Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dave_Nevada, post: 1498164, member: 29749"] Okay, this is my forte'. let's just say I was trained to repair radios in the military. Often the problem (READ: MYTH) with these 'shorty' antennas is they are better!!! Wrong. You don't get something for nothing. They are specifically made to capture (lingo term) a certain frequency band. What works on AM doesn't work worth a crap on FM and vice versa. Kinda like trying to put shoes on that are 1/2 your normal size. If you have a radio or a reception device that receives at 100-150 MHZ and stick an antenna on it that is designed for 100KHZ, it won't work. It's called wavelength = Lamda (Wavelength) = 300 meters/second divided by 1 sec. That means- if you have a full wavelength antenna, it's literal PHYSICAL length should equal the FULL wave length you are trying to capture and amplify for maximum effect. Manufacturers LOVE to sell you new fangled antennas that are in reality, TOO short to do the job. So they will make one at 3/4, 1/2 or even 1/4 of the wavelength. And guess what? Your reception suffers not at a linear rate, but it is squared. For each distance amount, you have to square the amount of loss- so 1/4 is actually 1/16th of what it should be. But their marketing says NEW NEW NEW!!! I call B.S. :bs: Others will wrap the same amount of wire around a short stick to get the same wavelength your current antenna has. WASTE OF MONEY. Unless you have a signal strength meter attached to the antenna's RF amplifier circuit, you really have no scientific proof of better reception. That said, unless it is designed to receive your FULL WAVE LENGTH signal, pass it up. [/QUOTE]