hotrod said:
I was just looking at H&Y on ebay,
says they have more than 10 of them. 129.00 plus shipping.
Gain-Master CB BASE ANTENNA BY SIRIO - eBay (item 350416416869 end time Jan-22-11 10:44:50 PST)
-
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.
New antenna from Sirio Gain-Master
- Thread starter dxswe
- Start date
I was just looking at H&Y on ebay,
says they have more than 10 of them. 129.00 plus shipping.
Gain-Master CB BASE ANTENNA BY SIRIO - eBay (item 350416416869 end time Jan-22-11 10:44:50 PST)
I looked on H&Y's eBay site and it says they have 1 left.
Hotrod said:
I also looked on Copper's site and I don't see the GM listed at all.
Hey Marconi
I just went back and click the ebay link in my previous post and it says there are 10 available.
It says that just above the price.
Or are you seeing something I'm not.:blush:
You're right okiebob, I was looking at the # of units to order window. I'm a little surprised they have 10 in their Ebay store, but show "Out of Stock" on their main Website however. Maybe the Ebay store screen is not updated.
I'm just as amazed as you are Scott, and I don’t understand why either. I just posted my most recent Signal Reports #’s 17-21 in my album
Edit: sorry I can't add any more albums to my profile. Maybe I'll delete some of my albums if I can still do that. I think this happended once before, but I don't recall what the solution was.
Edit: well I had to delete some albums in order to add my Gain Master Signal Reports here:
http://www.worldwidedx.com/members/marconi-albums-gain-master-signal-reports-12-2010.html
If you look back at my first report #17 dated 12/03/10, for my new GM vs. Top One...you'll notice that my recorded average difference in Sunits was a modest 0.6su in favor of the GM. The GM was about 11' feet higher at the tip. The bottom of the GM and the bottom hoop on the TO were at the same 33' foot height.
GM @ 55' feet = average 7.9su ------ 0.7su advantage for the Gain Master.
TO @ 44' feet = average 7.2su
On my report #18 dated 12/05/10, I put both antennas at the same tip height of 44' feet which lowered the GM 11' feet. This was a test over just a few hours. I recorded some signals from a few contacts that were not included in my previous tests, so I noted these with a "*" in the margin. I excluded them in my averaging for Sunits difference.
GM @ 44' feet = average 6.9su
TO @ 44' feet = average 7.4su ------ 0.5su advantage for the Top One.
On my report # 19 dated 12/10/10, I centered both antennas at 38' feet.This effectively raised the Gain Master about 5' feet higher than the previous test.
GM @ 49' feet = average 7.3su ------ 0.4su advantage for Gain Master.
TO @ 44' feet = average 6.9su
On my report #20 dated 12/12/10, at the recommendation of others I removed the Top One from its mount and tested the GM alone with the tip @ 55’ feet. This is about as high as I can get my new mount 33.5' feet and that limits what I can do here.
GM @ 55' feet = average 7.2su
A day later on the same report # 20 dated 12/12/10, I removed the GM and installed my A99 without a GPK and tested it.
A99 @ 51.5’ feet = average 7.4su
On my report #21 dated 12/15/10, I installed 3 x 72” radials on the A99 in the horizontal position and tested the A99 again.
A99 @ 51’ feet = average 7.3su
On 12/17/10, on the recommendations of other’s I mounted the GM @ 50’ feet to the tip on the mount that my AstroPlane (Top One) was originally mounted on. This was to try and compare any possible differences between the two mounts. I made a mistake while setting the guying bracket position and the GM ended up 5’ feet lower than my previous test using the TO on that mount. I will have to fix this error, raise 5’ and retest.
GM @ 50’ feet = average 7.6su
Some of these numbers may have changed a bit since I first posted information from these reports. That is because I went back and made all report averages…using the same 7 stations from test to test. I (-)'ed out all other stations that did not appear in all reports just to make the reports more balanced.
You could be right 007, but over the years my experience has seldom shown nearly as much differences among the CB vertical antennas I have compared to what other guys indicate. I will admit that I often use height to compare antennas just to see what the antenna is capable of, but I do realize that is not considered a fair way of comparing them. That said however, most guys never consider, or discuss height even when talking about their comparison ideas. This idea of height is truly not that important to the average CB’er wanting to simply install his antenna and talk on it. What really got me started was being intrigued by the inaccurate comments that the AstroPlane antenna had to be installed low to the ground for it to work well and that it was designed that way. Height was surely the issue in the design idea, but IMO it had nothing to do with having to be low to the ground in order to work as intended.
Additionally, I’ve made the argument that the soil in my area of the Texas Gulf Coast is noted to be very conductive compared to most other areas of the country. I do not have a good understanding of the technical affects, but IMO the Earth probably has the greatest affect of any single characteristic in antenna performance, next is polarity, and then height. To prove how the ground beneath the antenna can affect the performance of an antenna all you have to do is experience your antenna over salt water. The differences on land may not be that dramatic, but in a technical sense it can have a considerable affect and without close study it may be hard to realize.
I also consider symmetry to be a very important aspect that is most often overlooked when considering antenna performance and design. I think you might agree when considering your P500 and its well balanced design along with the Gain Master. I think we both appreciate that balanced quality in design.
I think that is also why we both consider it important to get the GM well out into the clear as best possible…for best performance.
I have all kinds of stuff around my location that can affect the GM’s performance, to say nothing about how my radios handle signals through their AGC circuits. I use only one radio to do my reports, but they all seem to display about the same readings when I take the time to compare them. If a station hits me with an S9 on my Galaxy DX2547, the same shows up on my TS570D, and my TS50. I can back the RF gain down sometimes and see more of a difference between different antennas, but more often it makes little to no difference.
Let’s not even mention conditions, and ground clutter affecting line of sight signals. I’m not doing rocket science here.
Again, I can’t really explain it either. I find it just as hard to accept seeing a GM produce a 1-3 su better signal compared to any other antenna. That said however, I’m not ready to consider the GM a give-away antenna.
Scott you know doing this comparison stuff is a lot of work, but I encourage others to do their own and show me their results…instead of just making claims they can’t support. I don’t disbelieve guys either, but I do know how complicated testing can get, and I figure most are not going to take the time or energy to do it, record and produce results, fuss and discuss, when making wide-eyed claims is so easy.
Well, I don’t have a solution for your dilemma, but for the next few days I will have both the A99 and the GM up. I don’t typically believe there is much to be learned in DX contacts, because combinations of various RF angles and such has so much affect on signals between two points, but if you hear Texas in your radio on 27.385 lsb, give me a holler. We’ve talked before and I’m sure we can do it again.
Soon, I want to get one of my 5/8 wave or my Sigma4 up and compare it to the GM. How do you think is best to mount them for a fair comparison, mount to mount height equal on the same pole? If my past experiences were correct, the GM does not stand a chance against my Sigma 4 in such a scenario. I could be surprised however. How are your comparisons coming along?
Last edited:
Here are my Signal Reports for the Gain Master 12/2010
Gain Master Signal Reports. The signals noted with an "*" are not included in the average Sunits at the bottom of reports. This was done in order to make the 7 stations tested more balanced between reports.
View attachment Signal Reports for 12_2011.pdf
Gain Master Signal Reports. The signals noted with an "*" are not included in the average Sunits at the bottom of reports. This was done in order to make the 7 stations tested more balanced between reports.
View attachment Signal Reports for 12_2011.pdf
To be honest Marconi I'm surprised to find out your findings against the SGM with the A99.
I have two local stations who have "swoppped out" an A99 with a SGM on the same pole/location/feeder, and both have seen well over one "S" unit increase in both RX and TX .
I can see you have put a lot of time into your findings and believe you for sure,no question at all.
I put in four weekends work for my findings and found very good increases against the Shakesphere ABS1600 in MY location and circumstances.
The only thing I want to try is a same pole test very soon,this is a better method I know.
Another UK based Amateur Radio forum HRD (Ham Radio Deals) has a very clever antenna Guru a chap called Steve who realy does understand antennas even writing for some of the well established UK Ham radio Magazines. He hasn't tried the antenna ,but has used antenna modelling programs and his far greater expertise in the field than I, to conduct some very interesting tests.......A lot of his findings seem to mirror what I found so to speak. It's maybe worth joining to have a look.
Like you said it needs more people to post their findings, but for me and others I know I think it was worthwhile installing the new Sirio..........Happy New Year from the UK ........Dave M0OGY
Thanks for your words Dave. The only thing I have against the GM has nothing to do with the antenna's performance. I just don't find the magnitude of gain that others are finding. This is a subject related to all of our human frailties.
If I had guys like you and some of your buds available, close by, that had FM capabilities, and that would fairly cooperate in comparing signals, then maybe I could see better gain results. You know how difficult it is to catch a signal response on sideband with the needle bouncing around on every pause and sound made into the mic, FM is the way to go and having buds to help could be of benefit. The local guys in my neighborhood are just a bunch of old hard-heads, that know it all, and won't talk about anything that might shine the light of truth on their crediability.
I may be repeating myself, but my best guess as to why my reports show most signals being about the same...probably has to do with the way my radio meter handles the signal. I'm woefully inadequate in having any technical knowledge about radios, but I've heard it described that modern receiver circuits have some balancing affect of improving weaker signals and attenuating stronger signals. I assume this tends to make all signals on the meter appear to be more equal.
I can lower the signals using my RF gain and when I have two antennas up at the same time, using a switch box, I might or might not see more difference using the RFG. Otherwise, I'm not sure I could really tell or depend on the RFG setting to always remain the same...while I'm out physically switch out antennas.
Comparing antennas is just not easy work with so many variables to consider, so I doubt getting good info when we just hear a claim that this AT is better than that AT. So I say to guys, just show me some of your results and I might be more convinced.
This is why I appreciate the extra work you and others in your group did to make videos of the GM at work. Even though the idea still leaves plenty of reasonable questions, the results were pretty convincing.
I've heard Bob and Shockwave describe how they take special care using special equipment to test...in order to give them better results. Technically I don't understand the process...so I can't even attempt to duplicate the effort.
Is this comparing antennas just theory, speculation, or more pie in the sky? I don't know. We've already come to learn from some of the top authorities in modeling, that the process is so riddled with limitations and misguided user techniques, as to render it virtually useless for real world comparisons.
Happy New Year to all, from Ole' Grandpa, Corpus Christi, Texas
If I had guys like you and some of your buds available, close by, that had FM capabilities, and that would fairly cooperate in comparing signals, then maybe I could see better gain results. You know how difficult it is to catch a signal response on sideband with the needle bouncing around on every pause and sound made into the mic, FM is the way to go and having buds to help could be of benefit. The local guys in my neighborhood are just a bunch of old hard-heads, that know it all, and won't talk about anything that might shine the light of truth on their crediability.
I may be repeating myself, but my best guess as to why my reports show most signals being about the same...probably has to do with the way my radio meter handles the signal. I'm woefully inadequate in having any technical knowledge about radios, but I've heard it described that modern receiver circuits have some balancing affect of improving weaker signals and attenuating stronger signals. I assume this tends to make all signals on the meter appear to be more equal.
I can lower the signals using my RF gain and when I have two antennas up at the same time, using a switch box, I might or might not see more difference using the RFG. Otherwise, I'm not sure I could really tell or depend on the RFG setting to always remain the same...while I'm out physically switch out antennas.
Comparing antennas is just not easy work with so many variables to consider, so I doubt getting good info when we just hear a claim that this AT is better than that AT. So I say to guys, just show me some of your results and I might be more convinced.
This is why I appreciate the extra work you and others in your group did to make videos of the GM at work. Even though the idea still leaves plenty of reasonable questions, the results were pretty convincing.
I've heard Bob and Shockwave describe how they take special care using special equipment to test...in order to give them better results. Technically I don't understand the process...so I can't even attempt to duplicate the effort.
Is this comparing antennas just theory, speculation, or more pie in the sky? I don't know. We've already come to learn from some of the top authorities in modeling, that the process is so riddled with limitations and misguided user techniques, as to render it virtually useless for real world comparisons.
Happy New Year to all, from Ole' Grandpa, Corpus Christi, Texas
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments.........it's certainly been an interesting couple of Months trying and seeing others results. Like you say every one won't see the same results but I think in general most have not been unhappy with the SGM.I'm in the same mind as you it's how it works in real life that matters.
I've seen temperatures plumet to minus 16 in December and it worked faultlessly in those conditions..............Keep up the good work ....Dave in the UK.
