Call Search

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Friends Remembered
Survey Question

DX Cluster Spots

Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
Author Topic: New Ham/LOTS of antenna questions!  (Read 6816 times)

Posts: 2277

« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2010, 05:41:44 PM »

The SG7500 uses combinations of elements to produce an antenna that's suppose to acheive a lot of gain, especially at 70cm....... I think they're being very generous in the gain figures they claim.  But forget about the SG7500.  It's tall (41"), and it uses what I believe is an inferior base connector.  Please look at the Larsen NMO 2/70.  This uses an industry standard Motorola NMO mount.  It's a simple yet extremely rugged antenna that will last for possibly a decade or more, and comes with no mystical gain figures.

As for the hole.  If you go on K0BG's gallery pages, you'll see my white Tahoe, with not one, but two NMO holes in almost new sheet metal.  I've punched (not drilled) holes in day old vehicles to install a Larsen NMO antenna, and have had those mounts last for 10 years until the wheels literally fell of the now beater.  An NMO mount will not leak, will not rust out, and and be used for other applications or capped if the vehicle is sold.  Some people will literally drill the hole, while I prefer the punch method using a Greenlee 3/4"chassis punch, not an electrical knockout punch.  The resulting hole is extremely accurate, and very sharped edge.  I'd wouldn't hesitate to say you'll do more damage to your vehicle's paint using a mag mount.  It's also a clean installation.  There is no coax to drag across the paint and distort the weather stripping as it passes thru the door.  

But whatever mount you choose, I'd seriously consider the Larsen brand with the NMO mount.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 05:45:25 PM by Tom Hybiske » Logged

Posts: 1

« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2010, 07:41:44 PM »

FWIW I'm also a new ham, and this thread - along with my previous install leaking and flooding the back of my car, convinced me to go ahead and drill a hole in my 2008 Saturn Astra. I agree with everyone here, I'm very glad I drilled - it looks a ton better, it's cleaner, and works better.

I previously had a "mirror nmo bracket" mounted to my roof rack crossbar, the coax ran under some plastic trim on the roof to the rear hatch where it ran down under the tail light housing. This was a relatively clean install and I was pretty happy with it except for the wind noise, and it allowed water to run down the line and pool in the spare tire well... which filled up and splashed forward soaking the rear seats... the car has been torn apart for a week and I ordered the Laird/Antennex HS34 hole saw and Laird NMO thru hole mount.

The install took about 10 minutes, from dropping the headliner and finding a clear area, popping the hole, mounting the nmo, and running the cable. It was much faster and easier than my previous setup.

Anyway, thought I'd mention it and say thanks to everyone here.

Hopefully you can see these, they're hosted on my facebook...

Posts: 5639

« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2010, 07:07:39 AM »

Here's another vote for the NMO270. Mine is on it's fourth vehicle and is still going strong, despite tree branches, parking garages and ss forth.

I have been installing antennas (for a variety of services) in vehicles for about a long, long time and have used the NMO mounts since they first became available. I have yet to have the first one leak. The key, as others have mentioned is to PUNCH the hole with a 3/4 chassis punch. I know many like the Antennex hole saw, but it doesn't make as neat a hole as the chassis punch, OMHO.


Lon - W3LK
Naugatuck, Connecticut

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Posts: 17482

« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 05:49:47 PM »

Quote from: KF5GDA
I have continued reading, trying to learn....Please, feel free to correct where I am wrong.

My understanding is....A 1/4 wave antenna REQUIRES grounding, so you would HAVE to do a thru roof NMO mount.  A 5/8 antenna NEEDS to be grounded with a NMO thru roof mount (but is not required).  A 5/8 wave antenna is the best for ultimate gain.  If you are mounting on the bumper or a magnetic mount, you use a 1/2 wave antenna.

My question is....When looking at a dual band antenna at
I don't understand what antennas are 1/4 wave and 5/8 wave and 1/2 wave.  Is it the column named "Element Phasing/Wavelength"?  If so, what does 2 5/8 mean?  Is the SG7500 both a 5/8 AND 1/2 wave antenna?!

I admit, I'm really tired of being confused....Thanks for all help guys...

There is a lot of confusing information, some of it misleading and/or downright false.  It is easy
to get confused, especially when everyone has their own product or method to sell you.

