• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Mobile Antenna Question

A big base antenna made of aluminum with a radio with receiver sensitivity of .3 uv would have a difficult time hearing the same weak signal I could hear in my truck sitting under the base antenna with my copper antenna and .125 uv noise floor.

The antenna itself does not have a noise floor, that is a specification of the receiver. Just because you hear noise does not mean that that is the "noise floor", if you want to hear the noise floor then you unplug the antenna from the receiver and turn up the volume. You can even put a dummy load on the receiver if you want. The very quiet static if you hear any at all is the noise floor, or at least very close to it.

If you have an antenna that is picking up more noise than another then it is either more sensitive, or more likely is in an area that has more interference than the other antenna. In the case of a base antenna, you generally have both situations, for example, a base antenna is generally more sensitive than any mobile antenna (unless there is a problem with said base antenna) and will pick up noise from further away, such as a neighbors house. If you have a CMC issue, the feed line will act as an antenna, and if it passes near something that is emitting RF noise it is also more likely to pick it up. Further, I have an aluminum antenna on my roof, that conditions permitting, picks up no noise at all. Those are the nights where I make local contacts that are by far the furthest distance away than any other local contacts I make. If aluminum had a noise floor as you claim, this super quiet period would not be possible.

Most town/city environments today are filled with excess QRM (man made noise), and there is generally some QRN (natural noise) around as well, depending on conditions. Things like most wal-wart power supplies, cfc lights, florescent lights, plasma TV's and much, much more put out noise. If you have an electronic device today and it is plugged in (even if it is off) it is likely putting out some kind of RF noise that may well be part of the noise that you think is a "noise floor" for your antennas. Unfortunately that is the world we live in, and we just have to deal with it. Ironic isn't it? I wonder how much power annually per house in dollars gets turned into said noise...


The DB
 
The antenna itself does not have a noise floor, that is a specification of the receiver. Just because you hear noise does not mean that that is the "noise floor", if you want to hear the noise floor then you unplug the antenna from the receiver and turn up the volume. You can even put a dummy load on the receiver if you want. The very quiet static if you hear any at all is the noise floor, or at least very close to it.

If you have an antenna that is picking up more noise than another then it is either more sensitive, or more likely is in an area that has more interference than the other antenna. In the case of a base antenna, you generally have both situations, for example, a base antenna is generally more sensitive than any mobile antenna (unless there is a problem with said base antenna) and will pick up noise from further away, such as a neighbors house. If you have a CMC issue, the feed line will act as an antenna, and if it passes near something that is emitting RF noise it is also more likely to pick it up. Further, I have an aluminum antenna on my roof, that conditions permitting, picks up no noise at all. Those are the nights where I make local contacts that are by far the furthest distance away than any other local contacts I make. If aluminum had a noise floor as you claim, this super quiet period would not be possible.

Most town/city environments today are filled with excess QRM (man made noise), and there is generally some QRN (natural noise) around as well, depending on conditions. Things like most wal-wart power supplies, cfc lights, florescent lights, plasma TV's and much, much more put out noise. If you have an electronic device today and it is plugged in (even if it is off) it is likely putting out some kind of RF noise that may well be part of the noise that you think is a "noise floor" for your antennas. Unfortunately that is the world we live in, and we just have to deal with it. Ironic isn't it? I wonder how much power annually per house in dollars gets turned into said noise...


The DB
I was referring to the noise floor of the radio on a dummy load. a radio with a noise floor of .3 microvolts would be unable to differentiate between a copper antenna and an aluminum antenna but once you drop the noise floor down to .125 uv on a dummy load interesting things happen. at that point I can telI can tell the difference between copper and aluminum antennas . aluminum picks up more noise where that noise did not exist with my copper antenna.. with a short antenna 8 feet off the ground I need all the help I can get picking up Weak stations.
 
I don't have the scientific background to explain this so I will plagiarize this from an authority on the subject.
quoting AB71F
"Unlike shiny copper, Aluminum on the outside surface is covered with a thin layer of oxide, Al2O3 (sapphire). This insulating surface is a dielectric much thinner than the skin penetration depth for RF at 27 MHZ yet thick enough to allow surface charge to buildup until it breaks down through the very thin layer of sapphire as the local space charge builds up in voltage. In the wind a never ending source of 'static noise' easily heard especially if the receiver is less than a micro-volt in sensitivity. So yes, it can be proven a copper antenna has much less 'static noise' than an aluminum antenna. That is until chemical corrosion coats the copper with oxide. One conclusion being it pays to keep your copper antenna shiny at all times"

Per AB71F
 
That was a surprisingly good response, even if you did quote it from elsewhere. I like it.

I'm interested in reading that full article, do you by chance have a link or reference?

Just a point or three in addition.

Yes there is a coating that forms on aluminum antennas, and even if you scrub it clean it comes back very quickly. It does act like a dielectric, but it is only a small part of the dielectric. The air, which has close to the properties of a vacuum as far as being a dielectric is concerned, acts as the dominant dielectric as the RF field is not contained withing this coating.

I don't know of any manufactured CB antenna that is made out of pure uninsulated copper. Most of said antennas will be in a fiberglass tube, or wrapped around fiberglass and covered with a coating of some sort if not insulated copper wire. There are a few exceptions, but they are very rare, such as potentially the end piece of a homemade T2LT antenna, or a homemade dipole made out of uninsulated copper wire. You could also include enameled copper wire here. The covering, be it a fiberglass tube, a rubber coating, or whatever, will have the same problem as the coating that forms on aluminum, and typically causes more noise to form to begin with, ara the a99 is an insulated copper wire within a fiberglass tube, and that antenna has been reported by many people to have a serious noise issue. However, the Gainmaster antenna is almost universally reported to be as quiet if not quieter than other antennas, and it to is insulated copper wire inside a fiberglass tube. If you actually have a bare copper antenna of some sort, it is possible to treat it so that it doesn't oxidize and eliminate said problem. I would love to see this copper mobile CB antenna you referred to, do you have any pictures?

While I haven't directly measured the noise floor of my current radio setups, I have access to a friend's Elecraft KX3 ham radio, which has a noise floor of -123 dBm (as directly measured by a third party source). To put in perspective with the numbers mentioned above, that is 0.000001 microvolts. It is one of the more sensitive receives of any radio on the market (or at least was not to long ago). It sounds the same through a dummy load as it does through his aluminum antenna on a quiet night... His setup, as well as mine using a first or second generation RCI 2950 (I have both versions), or a Galaxy DX-55HP (whichever I feel like using at the time) the static can be so low that at my normal volume levels it simply does not exist (I've actually forgotten the radio was on and accidently left it on before when monitoring a frequency, then woke up later to mysterious voices in my house). I do not know the specific noise floor ratings of my three radios. Therefore, as I mentioned above, in my experience, I don't see an aluminum antenna itself affecting the noise floor.

I am willing to say that there is room for error in my judgement on this as this was judged by me listening for the strength/loudness of the static noise. I can't guarantee my hearing over anyone else's, and have to call that subjective as on some level our minds tend to hear and see what we want/expect them to hear/see. I've learned the hard way that our senses are not the end all and be all of accuracy, and more often than not our brains play more of a roll than just interpreting said results. Or, to put it simply, there is no accuracy using our senses, at least not at the level needed for this type of test. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that when it is quiet out, none of these radios s-meters registers the noise in the silence, and I can often hear signals in the distance that also don't register on the radios s-meters, and I can talk back to them. Short of building an attenuator to get a signal to match your 0.3 microvolt number into a radio I also have no direct way of knowing for sure what s-unit reading said radios will actually show for such a measurement as, as I mentioned at least once above (and I'm sure we all know by now), said meters are notoriously inaccurate.

Hmm, longer post than I expected... Goodnight.


The DB
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
While I haven't directly measured the noise floor of my current radio setups, I have access to a friend's Elecraft KX3 ham radio, which has a noise floor of -123 dBm (as directly measured by a third party source). To put in perspective with the numbers mentioned above, that is 0.000001 microvolts.

The DB
Running out the door to work so I don't have time but you may want to double check that conversion from Db to uV. It seems if you farted in the same room you would take out the RX front end. LOL. :D
 
That was a surprisingly good response, even if you did quote it from elsewhere. I like it.

I'm interested in reading that full article, do you by chance have a link or reference?

Just a point or three in addition.

Yes there is a coating that forms on aluminum antennas, and even if you scrub it clean it comes back very quickly. It does act like a dielectric, but it is only a small part of the dielectric. The air, which has close to the properties of a vacuum as far as being a dielectric is concerned, acts as the dominant dielectric as the RF field is not contained withing this coating.

I don't know of any manufactured CB antenna that is made out of pure uninsulated copper. Most of said antennas will be in a fiberglass tube, or wrapped around fiberglass and covered with a coating of some sort if not insulated copper wire. There are a few exceptions, but they are very rare, such as potentially the end piece of a homemade T2LT antenna, or a homemade dipole made out of uninsulated copper wire. You could also include enameled copper wire here. The covering, be it a fiberglass tube, a rubber coating, or whatever, will have the same problem as the coating that forms on aluminum, and typically causes more noise to form to begin with, ara the a99 is an insulated copper wire within a fiberglass tube, and that antenna has been reported by many people to have a serious noise issue. However, the Gainmaster antenna is almost universally reported to be as quiet if not quieter than other antennas, and it to is insulated copper wire inside a fiberglass tube. If you actually have a bare copper antenna of some sort, it is possible to treat it so that it doesn't oxidize and eliminate said problem. I would love to see this copper mobile CB antenna you referred to, do you have any pictures?

While I haven't directly measured the noise floor of my current radio setups, I have access to a friend's Elecraft KX3 ham radio, which has a noise floor of -123 dBm (as directly measured by a third party source). To put in perspective with the numbers mentioned above, that is 0.000001 microvolts. It is one of the more sensitive receives of any radio on the market (or at least was not to long ago). It sounds the same through a dummy load as it does through his aluminum antenna on a quiet night... His setup, as well as mine using a first or second generation RCI 2950 (I have both versions), or a Galaxy DX-55HP (whichever I feel like using at the time) the static can be so low that at my normal volume levels it simply does not exist (I've actually forgotten the radio was on and accidently left it on before when monitoring a frequency, then woke up later to mysterious voices in my house). I do not know the specific noise floor ratings of my three radios. Therefore, as I mentioned above, in my experience, I don't see an aluminum antenna itself affecting the noise floor.

I am willing to say that there is room for error in my judgement on this as this was judged by me listening for the strength/loudness of the static noise. I can't guarantee my hearing over anyone else's, and have to call that subjective as on some level our minds tend to hear and see what we want/expect them to hear/see. I've learned the hard way that our senses are not the end all and be all of accuracy, and more often than not our brains play more of a roll than just interpreting said results. Or, to put it simply, there is no accuracy using our senses, at least not at the level needed for this type of test. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that when it is quiet out, none of these radios s-meters registers the noise in the silence, and I can often hear signals in the distance that also don't register on the radios s-meters, and I can talk back to them. Short of building an attenuator to get a signal to match your 0.3 microvolt number into a radio I also have no direct way of knowing for sure what s-unit reading said radios will actually show for such a measurement as, as I mentioned at least once above (and I'm sure we all know by now), said meters are notoriously inaccurate.

Hmm, longer post than I expected... Goodnight.


The DB
Here are replicas of the antennas I build for myself. Stainless where necessary and copper where strength doesn't matter encapsulated in shrink tubing.
FB_IMG_1450051880981_zps4deq0gob.jpg
FB_IMG_1450378534308_zpsjmjutmmo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Morning...

Running out the door to work so I don't have time but you may want to double check that conversion from Db to uV. It seems if you farted in the same room you would take out the RX front end. LOL. :D

You are correct, I used an online based calculator, and forgot to switch it to power from voltage... Thanks for pointing that out. The number I gave was, in fact, to high... The actual number would be something close to 0.0000000000005 (or 5e-13) if my manual calculation was correct, the calculator I used won't calculate a value that low. Its been a while since I manually calculated (or in this case estimated) a decibel value...

Here are replicas of the antennas I build for myself. Stainless where necessary and copper where strength doesn't matter encapsulated in shrink tubing.

Thanks for that. I was curious to see if you had a bare copper CB antenna, and if you did was curious as to its design. The shrink tubing will have a similar effect as the coating that forms on aluminum. Ever rub a balloon in your hair and have it stick to stuff? The shrink tubing is a similar material to that balloon. I would think the shrink tubing would be worse in this regard than the layer of aluminum oxide, but I am not sure and will need to do some research on that to know for sure.

You may look into a chemical passivation process for your copper antennas and compare such an antenna to your standard model. I know it can be done with relatively safe household chemicals. I would be curious if it actually made a difference in your case... Passivation happens naturally with aluminum, and is the cause of the aluminum oxide coating found on aluminum antennas. It is also the source of the chromium oxide coating that protects stainless steel.


The DB
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
By the way, the quote from AB71F was from a post he made in another forum copied in it's entirety.

I was going to ask for a link again, but I found it over on http://www.thetruckersreport.com/.

I'm not to familiar with that site, I am aware of its existence, but I don't frequent it as I do several other radio forums.

I am also not familiar with the author of that post, or any studies that will confirm/deny that statement. his choice of words "can be proven" has me curious, it can mean that there is a study he has seen or run that proves this claim on one extreme, to an idea that makes sens but is as of yet unproven on the other extreme. That is a lot of ground to narrow down...

I can tell you this, the charge needed to penetrate the coating on an aluminum antenna would likely be in the microvolt range as said natural coating is so thin, and such arcing through would bleed said charge constantly. A rubber/plastic/pvc coating would not have such an advantage and allow far more static to build up. That being said, I wonder if its not the static that generates the potential noise but the actual arc from said static electricity as it passes through the oxidation layer...

NOTE: Even though the previous paragraph makes the assumption that said noise exists, I am still not certain of it myself, and to my knowledge I have yet to experience said noise. Said comment was just the result of me bouncing around ideas in my head...

I will do some more thinking and searching for studies on this topic, although they seem few and far between as I have yet to find one...


The DB
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
Running out the door to work so I don't have time but you may want to double check that conversion from Db to uV. It seems if you farted in the same room you would take out the RX front end. LOL. :D
I once farted in my friend's Mazda RX and it was so bad that in trying to roll down the window in a hurry he wrecked the car and smashed the front end.

Really. :whistle:
 
I was going to ask for a link again, but I found it over on http://www.thetruckersreport.com/.

I'm not to familiar with that site, I am aware of its existence, but I don't frequent it as I do several other radio forums.

I am also not familiar with the author of that post, or any studies that will confirm/deny that statement. his choice of words "can be proven" has me curious, it can mean that there is a study he has seen or run that proves this claim on one extreme, to an idea that makes sens but is as of yet unproven on the other extreme. That is a lot of ground to narrow down...

I can tell you this, the charge needed to penetrate the coating on an aluminum antenna would likely be in the microvolt range as said natural coating is so thin, and such arcing through would bleed said charge constantly. A rubber/plastic/pvc coating would not have such an advantage and allow far more static to build up. That being said, I wonder if its not the static that generates the potential noise but the actual arc from said static electricity as it passes through the oxidation layer...

NOTE: Even though the previous paragraph makes the assumption that said noise exists, I am still not certain of it myself, and to my knowledge I have yet to experience said noise. Said comment was just the result of me bouncing around ideas in my head...

I will do some more thinking and searching for studies on this topic, although they seem few and far between as I have yet to find one...


The DB
he doesn't want his call sign mentioned on that forum as he is incognito on that forum
 
I personally have a 2014 F150 supercab 4x4 which has sheet metal body panels and the steel whip on the tool box works excellent.
A friend of mine has bought a nice 2016 F150 Crew Cab and the body panels are all aluminum.......should aluminum panels work just as well as sheet metal or would he be wasting his time?
I just didn't know what to tell him since he wants a setup that works as good as mine. anyone have any input.
Aluminum bodies seems to be the way auto manufacturers are heading.

I have my 102 inch whip on my tool box works great!!
How do yall have your 108" whips mounted to your toolboxes? In the middle? In the lid? In the back? On the side? Ball mount? Bolted mirrior mount? Bored a hole in the lid?

Type of toolbox? In bed bolted to the bed floor? Crossover bolted to the bed rails? Nuts and bolts or sheet metel screws? What if any grounding or bonding to the truck/bed? Ground straps?

I think I want to ditch the mag mount. I have a 2004 Dodge quad cab long bed now. I do have a headache rack too, but the toolbox method may be better. I know lots of questions....
 
How do yall have your 108" whips mounted to your toolboxes? In the middle? In the lid? In the back? On the side? Ball mount? Bolted mirrior mount? Bored a hole in the lid?

Type of toolbox? In bed bolted to the bed floor? Crossover bolted to the bed rails? Nuts and bolts or sheet metel screws? What if any grounding or bonding to the truck/bed? Ground straps?

I think I want to ditch the mag mount. I have a 2004 Dodge quad cab long bed now. I do have a headache rack too, but the toolbox method may be better. I know lots of questions....
I have my whip(102) mounted to a 4in.s.s. spring, and that to an extra heavy duty stud mount 2in. tall, and that is mounted to the center of the lumber rack on the top of my dodge crew cab 4x4. The lumber rack has 3 steal square tubes 1 1/4 in. running frount to back, and covered with a 1/8 in. copper sheet (4 plates ). every part of my truck from motor to cab, box, rack, exhaust pipes, frame, every door, and hinge is bonded with 1 1/2 in. bonding straps. etc.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.