"sideband" wrote in message
m...
It was a snazzy little "8-pointed star" contraption that scewed onto
the magmount base, then the antenna coil screwed onto it.. Cost about
$15.. and they were worth their weight in gold, let me tell you. I got
mine in So.Cal. when I was stationed on Pandelton. BTW, if you get
down there, pop on ch 13 and tell Master Blaster that Crazy 1 said howdy.

Wish I could remember the name of the manufacturer, but I can't ... sorry.

-SSB

Is this the same concept as the 3 point thing they used to sell for the 102"
whip that supposedly acted as ground radials?

Dr. D:

No.. This groundplane was actually on the shield side of the
equation.. the centerlead was never touched except for the passthru to
the coil. One PL-259 male and one PL-259 female connector on it, and
it screwed right on to the base.

-SSB

DR. Death wrote:

Is this the same concept as the 3 point thing they used to sell for the 102"
whip that supposedly acted as ground radials?

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:12:37 GMT, sideband wrote:

It was a snazzy little "8-pointed star" contraption that scewed onto
the magmount base, then the antenna coil screwed onto it.. Cost about
$15.. and they were worth their weight in gold, let me tell you. I got
mine in So.Cal. when I was stationed on Pandelton. BTW, if you get
down there, pop on ch 13 and tell Master Blaster that Crazy 1 said howdy.


Surely you jest. Those little 3 inch "radial" kits were nothing more
than a gimmick. First of all, they were attached to the "active" side
of the antenna, and secondly they were way too small to make any
appreciable affect on signal.

To make any difference, it would have to provide a counterpoise which
was greater than the surface area of the car the antenna was attached
to.

I've known people who ran them, and other than look cool, they did
nothing for them........

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave:

I noted increased signal strength with it on, on both transmit and
receive..

The star didn't touch the "active" side at all.. it was on the shield
side of the equation..

Perhaps the star, being so close to the sheetmetal of the roof (on the
magmount), increased the capacitance, thus increasing the capacitive
grounding, providing a better RF ground. Who knows. I didn't have the
equipment to test for that 10 years ago when I had one I don't now,
either.. All I know is, it did more than look cool.

-SSB

Dave Hall wrote:

Surely you jest. Those little 3 inch "radial" kits were nothing more
than a gimmick. First of all, they were attached to the "active" side
of the antenna, and secondly they were way too small to make any
appreciable affect on signal.

To make any difference, it would have to provide a counterpoise which
was greater than the surface area of the car the antenna was attached
to.

I've known people who ran them, and other than look cool, they did
nothing for them........

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Bingo.

Don
313

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:12:37 GMT, sideband wrote:

It was a snazzy little "8-pointed star" contraption that scewed onto
the magmount base, then the antenna coil screwed onto it.. Cost about
$15.. and they were worth their weight in gold, let me tell you. I got
mine in So.Cal. when I was stationed on Pandelton. BTW, if you get
down there, pop on ch 13 and tell Master Blaster that Crazy 1 said howdy.


Surely you jest. Those little 3 inch "radial" kits were nothing more
than a gimmick. First of all, they were attached to the "active" side
of the antenna, and secondly they were way too small to make any
appreciable affect on signal.

To make any difference, it would have to provide a counterpoise which
was greater than the surface area of the car the antenna was attached
to.

I've known people who ran them, and other than look cool, they did
nothing for them........

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:24:56 GMT, sideband wrote:

Dave:

I noted increased signal strength with it on, on both transmit and
receive..

The star didn't touch the "active" side at all.. it was on the shield
side of the equation..

Perhaps the star, being so close to the sheetmetal of the roof (on the
magmount), increased the capacitance, thus increasing the capacitive
grounding, providing a better RF ground. Who knows. I didn't have the
equipment to test for that 10 years ago when I had one I don't now,
either.. All I know is, it did more than look cool.


But you do understand how it would be difficult to understand how a
series of small radials could do a better job at being a counterpoise
than the large amount of metal in the car body? A good counterpoise is
all about surface area. For a counterpose to be effective at CB
frequencies, the radial length has to be at least a 1/8th wave which
is about 4.5 feet.