It's very hard to compare antennas because the pole
or mast can have an affective in the radiation pattern.
Most of vertical antennas like antron 99 must have
a pole or mast in metal to work properly.
I want to try SGM with an glasfiber pole and see wha'ts
happening.
Most antennas used the pole/mast like an groundplane.
With different lenght of the pole you have another
radiation pattern.So what i mean it is so hard to compare antennas
with various length of the pole,because the pole is one part
of antenna.Hope you understand what i mean
-
or mast can have an affective in the radiation pattern.
Most of vertical antennas like antron 99 must have
a pole or mast in metal to work properly.
I want to try SGM with an glasfiber pole and see wha'ts
happening.
Most antennas used the pole/mast like an groundplane.
With different lenght of the pole you have another
radiation pattern.So what i mean it is so hard to compare antennas
with various length of the pole,because the pole is one part
of antenna.Hope you understand what i mean
-
I can give an example when you are driving mobile.
You have the same set up when you are out.
You can talk to a guy,but when you driving over a brigde
you can hear the guy much stronger.Sometimes the signal
can goes over 3-4 Sunits stronger.
I think the reason is the metalparts of the bridge works like
groundplane.
You have the same set up when you are out.
You can talk to a guy,but when you driving over a brigde
you can hear the guy much stronger.Sometimes the signal
can goes over 3-4 Sunits stronger.
I think the reason is the metalparts of the bridge works like
groundplane.
Last edited:
Dxswe, you might be right about the antenna pattern being ill-affected by the supporting mast, but even if you replaced the metal mast with fiberglass, you'll still have the feed line in the same radiation field.
The feed line conductor may even present a lower resistance than the mast and in the current magnitude is excessive the length of that element may either contribute or not...to the antennas pattern. The whole idea of a choke located at a critical point in the antenna system is to present a high impedance field to help offset any low impedance current flowing to ground. You must be assuming the choke is not working as intended. What will you do about feed line radiation on your trial setup?
The feed line conductor may even present a lower resistance than the mast and in the current magnitude is excessive the length of that element may either contribute or not...to the antennas pattern. The whole idea of a choke located at a critical point in the antenna system is to present a high impedance field to help offset any low impedance current flowing to ground. You must be assuming the choke is not working as intended. What will you do about feed line radiation on your trial setup?
I can give an example when you are driving mobile.
You have the same set up when you are out.
You can talk to a guy,but when you driving over a brigde
you can hear the guy much stronger.Sometimes the signal
can goes over 3-4 Sunits stronger.
I think the reason is the metalparts of the bridge works like
groundplane.
Dxswe, does this happen the same on a flat bridge as it does on a bridge that has significant elevation? If so, then you may be right.
I don't work mobile anymore, but when I did I use to notice some areas driving around that seemed to either cause the signals to improve or get worse. Often the areas were quite small, so when I could I tested to see if it was just conditions making the difference. I called the good spots "Hot Spots" and I don't think it was metal in the ground that made the difference.
I also have a buddy that use to work on Galveston Island, south of me over 60 miles. Typically we could not talk after about 30-40 miles. We could not copy his signal even as he drove over the connecting causeway bridge to the Island. The bridge is over Gulf water and you may know how transmitting a signal over Sea water can benefit radio signals. In such case however, I think you have to be within a few feet of the water for that to happen. On the island he had located two different spots where he could easily hear traffic in the Houston area, and then we could talk with very strong signals. However, as soon as he drove out of these small areas, his signal was gone again. We thought that was really "cool."
I don't know the cause, but there are areas I can drive to in my city where I consider radio signals basically dead. It is difficult to talk over a couple of miles from such areas...even to nearby channel 19 traffic. There are other areas where signals are always "Hot."
Try these ideas out and let us know more.
I would be intresting to test SGM with a non conductive pole with same
feedline and same height.It will worth a try and see whats happening.
I think the antron 99 will work better with higher pole because the
radiation angle will be lower.What do you think
feedline and same height.It will worth a try and see whats happening.
I think the antron 99 will work better with higher pole because the
radiation angle will be lower.What do you think
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
dxBot:63Sprint has left the room.
-
dxBot:kennyjames 0151 has left the room.
-
-