Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14834Re: AW: AW: [SDRSharp] ebay antenna

Expand Messages
  • WolfBob
    Jun 24, 2014
      Beauty and antenna performance is in eyes of the beholder.
      I started my mobile with a TS-50 and hamsticks about 25 years ago. In 2002 I got  an off-road 4Runner and installed a FT 857 and the ATAS 120A. It ate circles around the TS-50 and hamsticks. I still have the sticks but the TS 50 was stolen. I got a Prius and installed another FT 857 and another ATAS. It too works flawlessly.
      The performance of the ATAS is most similar to the TarHeels II and is clearly representitive of what can be done with a 4 ft antenna on 40 meters thru 450 MHz. Bigger antennas might do better but I doubt that better can be done in a small antenna. It is nice not to be banging those hamsticks off of everything. and the ATAS does work better.
      I think the ATAS is a rugged well built antenna as I have broken the Comet mount twice on the 4Runner, lost the stinger twice and became horizontal polarized a few times in my off-road wanderings.
      Bob, WB6JPI
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:32 PM
      Subject: Re: AW: AW: [SDRSharp] ebay antenna


      It reminds me of what I have read about the Yaesu ATS-100/120/120A mobile HF antenna.  It has been fairly widely reviewed on eHam.net, almost 300 reviews.  I figure only about 10% of ham equipment owners post reviews on eHam.net...so Yaesu has sold a lot of them at $300+ each.

      People are generally happy with them, but they seem to suffer from reliability problems, so there are a number of low ratings that drag down the average ratings shown on eHam.  Those who haven't had reliability problems love them!

      Interestingly, K0BG a U.S. ham whose main interest is mobile HF operating has built a very comprehensive website on the subject says more than once that the ATS-100/120/120A is the least efficient mobile HF antenna available at any price and that it should be avoided.  Read here:  http://www.k0bg.com/antennas.html.  (Anybody interested in mobile HF operation would do well to spend an evening or two browsing through K0BG's website).

      Moral:  People spend a lot of money on antennas that doesn't work so well (and aren't built so well) made by a company that has the know-how and resources to do much better.  But they're happy with them because a) it's their first mobile antenna and they have nothing to compare it to, or b) it's better than what they had.  Compare that to our EBay seller who may or may not have a good grasp on the theory behind how his scanner antenna works, but sells plenty of them to 600+ satisfied customers.

      Sorry for rambling on like that!  There's a point in there somewhere!


      Ken Alexander

      On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:48:11 PM, "'siegfried jackstien' siegfried.jackstien@... [SDRSharp]" <SDRSharp@...> wrote:

      > construction techniques on the Internet, realized they weren't difficult
      > to build and saw an opportunity.

      Yepp ... 27k opportunity :-)

      It probably is better than what he and
      > many of his customers were using before, so his antenna deserves to be
      > called a success.

      If he really sold some pieces of pvc tube with hand-wound coils for that
      money ... yepp success ... as minimum moneywise for him

      Performance on the frequency range??? Who knows what frequency it is built



      Ps you said "I`d wish I thought of it!" ... you still can do better maybe!

    • Show all 98 messages in this topic