The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   >
Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-06-2017, 01:50 PM   #21
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 6,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alloyboy View Post
How so?

I used a Shakespeare splitter on my VHF radio antenna for years and years while boating in the briney blue. Nary a problem. Could transmit/receive on VHF and listen to tunes on the FM radio. Never felt that my safety was compromised in any manner.

Now the problem was that traffic on the VHF was so frequent and inane that I would frequently just turn the damn thing off. But I had that problem long before I installed the splitter.
Just heading off all the folks that bash them because they prevent a direct connection. I'm not all that worried about the connection, just didn't want all the naysayers to hijack the thread because I was already plenty familiar with their argument.
autobaun70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 01:58 PM   #22
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,665
Default

[QUOTE=isitstuffed;9834094]The antenna height on a boat receiving 108 MHz FM specifically, is really still at Sea Level plus minus 20 feet or so. When you consider the land based transmitter antenna is hundreds of feet, if not meters above sea level a few feet on a boat seems superfluous. AM radio can skip around the world at night. My FM alarm clock receives from 30 miles without an external antenna. Doesn't matter if its downstairs at 3 ft or upstairs at 20. I suppose it all applies to those operating at the extreme range limitations of the transmitter including its transmitter power.[/QUOTE

Yes it does make a difference for some of us but not others depending on FM station class(Power rating), tower height, FM station transmit pattern and distance to the FM station tower site. The radio/TV tower farm is some 40 miles ways already from me, so I need all the gain I can to keep the FM radio working out in the gulf fishing.

For some a simple piece of wire will work magic, as they are in a very strong RF field. I am not so I use a dedicated antenna for FM to get the best results I can. I am not saying this is the solution for everybody, just my solution.

Jim
jfwireless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 06:11 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 1,699
Default

There is seldom any situation in a marginal VHF signal path in which increase in height of the receiving antenna does not pay an immediate dividend, and the lower the antenna was to begin with the more adding height pays off.
jhebert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 06:51 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Australia
Posts: 2,055
Default

This is where the derailing starts.
I am responding to the OPs question relating to splitters operating on a lake.
I have posted a photo to demonstrate how the Pacific Antenna splitter is connected....which is not to the VHF Antenna, purely to (note 1) ...avoid argument.

We are therefore talking about the height of the co-ax feeding the VHF antenna, not the antenna itself.
If the OP has his new splitter installed and coils up the excessive length of VHF co-ax or worse still shortens it he won't get good results.

I have touched on common practices on broadcast transmitter range to identify this is not sea level, vessel to vessel communication but one way only, waffling on about VHF radio theory and antenna height is Off Topic. Happy to continue discussion on splitters, to others refer note 1.
isitstuffed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 07:02 PM   #25
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 6,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by isitstuffed View Post
This is where the derailing starts.
I am responding to the OPs question relating to splitters operating on a lake.
I have posted a photo to demonstrate how the Pacific Antenna splitter is connected....which is not to the VHF Antenna, purely to (note 1) ...avoid argument.

We are therefore talking about the height of the co-ax feeding the VHF antenna, not the antenna itself.
If the OP has his new splitter installed and coils up the excessive length of VHF co-ax or worse still shortens it he won't get good results.

I have touched on common practices on broadcast transmitter range to identify this is not sea level, vessel to vessel communication but one way only, waffling on about VHF radio theory and antenna height is Off Topic. Happy to continue discussion on splitters, to others refer note 1.
Do you know how this compares to the Shakespeare splitter?
autobaun70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 07:53 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Australia
Posts: 2,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
Do you know how this compares to the Shakespeare splitter?
I have worked on other types and can't remember if Shakespear was one of them but slight variations have ceramic bypass capacitors to filter and shunt RF noise back the radio grounds etc.
Being 'passive' indicating not powered like active splitters, there's not much in them. