Radio
- Thread starter Doc_holiday
- Start date
willsnow: Yes, healing can be a problem if severe enough. Bow or stern toward target might help.
Don: I didn't say the rubber ant. was very good either but if you must use it in your dingy you have no choice and they do work even if reduced concept. Deal with it Don! ha
Chief
Don: I didn't say the rubber ant. was very good either but if you must use it in your dingy you have no choice and they do work even if reduced concept. Deal with it Don! ha
Chief
It will affect it for sure but that's just a reality. With a 3 ohm antenna, it won't make as much of a difference as it would with a 6 or a 9 ohm that have longer flatter donuts. For this reason a 3 ohm is typical on a sail boat.
We heel about 10-20 degrees while sailing but I think in an emergency we would probably round up or heave to which would give us a more vertical mast.
Now if we snap the mast or turtle, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference I which case the handheld is going to be the savior.
We heel about 10-20 degrees while sailing but I think in an emergency we would probably round up or heave to which would give us a more vertical mast.
Now if we snap the mast or turtle, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference I which case the handheld is going to be the savior.
Not sure if I could make it more clearly stated without pretty pictures but -
The rubber antenna is very inefficient REGARDLESS of where used, dinghy, boat, bathtub,...
And should in every case be trashed in lieu of an extendable or equivalent.
I'll look for pictures if you prefer
No Don, I'll just use my "terrible" antenna and somehow just cope with it since I have never had any problems with any of my handhelds or their antennae.
Happy Holidays!
Chief
Happy Holidays!
Chief
I would like to see what you are talking about.. I know what my rubber ducky hand held antenna looks like but Im not sure what I "need" to replace it with - and data to back it up if possible showing what I get for spending the extra cash. The data link is important in this case so we know where the info is comming from and hopefully it accounts for the limited power of the handheld radio,
There is such a link in one of my prior posts. I'm sure you will find a myriad such testaments with a simple Google search including examples of alternatives, some of which are Amazon references showing multiple extendable antennas with owner reviews describing the differences.
Power isn't the limiting factor in determining ERP ( effective radiated power) of any transmitter, handheld included. As ERP increases, so too does range limited by the horizon. So to ensure max signal given any power level, the antenna is the only variable over which you can effect improvement.
Some don't care which begs the q why even comment.
My personal experience with the handheld VHF radios (with rubber ducky antennas that the engineers who designed the radio chose for the radio) is that they have a hand held to hand held range of two, maybe four miles depending on conditions and this also matches the line of sight estimations.
You can find better antennas for that SMA 50 ohm connector on most of the handhelds - I found one link here (antenna needs to work in the 155 MHz range) http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/antennas-191/hand-held-antennas-717/scanner-receiver-antennas-1117/
However, without knowing any better, it seems to me that if I’m typically using the hand held in the cockpit of the sailboat where I’m maybe 3 foot above water, and I’m already limited by line of sight, the better antenna doesn’t do much unless I get it higher - which of course would be fairly easy standing on the deck where you could probably operate the hand held at say 8 to 10 feet high. At this height, does the rubber ducky antenna get you to the theoretical line of sight distance? We don’t know. Sure there are better antennas but if the rubber ducky gets line of sight range, then there is nothing wrong with it and maybe why the engineers used that antenna in the first place.
There was one thing somewhat disturbing in the one link I could find that Don provided http://www.races.org/reading/msg008.htm
This is from that link
So.. I’m fine with the performance of the rubber ducky antenna that I bought, easy to use, easy to store and seemingly durable.
The question I will leave here.. are the typical hand held antenna's durable? If that link is valid.. 60% failed after two weeks.. Yikes!! Its probably very rough handling but still yikes..
You can find better antennas for that SMA 50 ohm connector on most of the handhelds - I found one link here (antenna needs to work in the 155 MHz range) http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/antennas-191/hand-held-antennas-717/scanner-receiver-antennas-1117/
However, without knowing any better, it seems to me that if I’m typically using the hand held in the cockpit of the sailboat where I’m maybe 3 foot above water, and I’m already limited by line of sight, the better antenna doesn’t do much unless I get it higher - which of course would be fairly easy standing on the deck where you could probably operate the hand held at say 8 to 10 feet high. At this height, does the rubber ducky antenna get you to the theoretical line of sight distance? We don’t know. Sure there are better antennas but if the rubber ducky gets line of sight range, then there is nothing wrong with it and maybe why the engineers used that antenna in the first place.
