ad: RadioQSL-1

Alpha Moto Mobile antenna

Discussion in 'Mobile Radio Systems' started by ZL1MHS, Sep 22, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
  1. K0BG

    K0BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    While I appreciate the plug, there is another issue. No matter what is in the base of the antenna, the fact it is at the base means the efficiency will be about half that of a center loaded antenna, all else being equal.

    In all fairness, you should publish a schematic of the "loading coil assembly". I suspect Mr. David Benzel's hypothesis is close to being correct. And, I suggest you should send one to the ARRL for testing, which will settle the argument once and for all.
     
  2. N0TES

    N0TES Ham Member QRZ Page

    During my inquiry about advertising in the ARRL magazine, specifically QST; I received and email stating that a test of the advertised product is required. I am in the process of saving enough money to place an ad, which is many thousands of dollars. I have saved 70% of the funds needed to place the ad, which it must admit, is not an easy task these days for a small business with low profit margins. As soon as the funds are available, I will send the antenna(s) that will be advertised in for testing. BTW - I take now salary from my business, and am only doing this as a way of giving back to amateur radio...a life-long hobby that has given so much to me!
    Steve
    N0TES
     
  3. AD0AC

    AD0AC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I wonder if anyone who's throwing around the snake oil and PT Barnum references has actually used one of these antennas. Steve's a good guy and runs an honest business. Some of my ham friends in the area assemble the antennas at his shop in Greenwood. Are these equivalent to a Scorpion for efficiency? Who cares? They work well, cost about 25% of a Scorpion, are easier to set up, and will probably net as many contacts overall.

    Screwdriver antennas are arguably the best mobile antenna outside a full 1/4 length whip cut for each band, but I've had too many friends lose theirs to theft to consider investing in one. Someone steals your 6 foot whip, you might be out $10. You can compare the numbers on a IC-718 to a IC-7800 all day long, but if nobody can buy or use the 7800, it's kind of silly.
     
  4. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    How about taking the advertising copy and justifying its statements on the basis of sound electrical theory. If you want to be taken seriously, please explain the absurd statements! Very respectfully, b.
     
  5. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Consumers, customers, hams who consider performance to be an important factor when selecting antennas. People who want honest comparisons...


    -Of course they will make contacts.
    -There is always a place for lower cost alternatives for the budget conscious
    -As many contacts? Well, maybe not.


    *I have no problem with ham products built to an economical price. But don't blow smoke about them. I myself have a Comet UHV-6 on my car. Hardly an efficient design, but at least they don't shine up the advertising copy with odd claims.

    [/quote]
    Well, an unbent paper clip is an even cheaper antenna alternative. That doesn't make a good antenna. This argument has nothing to do with anything.
     
  6. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Here is suggested copy that I would like:

    That is honest, forthright and not stretching the truth.
     
  7. AD0AC

    AD0AC Ham Member QRZ Page

    What part of the truth do you believe is being stretched? He's given you the theory of operation. Do you have any evidence to back up your "snake oil" accusations?
     
  8. K0BG

    K0BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    Dan Rather's duck story notwithstanding, let's look at the claims.

    One is NVIS. Well, anyone who knows how to use EZNEC can refute this claim post haste, no matter how the whip is aligned, or how the antenna is mounted.
    Several places in the documentation, the term solid state is used. By definition, that means there are electronics inside the base. I don't think that is the case.
    The data states that the dipole formula (469/f MHz) is used to build a "solid state" (sic) match network. That statement is ambiguous.
    "...we let ohms law take over to find the path of least resistance through the coils..." This statement is also ambiguous.
    The image here; (http://www.alphaantenna.com/tech/Independent-Testing/MOTO/) speaks volumes! No wonder you have to use an auto-coupler with it. Which, incidentally, doubles the cost putting it in the realm of a decent screwdriver antenna.
    On-line reviews mean nothing. The old Maxx-Com mobile antenna was a 50Ω resistor inside an aluminum box, with an element (CB whip) attached to the hot side (coax center conductor). It rated 4.5 out of 5!

    I remain highly skeptical, and so should everyone else.
     
  9. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Umm, did you read his advertising copy? The NVIS statement is a stretch as well. The "Independent Technical Analysis" is nothing of the sort. It is merely a print out from an antenna meter and a description of an installation and a personal opinion.

    How about you defend them point by point!

    How is a formula used to estimate half wavelength wire dipole length including 'end effect" used to design a fractional wavelength vertical antenna?


    No, and, Not an accurate description. DC is described by Ohms Law. RF circuits have Reactance and Impedance. Ohms Law is not applicable to this case. Second, 'SWR matching' is not really what is occurring at this point in the circuit.

    Again, no. See above.

    While impedance matching is what is desired, it is highly questionable that it is "Optimized" across the advertised frequency range given that there is no power required for active components and the antenna has no motors or moving parts.

    Anecdotal reports of some NVIS path contacts is misleading. Given that it is vertically oriented and doesn't cover 80m for transmitting, giving buyers the impression this antenna is useful for NVIS is just not truthful.




    I reviewed the antenna this afternoon after not having looked at it in a couple years. I really don't have any objection to it. The best part is no performance claims are made. My main complaint is the misleading statements about the antenna.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2014
  10. AD0AC

    AD0AC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't have anything to defend. You were the one who posted the term "snake oil weasel words" two days before you "reviewed" the antenna, which you have not done outside of the editorial comments. You have issues with certain technical terms used in the description of the antenna. Maybe it would be prudent to address those directly with the guy who designed and built the antenna before publicly accusing him of lying to people.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page