|
Post by Night Ranger on Dec 5, 2012 11:21:45 GMT -5
If I am talking to someone in the distance on AM and we are about to sign off talking to each other I will use a roger beep if the radio I am using has one. I seldom use SSB, but most of my radios have SSB. Like Sandbagger, I like that AM quality sound compared to SSB. I bought my first export rig in the mid 80's, mainly because a bunch of us locals talked on 26.915AM and I got tired of buying a new radio then have to get channels put in it! We ran 26.915 to get away from the local trouble makers, most of them only had 23 or 40 channel radios. It was fun back in the 23 channel days when you had 22A put in your radio and only a few had it, you could here guys trying to bleed you... but they had no idea where you were at! ;D
Now I just wished we had locals to talk too! My first 23 channel was a Midland 13-853. It had channel 22a in it by accident. If you balanced the channel selector between channel 22 and the blank spot between channel 22 and 23 the radio would transmit and receive on channel 22a. I showed that "feature" on the YouTube video below; Midland 13-853 23 channel CB radio from 1976 www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEC2azY9Yi8-Night Ranger
|
|
**GRUMPY**
Administrator/The Boss
Classic Radio Operator Olde Timer 8220 [/color][/center]
"The King of Ping"
Posts: 4,342
|
Post by **GRUMPY** on Dec 5, 2012 11:45:21 GMT -5
That is a clean looking old Midland!
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 5, 2012 12:42:29 GMT -5
.... Interestingly, some of them drop down on AM to join us on 13 Wednesday nights for CRR. It would seem that the classic radio bug is spreading...... You have a good group on channel 13. I'm glad you decided to abandon 21 as those others guys were just detractors. Yes, I am very thankful for the group that is growing now on 13. They are very much like the radio op's I knew 35 or more years ago. As for channel 21, I've been wanting to leave that mess for a while, but until we recently reached "critical mass" on 13, where there would always be some QSO's going on, you were basically listening to dead air, and eventually the dial would get turned back to 21, since there was always something going on there. But better late than never.. I remember on one occasion a friend and I decided to really mess with the dead keyers by transmitting and receiving on two separate channels at the same time. We both had multiple radios and antennas. Even if the jammer wiped us out on on one channel we could still hear each other on the other. An interesting side effect was were transmitting and listening to each other in stereo as two D-104s at different angles picked up slightly different audio patterns. Stereo CB voice broadcast are really an interesting experience when all you have ever heard is mono CB. Night Ranger Never tried "stereo CB". We've used 2 meters for simulcasting when jammers were in there, but never 2 simultaneous CB radios. You'd have to have 2 decent antennas to pull it off, but it would be an interesting audio effect.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 5, 2012 12:47:01 GMT -5
I checked the SWR with the changes noted and this time the SWR is now 1.0:1 on both ch. 1 and ch. 40 [/b][/quote] Very nicely done. How well does it transmit?[/quote] Well, it is a 1/4 wave afterall, so I wouldn't expect stellar performance. They are known for having a wide bandwidth, and a fairly broad E-plane lobe.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 5, 2012 12:49:39 GMT -5
If I am talking to someone in the distance on AM and we are about to sign off talking to each other I will use a roger beep if the radio I am using has one. I seldom use SSB, but most of my radios have SSB. Like Sandbagger, I like that AM quality sound compared to SSB. I bought my first export rig in the mid 80's, mainly because a bunch of us locals talked on 26.915AM and I got tired of buying a new radio then have to get channels put in it! We ran 26.915 to get away from the local trouble makers, most of them only had 23 or 40 channel radios. It was fun back in the 23 channel days when you had 22A put in your radio and only a few had it, you could here guys trying to bleed you... but they had no idea where you were at! ;D
Now I just wished we had locals to talk too! My first 23 channel was a Midland 13-853. It had channel 22a in it by accident. If you balanced the channel selector between channel 22 and the blank spot between channel 22 and 23 the radio would transmit and receive on channel 22a. I showed that "feature" on the YouTube video below; Midland 13-853 23 channel CB radio from 1976 www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEC2azY9Yi8-Night Ranger Some radios used a single switch contact or gap to "defeat" channel 22A, and it was easy to wiggle the dial to get it to work. Other radios used several gaps in the switch, and it was very difficult (if not impossible) to wiggle in the channel without modification.
