wrote in message
...
O
Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown and
need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a 102" and
they are good (most of them) to 1kw.

You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.

How so? Give me an example. Unless Jay wants to put an I10K on his truck.
Out in the desert he could weld 20 foot of tower in the bed. LOL

Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.

I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and center
loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
:


I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
better than any loaded antenna.

In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.


Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
such antenna exists, or is even possible.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:47:05 GMT, Lancer wrote:

+On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:13:39 GMT, james wrote:
+
+On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote:
+
wrote in message
++news:mgcit1lk0jppe7sisb2gp7va9s9tmuqk41@4ax .com...
++ On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
++ wrote:
++
++You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
++performance if mounted in the proper location...
++
++ It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
++ antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
++ be beat by some shorter antennas.
++
++ Let the games begin.
++
++Mounted properly the 102" is king.
++
+*****
+
+I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
+better than any loaded antenna.
+
+Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
+bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
+an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
+Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
+operating bandwidth of the antenna.
+
+james
+
+"Should" perform better is fine, "will" perform better is not always
+the case..
*****

Yes even the best antenna, installed poorly will be o ut performed by
a lesser antenna that is properly installed. Installation on a vehicle
is far more influenced by where it is located and the vehicle itself.
SO for vehicular installations it is not very wise and prudent to make
claims as to which antenna is the best. Given all other obsticles
equal, the 1/4 lambda antenna will out performe physically shorter
antennae. Then not all vehicles are equal, then comparison becomes
more a gentleman's gambit.

james

Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.

I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and center
loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.


You made two statements that need to be examined

1. Never trust manufacturers claims (or individuals)

2. You put your 102" up against others.

The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
others. You and me included.

So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
of discussion.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer wrote:

+On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james wrote:
+
+On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote:
+
++Frank;
++ A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
+*****
+
+Correct it doesn't
+
+james
+Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
+
+Go back to school... you missed something..
******

missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.

I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks

james

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote:

+
+I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
+better than any loaded antenna.
+
+In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
+be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
****

I agree with Frank.

So far any physcally short antenna that I have modeled or experimented
with has been found to operate in a manner that is poorer than that of
the 1/4 lambda antenna. The physically shorten antennae that I have
seen that does not lack in efficiency is the tuned small transmitting
loop. This antenna is less than 1/4 lambda in circumference and
actually when tuned will be around 98% efficient. It has very low "Q"
and an extremely small VSWR bandwidth. All other physically short
antenna, less then 1/4 lambda, all have poorer efficiency and lower
VSWR bandwidth as compared to a properly installed 1/4 lambda.

james

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:31:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
:


I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
better than any loaded antenna.

In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.


Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
such antenna exists, or is even possible.

I agree with everything that you said except the wrong sentence.

A ideal 1/4 wave length antenna can never be beat by a shorter
one. In other words a efficiently designed loaded antenna like the
X-Terminator can not beat the ideal 1/4 antenna.

Yet the X-terminator can beat a radio shack 102" SS whip.It's not that
the X-Terminator is so good. It's that the 102" SS whip is just bad
enough that the X-Terminator can beat it. In other words the radio
shack 102" SS whip is not ideal.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:35:16 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer wrote:

+On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james wrote:
+
+On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote:
+
++Frank;
++ A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
+*****
+
+Correct it doesn't
+
+james
+Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
+
+Go back to school... you missed something..
******

missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.

I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks

james


=plonk=








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:35:07 -0500, wrote in
:


Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.

I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and center
loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.


You made two statements that need to be examined

1. Never trust manufacturers claims (or individuals)

2. You put your 102" up against others.

The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
others. You and me included.

So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
of discussion.


By your own words, "we should never trust the claim of others".
Therefore, we shouldn't trust your claim to have made a "side by side
comparison" with this mystery antenna. Ok, we won't.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
of discussion.


By your own words, "we should never trust the claim of others".
Therefore, we shouldn't trust your claim to have made a "side by side
comparison" with this mystery antenna. Ok, we won't.

I said you don't have to believe me, but it is easier to believe
someone who has actually stated that he has made the comparisons
and has posted the details.

What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.