Wading in excrement

[IDIeselman]

With all the mobile antenna reviews of the Wilsons, Predators, stainless wips and countless others, my head is throbbing from reading and studying for the past two weeks. I simply come to this, An antenna is a instrument for recieving and transmitting a signal, It will not multiply modulation, Enhance audio or Boost a signal so you can talk farther. Now for example, On a honest 100 watt mobile with identical conditions and mounting, The Wilson 1000 tuned to a 1.1 will perform identical to a K40 tuned to a 1.1. Right or wrong?

 

[wavrider]

IT depends on if you own a Wilson 1000 or a K 40?

There are base loaded antennas, and then there are the 102" whips.

Will you be able to see the difference on the recieving end?

To answer your question, in my opinion, if the antenna is installed correctly, tuned to lowest VSWR, it will take some expensive test equipment to see any difference in performance between the two antennas you mentioned.

 

[Robb]

With all the mobile antenna reviews of the Wilsons, Predators, stainless wips and countless others, my head is throbbing from reading and studying for the past two weeks. I simply come to this, An antenna is a instrument for recieving and transmitting a signal, It will not multiply modulation, Enhance audio or Boost a signal so you can talk farther. Now for example, On a honest 100 watt mobile with identical conditions and mounting, The Wilson 1000 tuned to a 1.1 will perform identical to a K40 tuned to a 1.1. Right or wrong?

Some antennas work worse than others and don't perform as wall as another one that is constructed better. There will be differences. One would think that one base load is the same as the other; but that isn't so. Efficiency is everything.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Two antennas that are identical in appearance may indeed perform differently. How much that difference actually is is rarely noticed on the air and would take a real signal strength meter to tell the difference. By "real signal strength meter" I mean a piece of lab quality test gear and not a receiver's meter. The difference may be in the wire used to make the base loading coil. Small wire equals higher losses. Shiny nickel plated metal connectors have more losses than silver plated connectors etc. This is often the reason that two otherwise identical antennas cost and perform differently from one another.

 

[IDIeselman]

So for discussions sake, When Billy bob claims he replaced his 5' Wilson silver load with a 102" whip and could talk 10 miles farther I would call BS. If the Wilson silver load and the 102 where both matched 1.1 the distance gained if any could be measured in feet not miles. Correct??

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

dont forget that the antenna we buy is only half of the antenna system on our mobile setup .
the other half is the vehicle , where its mounted on that vehicle will effect the tx and rx also .

 

[W5LZ]

And using SWR as a guide to how well an antenna works is one of the worst ideas you can have. SWR's significance is much over rated. A dummy load is a very good example of that.
- 'Doc

 

[hotrod]

With all the mobile antenna reviews of the Wilsons, Predators, stainless wips and countless others, my head is throbbing from reading and studying for the past two weeks. I simply come to this, An antenna is a instrument for recieving and transmitting a signal, It will not multiply modulation, Enhance audio or Boost a signal so you can talk farther. Now for example, On a honest 100 watt mobile with identical conditions and mounting, The Wilson 1000 tuned to a 1.1 will perform identical to a K40 tuned to a 1.1. Right or wrong?

this is true and false. each antenna performs differently. each install is different
but usually the longer antenna wins .which means the wilson should beat the k40.
probly not by much but a little.then measure the wilson against the 102
both roof mounted no doubt the 102 whip it much longer.however mount that
102 on the bumper then id bet the wilson might just edge out the bumper mounted 102
so where the antenna is installed and how long it is usually what detrimines everything
to a point.

 

[IDIeselman]

And using SWR as a guide to how well an antenna works is one of the worst ideas you can have. SWR's significance is much over rated. A dummy load is a very good example of that.
- 'Doc

MORE EXCREMENT! SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) affects the power output of your radio. The following table shows the effect of SWR for a transmitter with 4 watts of transmitted power.