There was one thing somewhat disturbing in the one link I could find that Don provided http://www.races.org/reading/msg008.htm
This is from that link
When I buy a hand held radio, I know in advance that what to expect out of it and the two small boats I sail on, the hand held is the only radio I carry - and it’s a safety item. I don’t know what the article above considered failed but if I’m assuming I’m reaching out at least several miles but the antenna is bad.. that concerns me a little..
So.. I’m fine with the performance of the rubber ducky antenna that I bought, easy to use, easy to store and seemingly durable.
The question I will leave here.. are the typical hand held antenna's durable? If that link is valid.. 60% failed after two weeks.. Yikes!! Its probably very rough handling but still yikes..
This is also interesting from a link Justin posted in this thread..
If you have ever checked the power draw from a VHF radio in transmit.. its pretty high current. I have not done this for a long time but remember something like 5 amps at 12 volts. Interesting that the DSC system uses fairly low power and even for 1 meter height, they exceed the normal line of sight distance numbers - which all is good.
If you have ever checked the power draw from a VHF radio in transmit.. its pretty high current. I have not done this for a long time but remember something like 5 amps at 12 volts. Interesting that the DSC system uses fairly low power and even for 1 meter height, they exceed the normal line of sight distance numbers - which all is good.
I like your analogy Walt! All this is just a COMPROMISE to make a reliable handheld radio at a cost that people will buy. I ran a mobile radio repair shop for the Navy and we had no unusual problems with the antennae! You don't need much power to reach horizon and that fact is evident when they even have (with these rubber antenna) wattage selection of 1w,2.5w and 5w. Replacement antennaeare generally impractical and the very reason the small rubber coated ones were developed. As we have said: get up on deck if you want to maximize transmission! I have a 25w fixed as well.
Happy Holidays! Chief
Happy Holidays! Chief
I wonder about the 60% failure rate. The testing procedure wasn't mentioned, but it was stated that the only way to test is by field strength measurement. I would like to see the test setup and failure threshold. I guess I'm over thinking this as well, but 60% is extremely high. Were they all from the same manufacturer, for example? There are other simpler methods of testing antennas that are very effective. Antennas are subject to physical laws and
My point here is that, as already pointed out, the portable antennas are a compromise. They are affected by position, your hand, body, head, nearby objects, etc. The testing procedure, needs to be absolutely identical for each transceiver. 60% could be correct, but seems too high based on my experience over the years. I just question its accuracy.
These antennas are a compromise. They compromise performance for the convenience of carrying it in your pocket or on a belt. Performance can be made to rival fixed radios with attachment to a traditional fixed antenna at the masthead ( or just about anywhere else). What I have done with amateur radios and cell phones in this situation is use a small coax jumper between the radio and the main coax. I have never seen a small RG58 or RG 8x sized jumper put enough stress to damage a typical sma or bnc type connector. It does stress the hell out of the coax that connects to the radio. To reduce this, i put 3 concentric layers of heatshrink tubing at the base of the connector, covering the ferrule and extending down the cable an inch or two. Don't use adapters stacked up. I've seen people put multiple adapters to mate up with whatever connector their main coax has. This is a recipe for a broken connector, but just one doesn't put that much tension. Get the right connector for the cable.
The biggest failures I have seen are from poor connector installation and lack of weather protection. I almost entirely use crimp-on connectors. Not those Shakespeare clamp things that cost $12 each at WM, but the kind that require a crimp tool and possibly solder on the center pin. PL259's are difficult to solder the braid and many, even "professionals", do a poor job. A useful crimp tool can be gad for around $30-40 and crimp on connectors are about the same price as solder. You might have trouble even finding an SMA that isn't crimp-on. It's the industry standard and no less durable or inferior to soldered connectors. The advantage is you get a perfect connector nearly every time with little or no learned skill. Weatherproof all exposed connectors.
My point here is that, as already pointed out, the portable antennas are a compromise. They are affected by position, your hand, body, head, nearby objects, etc. The testing procedure, needs to be absolutely identical for each transceiver. 60% could be correct, but seems too high based on my experience over the years. I just question its accuracy.
These antennas are a compromise. They compromise performance for the convenience of carrying it in your pocket or on a belt. Performance can be made to rival fixed radios with attachment to a traditional fixed antenna at the masthead ( or just about anywhere else). What I have done with amateur radios and cell phones in this situation is use a small coax jumper between the radio and the main coax. I have never seen a small RG58 or RG 8x sized jumper put enough stress to damage a typical sma or bnc type connector. It does stress the hell out of the coax that connects to the radio. To reduce this, i put 3 concentric layers of heatshrink tubing at the base of the connector, covering the ferrule and extending down the cable an inch or two. Don't use adapters stacked up. I've seen people put multiple adapters to mate up with whatever connector their main coax has. This is a recipe for a broken connector, but just one doesn't put that much tension. Get the right connector for the cable.
