Kale Base Antenna thread that went to pot.

I find that the 1/4 wave has a hugh dependency on an effective ground plane. Knowing how unpredictable the ground plane affect is in an auto body, I wondered how these guys were able to get a flat match. This started my quest to understand what a 1/4 wave ground plane was all about.

In the iterations in design that I used in testing I saw my antenna go broadbanded @ 2.45 mHz with considerable reduction in field strength to narrow banded @ 1.07 mHz with considerably better field strength. It is a big difference and if you don't believe me it is a very simple effort to duplicate. After that I wondered if a good coil antenna would be different.

Now you ask yourself a simple question, does it even make sense that a 1/4 wave stainless steel whip, at 102" on a mobile, effectively working in 11 meters is going to be broadbanded like 88 suggests? I believe what 88 is telling us, but I just wonder how well his whip works in that condition or could it work better.

'Doc already suggested this.
 
QRN said:
You may get some reading that will realy make you scratch your head and say "Huunh? WTF?" I know I did.I still can't figure out how the SWR meter said one thing and the analyzer said it should be impossible. :?

QRN, if the meter was good and you placed the analyzer at the same point in the line, did it really show a significant difference in SWR?
 
Marconi,
I don't remember if you used an antenna analyzer in your testing or not, I am sure you used a field strength meter (memory isn't totally shot anyway). Those analyzers really do tell you much more than any SWR meter can. As in any reactance present and if it's inductive or capacitive. That sort of measurement can lead you in the direction you should go to make an antenna 'better'.

If you do have an analyzer you can 'play' with antennas and learn quite a bit. One of the things you learn about any 1/4 wave length antenna is that even at resonance, the input impedance, zero reactances, the resistive part of that impedance isn't going to ever be 50 ohms unless you 'play' with the shape of the 'other' half of the antenna, the groundplane. If you tilt those radials down from horizontal, at some point you ~can~ reach a near 50 ohm input impedance. When a vehicle body takes the place of those radials things get very "iffy" because it's very difficult to change the 'shape' or 'dangle' of that vehicle body. Unless you are very, very lucky, it just isn't going to happen. That means that you have to either match the resulting antenna input's impedance to the rest of the system, or settle for a little bit of reactance figuring into the thingy and getting near enough to 50 ohms impedance (it's NOT totally resistive though) for the radio to 'like' it. That's typically what happens when only using an SWR meter, since it doesn't know, nor is able to tell you anything about the reactances present. The more reactance present the less resonant the antenna, BUT it will usually work satisfactorily, even if it isn't exactly resonant.
With a mobile antenna, especially a 1/4 wave at 11 meters, it's easier to 'juggle' the antenna's length to change the antenna's reactance than to 'juggle' the groundplane. That's true of any mobile antenna not just a 1/4 wave, loaded or not. The 'other' easy way to handle the reactances present (if any), or to match the impedance of the rest of the system is by the use of an impedance transformer to change the antenna's 'not 50 ohms' impednace to a 50 ohm impedance. Bunch of ways to do that, none really difficult, just not very common. There's a phobia associated with those impedance matching transformer devices, otherwise known as a tuner, that most people seem to have. If done correctly though, there's less loss associated with a tuner than there will be with un-dealt with reactances (impedance mismatches).
There's absolutely nothing 'new' in any of the above. And more than likely most people already know it, or have heard it before.
- 'Doc

PS - Marconi, don't drop the other topic!
 
well, I am no where near as knowledgable as ya'll are, but I think my main difference between the 2 was a better ground plane with the whip. I have a direct ground with the whip using ground straps from the toolbox to the frame.

with the wilson all I had was a capacitance ground (using the magnet of course) on top of the cab. correct me if I am wrong in this.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ kopcicle:
    If you know you know. Anyone have Sam's current #? He hasn't been on since Oct 1st. Someone let him know I'm looking.
  • dxBot:
    535A has left the room.
  • @ AmericanEagle575:
    Just wanted to say Good Morning to all my Fellow WDX members out there!!!!!