* ERP = Percentage of Effective Radiated Power
SWR READING % OF LOSS ERP* WATTS AVAILABLE
1.0:1 0.0% 100.0% 4.00
1.1:1 0.2% 99.8% 3.99
1.2:1 0.8% 99.2% 3.97
1.3:1 1.7% 98.3% 3.93
1.4:1 2.8% 97.2% 3.89
1.5:1 4.0% 96.0% 3.84
1.6:1 5.3% 94.7% 3.79
1.7:1 6.7% 93.3% 3.73
1.8:1 8.2% 91.8% 3.67
2.0:1 11.1% 88.9% 3.56
2.2:1 14.1% 85.9% 3.44
2.4:1 17.0% 83.0% 3.32
2.6:1 19.8% 80.2% 3.21
3.0:1 25.0% 75.0% 3.00
4.0:1 36.0% 64.0% 2.56
5.0:1 44.4% 55.6% 2.22
6.0:1 51.0% 49.0% 1.96
7.0:1 56.3% 43.8% 1.75
8.0:1 60.5% 39.5% 1.58
9.0:1 64.0% 36.0% 1.44
10.0:1 66.9% 33.1% 1.32



Not to mention burning up your radio because of very poor SWR's.

 

[Robb]

MORE EXCREMENT! SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) affects the power output of your radio. The following table shows the effect of SWR for a transmitter with 4 watts of transmitted power . . . Not to mention burning up your radio because of very poor SWR's.

The problem with that is it says nothing about the ability if the antenna itself to radiate the signal. It is one thing to have a decent SWR; and entirely another thing to have a fairly resonant antenna that can radiate well.

If a 1/4 wave steel whip is mounted on the bumper; the only real part of it that is effectively radiating is just the portion that is above the roofline. On the other hand, a Wilson 1000 mounted squarely on the rooftop might have a slightly worse SWR and radiate far more efficiently than the 1/4 wave whip will.

 

[office888]

MORE EXCREMENT! SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) affects the power output of your radio. The following table shows the effect of SWR for a transmitter with 4 watts of transmitted power.

* ERP = Percentage of Effective Radiated Power
SWR READING % OF LOSS ERP* WATTS AVAILABLE
1.0:1 0.0% 100.0% 4.00
1.1:1 0.2% 99.8% 3.99
1.2:1 0.8% 99.2% 3.97
1.3:1 1.7% 98.3% 3.93
1.4:1 2.8% 97.2% 3.89
1.5:1 4.0% 96.0% 3.84
1.6:1 5.3% 94.7% 3.79
1.7:1 6.7% 93.3% 3.73
1.8:1 8.2% 91.8% 3.67
2.0:1 11.1% 88.9% 3.56
2.2:1 14.1% 85.9% 3.44
2.4:1 17.0% 83.0% 3.32
2.6:1 19.8% 80.2% 3.21
3.0:1 25.0% 75.0% 3.00
4.0:1 36.0% 64.0% 2.56
5.0:1 44.4% 55.6% 2.22
6.0:1 51.0% 49.0% 1.96
7.0:1 56.3% 43.8% 1.75
8.0:1 60.5% 39.5% 1.58
9.0:1 64.0% 36.0% 1.44
10.0:1 66.9% 33.1% 1.32



Not to mention burning up your radio because of very poor SWR's.

You can match a 1:100 SWR with an antenna tuner, to 1:1. However, that doesn't mean your antenna is more efficient than one that is 1:1.5.

On a honest 100 watt mobile with identical conditions and mounting, The Wilson 1000 tuned to a 1.1 will perform identical to a K40 tuned to a 1.1. Right or wrong?

Wrong, the K40 has a bigger loading coil than the Wilson 1000, thus will be more lossy as you lose more watts to heat, rather than radiated energy.

The 102" whip conquers all mobile antennas as a perfect 1/4 wave radiator with a 0 dBd loss. Even though itss placement will alter radiation patterns, it is still a superior antenna when compared to anything else by all means.

No-coil > Coil. Unless you start getting into base antenna construction or yagis, then some things change.

My 102" whip at 1:2.0 SWR will still TX/RX a whole helluva lot better than a 2' Firestik at 1:1.1 SWR.

In short, stop being so picky about SWR. If it's under 2.0, good enough!