The biggest failures I have seen are from poor connector installation and lack of weather protection. I almost entirely use crimp-on connectors. Not those Shakespeare clamp things that cost $12 each at WM, but the kind that require a crimp tool and possibly solder on the center pin. PL259's are difficult to solder the braid and many, even "professionals", do a poor job. A useful crimp tool can be gad for around $30-40 and crimp on connectors are about the same price as solder. You might have trouble even finding an SMA that isn't crimp-on. It's the industry standard and no less durable or inferior to soldered connectors. The advantage is you get a perfect connector nearly every time with little or no learned skill. Weatherproof all exposed connectors.
Forest.. I’m glad you saw this post and great response (I guess because I agree with everything said ).. That 60% sounds a little (or way) fishy.. was the measurement instrument/ setup professional and calibrated, did they test to the manufactures specs.. it was done by an amateur radio group - which is good - but you have to keep that in mind.
All those arguments can also be said about the antenna you use for wifi in your computer or cell phones.. Yep, not great antennas but good for the application.
).. That 60% sounds a little (or way) fishy.. was the measurement instrument/ setup professional and calibrated, did they test to the manufactures specs.. it was done by an amateur radio group - which is good - but you have to keep that in mind. All those arguments can also be said about the antenna you use for wifi in your computer or cell phones.. Yep, not great antennas but good for the application.
Oh I don't know that 60% is that far from reality. From a product manufactures perspective, we would specify operational characteristics and expectations without anything in the system being less than stellar. Why? Because you have to, your completion will and why would you advertise proclaiming less. I mean out of the box performance.
So you want an inexpensive radio? Well we can do that, we just have to use less than the best materials. We are going to beat our suppliers up too. Maybe a slightly lower grade metal, settling for looser tolerances (tolerance stacking) and not addressing the less obvious impacts of the operational environment (for example subjecting the test to clean water Environment, not mineral laden or salt water). Maybe a difference in batteries, diodes, and whatnots. These things add up to help lower the cost but also reliability.
But you got your radio for $90 bucks. Is the manufacture to blame or is he building within the demands of the customers? Well chances are that manufacture makes a better version but it costs more. Should a $90 radio perform the same as a $400 one? Well out of the box, there may not be a lot of difference, two months banging around in a bucket in a damp boat may expose those differences.
Yes compromise has been discussed. If I have to wire a external antenna into my handheld, it's no longer portable. Is just compact and has to be assembled and disassembled more often.
More often than not military specs are much more stringent than consumer goods. This has to do with operational environment, long term reliability, shock, stress etc. I mean a hammer is a hammer and there are poor examples of waste and rip-offs but I would hope our troops don't rely on a west marine $90 radio. (No offense to WM).
I wish I could afford the best of everything but I can't and most of us here can't either. But if we can do something to get better performance from what we can afford than we do those.
For example. We chatted about different coaxial. Well I can cripple a great $1000 radio by using a lower grade coaxial or cheap connectors OR I can use a lower priced radio and use a better coaxial and net better performance. I could take great pains and costs to get an antenna up on the top of the mast or spend less and just stick it on the stern. All things being equal with regard to coaxial, length, radio, and terminals, the one up high will work better. We know that.
It's all a matter of what's important to us and what we are willing to spend for that feature. Sum said it when he tells the story of his shoulder and a pull start motor. After he fractured his shoulder and was unable to do anything for a few days, he spent a lot of money to make sure that couldn't happen again for Ruth and his own sake. He's one that's smart enough to learn from bad experiences. I on the other hand may have to get burnt more than once before I stop playing with fire.
I said all that to say this is why I came to you guys for help. I could put all kinds of crap in my boat but if it doesn't work, what's the use? Other than just bragging about the goodies. I don't have unlimited funds so I want to know how to get the best bang for my budget. I don't need to communicate with Russia, but I may need to call for help or at the very least need to talk to the bridge of a large container ship to figure out which way I need to go to get out of his way.
So you want an inexpensive radio? Well we can do that, we just have to use less than the best materials. We are going to beat our suppliers up too. Maybe a slightly lower grade metal, settling for looser tolerances (tolerance stacking) and not addressing the less obvious impacts of the operational environment (for example subjecting the test to clean water Environment, not mineral laden or salt water). Maybe a difference in batteries, diodes, and whatnots. These things add up to help lower the cost but also reliability.