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Dec 5, 2012 14:02:41 GMT -5
Never tried "stereo CB". We've used 2 meters for simulcasting when jammers were in there, but never 2 simultaneous CB radios. You'd have to have 2 decent antennas to pull it off, but it would be an interesting audio effect. I've done it twice. Both operators were within 5 miles by air. I think one guy used his omni and his Moonraker for the two antennas. I used my normal vertical and a dipole. The second guy used his Antron 99 and a dipole. I had one CB on the left and one CB on the right. When the other operator shifted from one side to the other you could hear his voice pan to the left or the right on my two CB's. Night Ranger
|
|
|
Post by homerbb on Dec 5, 2012 18:04:25 GMT -5
I have been doing well both locally and with DX. It meets every expectation for a 1/4 wave groundplane. Better photos today: More tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Dec 6, 2012 10:01:06 GMT -5
So of all the vertical antennas you have built so far, which one do you think works the best?
Night Ranger
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Dec 6, 2012 10:07:10 GMT -5
Well, it is a 1/4 wave afterall, so I wouldn't expect stellar performance. They are known for having a wide bandwidth, and a fairly broad E-plane lobe. I knew a lot of ops who made great contact using nothing more than an A/S Starduster. Back in the 1970's the hype was big on them.
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Dec 6, 2012 10:30:25 GMT -5
Well, it is a 1/4 wave afterall, so I wouldn't expect stellar performance. They are known for having a wide bandwidth, and a fairly broad E-plane lobe. I knew a lot of ops who made great contact using nothing more than an A/S Starduster. Back in the 1970's the hype was big on them. There were/are many CB'ers that thought the Starduster was a 5/8ths ground plane. A newbie CB friend of mine sold his 5/8ths CLR2 ground plane so he could buy a Starduster after one of the locals told him the Starduster had more "BD's gain" (not a typo). Night Ranger
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 6, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
I knew a lot of ops who made great contact using nothing more than an A/S Starduster. Back in the 1970's the hype was big on them. There were/are many CB'ers that thought the Starduster was a 5/8ths ground plane. A newbie CB friend of mine sold his 5/8ths CLR2 ground plane so he could buy a Starduster after one of the locals told him the Starduster had more "BD's gain" (not a typo). Night Ranger A lot of people bought into the Starduster's claimed "5.0 db gain" hype. After I looked at the dimensions of the antenna, I could come to no other conclusion that is was simply a 1/4 wave GP. Now the radials drooped much lower than the typical 45 degree down angle, but I don't think it would increase the gain THAT much. I knew a lot of people who ran Stardusters back in the 70's. The biggest appeal for those antennas was the very broadbanded nature of it, and its ability to handle as much power as you could get back then. The people who owned them all seem satisfied with their performance, but I doubt if they worked better than a 5/8th wave GP. I also don't know anyone who did a side by side comparison with them either. So it's all relative.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 6, 2012 14:09:04 GMT -5
So of all the vertical antennas you have built so far, which one do you think works the best? Night Ranger That all depends on your definition of "best"......
|
|
|
Post by homerbb on Dec 6, 2012 16:46:22 GMT -5
Because I was asked, the best vertical of those I've made:
1. 1/4 wave Ground Plane: Smaller than many others, light weight, easy to mount, simple to build. Wide-banded, easy match. No matching network required which translates to diminished losses. Potential to handle lots of power because there isn't anything to burn out.
2. Half Wave Dipole: Simplest to build, lightest weight, nearly infinite configurations. Power limited only by the materials of choice when building it. Most portable after # 3. Most stealthy.
3. Sleeved Dipole: A little more work than a simple dipole, it is basically the same as and on a performance par with the common dipole. Common Mode Currents are more likely from this dipole, but the trade off is the ease of mounting it vertically compared to a center fed dipole. As a portable it is the king.
4. End Fed Half Wave (EFHW): Performance adequate, but without radials not as good as either the Dipole or the 1/4 wave GP. When the radials are added and the antenna meticulously tuned, performance is on a par with some 5/8 waves. Most complex matching section. More potential losses. More power limited due to matching network.