Start paying attention to antenna design, coil size, and materials used in construction.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

doubling or halving power has a negligible effect on how your tx is rx'ed by another station be it local or skip . so even the loss of a 6.0:1 vswr wouldn't be detectable , the finals you mention would probably die very quickly though . even @ 2.0:1 theres only %11 of loss .

 

[bob85]

its rare that i agree with doc but he is right, vswr tells you little about how well your antenna is operating, that list of loss vs vswr is the excrement you are wading through,
reflected power due to antenna mismatch is only lost at those percentages in the mythical world of cb radio, in the real world the loss is much less, especially when using transmitters that don't fold back tx power when vswr goes above a preset value such as a cb radio,
if you want something that does not smell like shit when wading through it read walt maxwells "reflections"

a wilson 1000 beats a k40 which is the worst performing 60" antenna i ever had the displeasure to own 3 times,
the 1/4wave whip talks further than the silverload regardless of it having 1:1 vswr or 1.5:1 vswr

its miles further not feet

 

[CTStallion]

With mobile antennas, alot of the efficiency has to do with the LENGTH of the radiator, with respect to 1/4 wavelength monopole.

Having said that,

My 102" SS TRUE 1/4wave whip performs BEST, followed by my 80" Half Breed, followed by my 72" center loaded Anttron 1700 (close performer to the 80 incher), followed by my 60" Wilson 5000 Magmount, followed by my K40 Magmount.

However, I find myself running the 72" Anttron MOST of the time for aesthetic and practical purposes (i.e.: ease of removal for parking garages, etc.) High (almost roof) pillar mounted on my truck as it is, it is alot less likely to hit overhead obstructions than a 102" whip.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

And using SWR as a guide to how well an antenna works is one of the worst ideas you can have. SWR's significance is much over rated. A dummy load is a very good example of that.
- 'Doc

Correct. You can have a perfectly acceptable SWR of 1.2:1 but it is what makes up that 1.2:1 that is important.There is an almost endless combination of radiation resistance and reactances that will give you that number. The greater the value of reactance the worse the antenna will perform despite a constant SWR of 1.2:1.

MORE EXCREMENT! SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) affects the power output of your radio. The following table shows the effect of SWR for a transmitter with 4 watts of transmitted power.

* ERP = Percentage of Effective Radiated Power
SWR READING % OF LOSS ERP* WATTS AVAILABLE
1.0:1 0.0% 100.0% 4.00
1.1:1 0.2% 99.8% 3.99
1.2:1 0.8% 99.2% 3.97
1.3:1 1.7% 98.3% 3.93
1.4:1 2.8% 97.2% 3.89
1.5:1 4.0% 96.0% 3.84
1.6:1 5.3% 94.7% 3.79
1.7:1 6.7% 93.3% 3.73
1.8:1 8.2% 91.8% 3.67
2.0:1 11.1% 88.9% 3.56
2.2:1 14.1% 85.9% 3.44
2.4:1 17.0% 83.0% 3.32
2.6:1 19.8% 80.2% 3.21
3.0:1 25.0% 75.0% 3.00
4.0:1 36.0% 64.0% 2.56
5.0:1 44.4% 55.6% 2.22
6.0:1 51.0% 49.0% 1.96
7.0:1 56.3% 43.8% 1.75
8.0:1 60.5% 39.5% 1.58
9.0:1 64.0% 36.0% 1.44
10.0:1 66.9% 33.1% 1.32



Not to mention burning up your radio because of very poor SWR's.

SWR does not really affect the power out of your radio until it gets high enough that the protection circuits start to roll the power back and most don't do that until 3:1 or so. Any meter used to say otherwise is not accurate because it is calibrated for 50 ohms and is no longer being used in a 50 ohm system. A high SWR will affect how much power is actually delivered to the antenna itself. Yeah I know it sounds like the same thing but since we want to be technical I thought I would be technical. On your chart it says an SWR of 2.0:1 reduces your power by 11.1%. Try reducing your TX power by 11.1% and see if the other station notices any change in signal. If he says he does call him a liar because he is.