But you got your radio for $90 bucks. Is the manufacture to blame or is he building within the demands of the customers? Well chances are that manufacture makes a better version but it costs more. Should a $90 radio perform the same as a $400 one? Well out of the box, there may not be a lot of difference, two months banging around in a bucket in a damp boat may expose those differences.
Yes compromise has been discussed. If I have to wire a external antenna into my handheld, it's no longer portable. Is just compact and has to be assembled and disassembled more often.
More often than not military specs are much more stringent than consumer goods. This has to do with operational environment, long term reliability, shock, stress etc. I mean a hammer is a hammer and there are poor examples of waste and rip-offs but I would hope our troops don't rely on a west marine $90 radio. (No offense to WM).
I wish I could afford the best of everything but I can't and most of us here can't either. But if we can do something to get better performance from what we can afford than we do those.
For example. We chatted about different coaxial. Well I can cripple a great $1000 radio by using a lower grade coaxial or cheap connectors OR I can use a lower priced radio and use a better coaxial and net better performance. I could take great pains and costs to get an antenna up on the top of the mast or spend less and just stick it on the stern. All things being equal with regard to coaxial, length, radio, and terminals, the one up high will work better. We know that.
It's all a matter of what's important to us and what we are willing to spend for that feature. Sum said it when he tells the story of his shoulder and a pull start motor. After he fractured his shoulder and was unable to do anything for a few days, he spent a lot of money to make sure that couldn't happen again for Ruth and his own sake. He's one that's smart enough to learn from bad experiences. I on the other hand may have to get burnt more than once before I stop playing with fire.
I said all that to say this is why I came to you guys for help. I could put all kinds of crap in my boat but if it doesn't work, what's the use? Other than just bragging about the goodies. I don't have unlimited funds so I want to know how to get the best bang for my budget. I don't need to communicate with Russia, but I may need to call for help or at the very least need to talk to the bridge of a large container ship to figure out which way I need to go to get out of his way.
I was trying to find a picture of whats inside the rubber ducky antenna and couldnt find much but this is somewhat interesting.. http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/9803037.pdf
There is a coil near the base and the center conductor of some RG58 cable. Very simple and probably robust.. I would almost think that its most likely the connector that degrades after a year but with the "not so good" antenna you dont have much margin so they get failed.. Who knows.
There is a coil near the base and the center conductor of some RG58 cable. Very simple and probably robust.. I would almost think that its most likely the connector that degrades after a year but with the "not so good" antenna you dont have much margin so they get failed.. Who knows.
Well I ran the RG-8 cable and bundled it with the 2 sets of wires for the mast head and steaming lights. (I pulled them out so I could bundle). Last year I had attempted to shove pool noodles in the mast to quiet the banging. When I pulled the bundle this time, I put sections of the noodles wire tied around the wires about every 3 feet. I won't know if that eliminates the banging or not. Won't know till I put the mast up in the spring.
I opted to go with a racing antenna. It's a 3 ohm antenna that is center loaded (looks like an old glass mount cell antenna). I used a piece of flat aluminum stock and built an extension on top of my masthead extending aft to support the wind vane giving clearance from the antenna and masthead light. I forgot to take a picture. But it will be easier to see it now. It also gave me a better attachment for the masthead light. My masthead assembly is better than the standard Mac. I did notice that I should replace the sheaves as the edges are showing wear. I should put a washer between them to keep them separated better and large enough to keep the halyards from jumping.
I only ran the coaxial to get me about 2' out the bottom of the mast. I will pick up more coaxial when I am ready to drill through the deck. I'm still deciding if I am going to put the radio above the galley like some of you have, or mount it on the starboard shelf near the companionway door or mount it outside. It's fully waterproof.
I ordered gold connectors today.
I opted to go with a racing antenna. It's a 3 ohm antenna that is center loaded (looks like an old glass mount cell antenna). I used a piece of flat aluminum stock and built an extension on top of my masthead extending aft to support the wind vane giving clearance from the antenna and masthead light. I forgot to take a picture. But it will be easier to see it now. It also gave me a better attachment for the masthead light. My masthead assembly is better than the standard Mac. I did notice that I should replace the sheaves as the edges are showing wear. I should put a washer between them to keep them separated better and large enough to keep the halyards from jumping.