5. Astroplane: Smaller in height and breadth than either a 1/4 GP, or a proper EFHW, as light as either, if not lighter, but more robust performance. Much smaller than a 5/8 GP. No matching network as the antenna design itself acts as both antenna and matcher so greater power potential than the EFHW. Works as well as any 5/8 wave I've made and used. Must have adequate height, long enough metal mast, and sufficient clearance from other conductive materials to achieve peak performance.
6. 5/8 wave/ .64 wave: All these types I've built have had rafdials and either an inductor coil or ring to match impedance to feed line. All of them have out performed a 1/2 wave by a little, but neither the .64 or .625 have had any detectable performance differences between themselves in my experience. Power handling I would suspect is completely dependent upon the robustness of the inductor in the matching network. Building and matching a working 5/8 wave is the effort of a single afternoon. There is nothing at all complicated about this antenna, and simpler to build and tune than an EFHW.
7. Vector 4k: Noticeably higher gain than the 1/4, 1/2, or 5/8-.64 verticals. Taller than the others by feet, it trades off from the other vertical types by being no broader than the Astroplane - tall and skinny. The ears are the best, and it has farthest reach TX-wise than the others. Not noticeably better within 20 to 25 miles than the others, it comes into its own as the far field local work begins making communications with stations I strained to hear, or could not hear in this mountainous terrain out to 65 - 80 miles much easier by comparison.
Which do I like the best of the 11 meters verticals I've made? a. For simplicity and portability, the dipole. b. For classic elegance, the 5/8 wave. c. For uncomplicated reliability, the 1/4 wave GP. d. For shear outreach above the others and total beauty, the V4k. e. For a mix of simplicity, size, reliability, better than most other antennas I've used, and uniquely eye pleasing appearance, the Astroplane.
The one I like the least is the EFHW, the number one pick is the Astroplane.
EFHW negatives - more prone to CMC, more complex to match, more losses by design, and less power handling.
Astroplane positives - Small, easy to build. Inherent matching without network. Greater power handling potential. Pretty. Out performs all others except for V4k, but out points it because of its ease of mounting, building, and maintaining.
This is my personal preferences based on building, testing, and using each of these for a minimum of weeks on end. All of this is subjective and relies on my personal level of satisfaction, and the differences in the demands of my Ozark Mountains locality. In another place I might have to re-evaluate each of these and come to different personal conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Dec 6, 2012 20:47:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Homerbb. What frequency do you monitor? The next time I hear skip coming in from Arkansas I might try to see if we can make a home made antenna to home made antenna hook up. At least I think you once said you were in Arkansas. If not what state should I listen for? What do you go by on sideband/am?
Night Ranger/South Carolina 116 on sideband
|
|
|
Post by homerbb on Dec 6, 2012 21:35:52 GMT -5
I stand by on 38 LSB. Listen for World Radio 183 - Homer Guess what I am going to try to duplicate and test?
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 7, 2012 9:55:23 GMT -5
Guess what I am going to try to duplicate and test? Is that a mobile antenna? Strange top hat design........
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Dec 7, 2012 9:57:28 GMT -5
There were/are many CB'ers that thought the Starduster was a 5/8ths ground plane. A newbie CB friend of mine sold his 5/8ths CLR2 ground plane so he could buy a Starduster after one of the locals told him the Starduster had more "BD's gain" (not a typo). I'd love to hear how a 107" element magically turns into a 5/8 wave element myself. The misinformation that used to fly around the radio was always good for a few chuckle.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 7, 2012 10:13:59 GMT -5
There were/are many CB'ers that thought the Starduster was a 5/8ths ground plane. A newbie CB friend of mine sold his 5/8ths CLR2 ground plane so he could buy a Starduster after one of the locals told him the Starduster had more "BD's gain" (not a typo). I'd love to hear how a 107" element magically turns into a 5/8 wave element myself. The misinformation that used to fly around the radio was always good for a few chuckle. The common misconception of the Starduster back then, was that the whole antenna radiated, not just the vertical top section. I sort of bought into that explanation, until I managed to help a friend put one together and saw how the hub was constructed. At that point, the truth hit me like a ton of bricks. But even when faced with the truth, many people refused to let go of what the gain claims were. And since they all performed relatively well, they took that as a testament to the validity of the gain claims. I would always ask "Well, did you try a different antenna in its place and compare?" 9 out of 10, the answer would be "No". But this also underscores just how little the difference was between any two vertical omni antenna designs. You had to back the RF gain all the way down and squint at the meter to see any real difference.
|
|
|
Post by "Doc"Hammer on Dec 7, 2012 10:29:25 GMT -5
I always thought the Starduster was an "interestingly" dressed quarter wave...My favorite old groundplane was always the "12.95 groundplane" (Cat. # 21-901) from Radio Shack or the the Antenna Specialist "Droopy Drawers" which interestingly resembled the Starduster..