The numbers just don't add up. But this isn't the first time I've
heard people swear that some "product" they bought improved their
performance, and it made no logical sense from an engineering
standpoint, so who knows......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave:

Of course I understand that reasoning. I don't think the function of
the star was to act as ground radials at all, but to increase the
coupling to RF ground. I had a mag mount Wilson 1000 on the roof of
the cab of a '94 Ranger pickup. It did well. I added the star, it did
much better.

Forgive me if I'm rambling a bit. I just got back from surgery and am
flying a bit high on Vicodin. Just had my gallbladder out this
morning. They used a scope to do it. Pretty cool. I have pictures.

-SSB

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:24:56 GMT, sideband wrote:


Dave:

I noted increased signal strength with it on, on both transmit and
receive..

The star didn't touch the "active" side at all.. it was on the shield
side of the equation..

Perhaps the star, being so close to the sheetmetal of the roof (on the
magmount), increased the capacitance, thus increasing the capacitive
grounding, providing a better RF ground. Who knows. I didn't have the
equipment to test for that 10 years ago when I had one I don't now,
either.. All I know is, it did more than look cool.



But you do understand how it would be difficult to understand how a
series of small radials could do a better job at being a counterpoise
than the large amount of metal in the car body? A good counterpoise is
all about surface area. For a counterpose to be effective at CB
frequencies, the radial length has to be at least a 1/8th wave which
is about 4.5 feet.

The numbers just don't add up. But this isn't the first time I've
heard people swear that some "product" they bought improved their
performance, and it made no logical sense from an engineering
standpoint, so who knows......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:24:56 GMT, sideband wrote:

Dave:

I noted increased signal strength with it on, on both transmit and
receive..

The star didn't touch the "active" side at all.. it was on the shield
side of the equation..

Perhaps the star, being so close to the sheetmetal of the roof (on the
magmount), increased the capacitance, thus increasing the capacitive
grounding, providing a better RF ground. Who knows. I didn't have the
equipment to test for that 10 years ago when I had one I don't now,
either.. All I know is, it did more than look cool.


But you do understand how it would be difficult to understand how a
series of small radials could do a better job at being a counterpoise
than the large amount of metal in the car body? A good counterpoise is
all about surface area. For a counterpose to be effective at CB
frequencies, the radial length has to be at least a 1/8th wave which
is about 4.5 feet.

The numbers just don't add up. But this isn't the first time I've
heard people swear that some "product" they bought improved their
performance, and it made no logical sense from an engineering
standpoint, so who knows......

Dave
"Sandbagger"
I have seen the addition of these"ground planes" result in a lower on mirror
mounted antennas. I believe that is primarily what they were designed. The
improvement may have made some measurable improvement in transmit or receive
capabilities of a radio but I doubt if it was anything you could hear.

"Dave Hall" wrote...

But this isn't the first time I've heard people swear that some "product"
they bought improved their performance, and it made no logical sense
from an engineering standpoint, so who knows......

Like the magnetic water and fuel economy devices?
Those who fall for such cons are probably so keen to believe something that
they will believe they see some effect when there is nothing to see.

Have you ever seen David Blaine, where he levitates? When asked, some
people say they saw him lift feet from the ground. These people may not be
stooges and may well believe their story but two or three inches is more
realistic. However, having purposly asked people "how high" and found
someone believing they saw him rise several feet, they were in a position to
use that clip to back up the specially edited version on shown TV and video.

It is well known that "witnesses" can often give strange reports. Just as
David Blaine would have picked out the best responses to show on TV,
dodgy dealers will pick out the best stories as "proof" of their claims...
they
may even add new claims to match the wild stories from some people.

If you can get an "expert" to think they see something happen, then even
more people will be willing to believe it. If they find out the truth and
complain, you simply tell them that "experts" have proved their claims...
you must be using it wrong.


Regards,

Peter
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/