I only ran the coaxial to get me about 2' out the bottom of the mast. I will pick up more coaxial when I am ready to drill through the deck. I'm still deciding if I am going to put the radio above the galley like some of you have, or mount it on the starboard shelf near the companionway door or mount it outside. It's fully waterproof.
I ordered gold connectors today.
I'm doing the same as Doc. I got my new masthead LED for Christmas and some marine grade 18 ga wire and connectors. I'm pulling the new wire for both lights and a future VHF all at the same time. This discussion has been helpful.
Here is my cut on this topic. I have a 5215 antenna at the top of my mast. It is connected to a standard 25 watt VHF radio mounted on the starboard wall in my 26S. I also have a 5 watt icom m88 handheld. It is attached to me in the stern. I use it to listen to the radio under way.
The m88 goes with me if I have to ditch. It has a double A battery pack with spare batteries. While I don't have a DSC (GX2200) radio yet, I also carry a McMurdo PLB. In an emergency (boat or dinghy) this will contact a satellite in the COSPAS system and activate the SARSAT. It also sends a beacon for locating me as well as a GPS to let rescue know where to find me. Then the M88 can talk to the rescuers.
My main concern is passenger safety!
The m88 goes with me if I have to ditch. It has a double A battery pack with spare batteries. While I don't have a DSC (GX2200) radio yet, I also carry a McMurdo PLB. In an emergency (boat or dinghy) this will contact a satellite in the COSPAS system and activate the SARSAT. It also sends a beacon for locating me as well as a GPS to let rescue know where to find me. Then the M88 can talk to the rescuers.
My main concern is passenger safety!
You have an opportunity to dramatically simplify things...
I can't find a pic but consider this if you go with the Metz antenna.
- remove the mast cap (drill rivets and use self tapping screws to replace)
- mount a low profile anchor light and the antenna to the cap. Drill holes through the cap and bolt both units so wiring is inside the mast (protected and out of moisture). You can even sandwich a windex wind triangle between the antenna and the cap.
- use an antenna mounted windex.
- also drill holes in the chicken head so you can mount a halyard sheave pulley (locate hole so halyard is directly above the hole in sail headboard). No need to use an entire "block", just a sheave between two holes in the side plates with with a 1/4 inc stainless pin for it to rotate on.
You end up with the simplest, most robust, cheapest and most weather resistant solution - great for a trailerable boat.
Has worked perfectly for us for 8 years and thousands of miles towing.
We take the windex vane off when towing - only takes a second...
Oh, and our anchor light is 3 inches in diameter (and an inch high), so it can be seen for a full 360 degrees despite the antenna being beside it.
Chris
I can't find a pic but consider this if you go with the Metz antenna.
- remove the mast cap (drill rivets and use self tapping screws to replace)
- mount a low profile anchor light and the antenna to the cap. Drill holes through the cap and bolt both units so wiring is inside the mast (protected and out of moisture). You can even sandwich a windex wind triangle between the antenna and the cap.
- use an antenna mounted windex.
- also drill holes in the chicken head so you can mount a halyard sheave pulley (locate hole so halyard is directly above the hole in sail headboard). No need to use an entire "block", just a sheave between two holes in the side plates with with a 1/4 inc stainless pin for it to rotate on.
You end up with the simplest, most robust, cheapest and most weather resistant solution - great for a trailerable boat.
Has worked perfectly for us for 8 years and thousands of miles towing.
We take the windex vane off when towing - only takes a second...
Oh, and our anchor light is 3 inches in diameter (and an inch high), so it can be seen for a full 360 degrees despite the antenna being beside it.
Chris
Maybe today I will remember to take a picture of what I did on mine. Remember it's not a Mac mast. Mine is masthead so I have two halyards going through the masthead side by side. Of course the working end is on the front for the jib and the back for the main.
The wind vane will now mount on an extension that goes aft about a foot from the masthead. This, I hope will make it easier to see plus it clears the light and antenna. Looks sort of stupid with the mast down. At some point maybe I'll set the mast up and see how it looks.
I'm wondering if I shouldn't put a coating on the antenna connections to make sure they stay dry. Like that rubber you dip your tools in or liquid electrical tape.
The wind vane will now mount on an extension that goes aft about a foot from the masthead. This, I hope will make it easier to see plus it clears the light and antenna. Looks sort of stupid with the mast down. At some point maybe I'll set the mast up and see how it looks.
I'm wondering if I shouldn't put a coating on the antenna connections to make sure they stay dry. Like that rubber you dip your tools in or liquid electrical tape.