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Dec 7, 2012 10:43:56 GMT -5
I'd love to hear how a 107" element magically turns into a 5/8 wave element myself. The misinformation that used to fly around the radio was always good for a few chuckle. The common misconception of the Starduster back then, was that the whole antenna radiated, not just the vertical top section. I sort of bought into that explanation, until I managed to help a friend put one together and saw how the hub was constructed. At that point, the truth hit me like a ton of bricks. But even when faced with the truth, many people refused to let go of what the gain claims were. And since they all performed relatively well, they took that as a testament to the validity of the gain claims. I would always ask "Well, did you try a different antenna in its place and compare?" 9 out of 10, the answer would be "No". But this also underscores just how little the difference was between any two vertical omni antenna designs. You had to back the RF gain all the way down and squint at the meter to see any real difference. Actually I saw a significant signal jump on a local CB'er back around 1978 when he switched from a Shakespear big stick to a Sigma 5/8ths ground plane. I'm guessing there was some issue with the "big stick", because the Sigma 5/8ths blew it away. Night Ranger
|
|
**GRUMPY**
Administrator/The Boss
Classic Radio Operator Olde Timer 8220 [/color][/center]
"The King of Ping"
Posts: 4,342
|
Post by **GRUMPY** on Dec 7, 2012 16:23:53 GMT -5
Back in 1978 my Big Stick that I bought used in 1972 finally went bad and I had to replace it. Went over to a local guy who ran a TV Shop who talked on the radio and asked him if he could order me a new one. He said he could but if I was in a hurry he had a New Star Duster he would sell me so I took that and put it up. The first thing that I noticed was the receive did not have near the noise with the SD as I did with the BS. I also took notice that my transmit seemed to be down on the SD compared to the BS at the same height and location as the BS was located before. The one thing I would give the SD, it was a much better antenna for talking skip. Finally I went out and bought another Big Stick and took the SD down and sold it!
Another local here in town (who never get on the radio) has two Star Dusters up and a Moonraker 4. He put them all up at the same time around 1975, and all three antennas are still up to this day and look great. Not sure what the new version of the Star Duster is like, but if they hold up as well as the old ones did they will last forever!
I'm still trying to figure out what to put up to replace this A99 I have up that isn't working so well after 10 years. I wouldn't mind trying another Star Duster (they are cheap enough), but I'm not sure how that will work putting in a tripod where my A99 is now with the coax coming out the end of the pole. I live in a hollow and I hear they work great for folks that are in the hollow... why I have no idea!
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by Sandbagger on Dec 7, 2012 19:25:25 GMT -5
The common misconception of the Starduster back then, was that the whole antenna radiated, not just the vertical top section. I sort of bought into that explanation, until I managed to help a friend put one together and saw how the hub was constructed. At that point, the truth hit me like a ton of bricks. But even when faced with the truth, many people refused to let go of what the gain claims were. And since they all performed relatively well, they took that as a testament to the validity of the gain claims. I would always ask "Well, did you try a different antenna in its place and compare?" 9 out of 10, the answer would be "No". But this also underscores just how little the difference was between any two vertical omni antenna designs. You had to back the RF gain all the way down and squint at the meter to see any real difference. Actually I saw a significant signal jump on a local CB'er back around 1978 when he switched from a Shakespear big stick to a Sigma 5/8ths ground plane. I'm guessing there was some issue with the "big stick", because the Sigma 5/8ths blew it away. Night Ranger There was probably something wrong with that big stick. While they weren't the best performing antenna, they were not THAT much under other antenas. There was a local in my area that had both a starduster and a big stick on his roof. The diference in signal between them was less than 1/2 an S unit. Of course, I was only a few miles away, so the difference could have been greater farther out....
|
|
|
Post by homerbb on Dec 7, 2012 21:06:37 GMT -5
The reason the Starduster is supposed to help get out of holes is because of the higher TOA of a 1/4 wave antenna.
|
|