Longer omnidirectional antennas have more gain, but only if they are carefully constructed so
all the parts radiate signal in phase with each other.  If you just used a straight whip that is
over 1/2 wavelength there will be portions radiating out of phase, which will tend to reduce
performance (unless you are working airplanes or satellites.)  So higher gain antennas are built
by combining multiple shorter elements:  in the case you cited, internally the antenna consists
of two portions each 5/8 wave long, arranged so they radiate in phase.  In some cases it can
be much more confusing - you can have a combination of 1/4, 3/8, 1/2 and 5/8 wave elements
in a common fiberglass shell to make an antenna.  

But however it is made internally, the overall length sets a limit on the maximum omnidirectional
gain that it is capable of having.  Antennas of approximately the same length will have about the
same gain, regardless of what the marketing department might try to claim.  (They can have LESS
gain than the theoretical limit, but not more.)

The truth is there isn't that much difference among mobile antennas.  I have often driven down
the road with a 1/4 wave and a 5/8 wave both on top of the car and switched between them
while listening to signals: generally the longer antenna has a slight edge, but not a lot.  While
the 5/8 wave antenna has a theoretical gain of 3dB over the quarter wave whip, that presumes
it is over an infinite flat ground plane, and the roof of a car (even a van) is nowhere near large
enough for the 5/8 wave antenna to see the expected gain.  In practice you might see 1dB of
improvement, and the signal strength will vary more than that due to terrain as you drive down
the road.  Switching between antennas might cause an average improvement from 30% copy to
60% copy in a fringe area.  In one case the higher gain antenna allowed me to maintain contact
about 200' further down the road than the lower gain one - both worked the same when I was
in the clear, and neither worked when I was behind a hill.

For an SUV that you might take off road, a 1/4 wave antenna may be the best choice.  That's
what all the Forest Service trucks used, and many of the Search and Rescue vehicles I've
ridden in.  You want a flexible whip that won't snap off when you hit an overhanging branch.
I'd strongly suggest looking for a 2m quarter wave designed as a dual band for 440 as well.
That will work about as well as anything else, and have a better chance of survival.

Both the 1/4 and 5/8 wave whips are fed at a point of maximum current - that means they
need a good ground connection to work well.  "Half wave" designs are fed at a point of
minimum current (maximum voltage), so they aren't as dependent on the ground connection,
but they still need some place for current to flow:  generally this is back down the outside
of the coax.  But they also need some sort of impedance matching network at the base to
work with 50 ohm coax.  If you are stuck without a ground plane (a fiberglass roof, for
example) they are a reasonable solution.

On VHF/UHF, a mag mount can provide sufficient grounding via capacitance between the
metal bottom of the mount and the metal under the paint, as long as the base of the antenna
is large enough.  You can also use a mount on a bracket connected to the roof as you have
proposed.  Mag mounts have problems with rust underneath, scratching the paint, getting
the coax in through the door seals, etc., but they can still work reasonably well.  You might
want to start with one and see how it works (and find some of the inconveniences.)  As
others have mentioned, try to choose one with an NMO mount so you can swap antennas
and compare the performance.  The NMO is much better than the SO-238 type mechanically.
At some point you may choose to drill the hole and install a proper mount, and you can use
the same antenna elements on either one.

I keep a stash of mag mounts and antennas for SAR, ELT, etc. that I can stick on the roof
of a vehicle that isn't otherwise equipped.  They do the job for temporary installations.
I also have scratches and rust spots on my roof from using them.

Probably the best advice, however, is not to trust numbers for antenna gain that are
provided by manufacturers.  They likely were pulled from the depths of the Marketing
department rather than having any basis in Engineering.  In the real world, when
antennas are properly installed there is only a small difference among them in terms
of RF performance.  Pay more attention to the mechanical features:  I avoid anything with
too many joints, or that isn't flexible enough to survive a branch strike.  Simple is

And if you really are concerned about coverage when you are out in the hinterlands,
carry some sort of portable mast and antenna that you can set up when needed.
Antenna height above ground makes far more difference in performance than the choice
of antenna, and a simple antenna 15 or 20 feet in the air will outperform any of the
standard mobile antennas on the roof of the vehicle.  (Especially if the vehicle happens
to be upside down in a ditch at the time!)


Posts: 5

« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2010, 01:59:13 PM »

Mr Hunt (WB6BYU), thank you so much for the very detailed reply.  All the replies to my questions have helped, but I think your long reply brought it all into focus for me.  I fell MUCH better about moving forward now.  Thank you again for taking so much time to help a total stranger.
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!