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.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Riverman, I agree totally.

For the early years when skip was really big in CB I would hear 100's of reports from folks far away claiming they used an A99, and they also most likely stated they used no GPK.

I wasn't tracking this information or comparing antennas in those day...it was just a fact back then when I was on the air, plus I heard the same echoed repeatedly. I also recall I probably heard some folks complaining about their A99, and mostly saying it was noise. None of this was complicated by science or technical conversation either.

I had the GPK, but I seldom used it and when I compared it with and without the GPK, I could tell NO difference. This was probably back when I first started trying to compare CB vertical antennas.

Long ago I remember reading what Steve Yates - AA5TB, reported back in the days on EFHW verticals and it made sense to me. Basically saying, the EFHW needed only a very small 0.05 WL of wire to provide the design with the required and effective current return path in order to work. The article was a lot more complicated than this description, but that is what I took away form Steve's ideas.

Here is the link: http://www.aa5tb.com/efha.html

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 724333" data-attributes="member: 903">Riverman, I agree totally.For the early years when skip was really big in CB I would hear 100&#039;s of reports from folks far away claiming they used an A99, and they also most likely stated they used no GPK.I wasn&#039;t tracking this information or comparing antennas in those day...it was just a fact back then when I was on the air, plus I heard the same echoed repeatedly. I also recall I probably heard some folks complaining about their A99, and mostly saying it was noise. None of this was complicated by science or technical conversation either.I had the GPK, but I seldom used it and when I compared it with and without the GPK, I could tell NO difference. This was probably back when I first started trying to compare CB vertical antennas.Long ago I remember reading what Steve Yates - AA5TB, reported back in the days on EFHW verticals and it made sense to me. Basically saying, the EFHW needed only a very small 0.05 WL of wire to provide the design with the required and effective current return path in order to work. The article was a lot more complicated than this description, but that is what I took away form Steve&#039;s ideas.<img src="http://www.aa5tb.com/efhw_16.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />Here is the link: <a href="http://www.aa5tb.com/efha.html" target="_blank">http://www.aa5tb.com/efha.html</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 724333, member: 903"] Riverman, I agree totally. For the early years when skip was really big in CB I would hear 100's of reports from folks far away claiming they used an A99, and they also most likely stated they used no GPK. I wasn't tracking this information or comparing antennas in those day...it was just a fact back then when I was on the air, plus I heard the same echoed repeatedly. I also recall I probably heard some folks complaining about their A99, and mostly saying it was noise. None of this was complicated by science or technical conversation either. I had the GPK, but I seldom used it and when I compared it with and without the GPK, I could tell NO difference. This was probably back when I first started trying to compare CB vertical antennas. Long ago I remember reading what [SIZE=4][B]Steve Yates - AA5TB, [/B]reported back in the days on EFHW verticals[B] and it made sense to me.[/B] [B]Basically saying, the EFHW needed only a very small 0.05 WL of wire to provide the design with the required and effective current return path in order to work.[/B] The article was a lot more complicated than this description, but that is what I took away form Steve's ideas.[/SIZE] [IMG]http://www.aa5tb.com/efhw_16.gif[/IMG] Here is the link: [B][URL]http://www.aa5tb.com/efha.html[/URL][/B] [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom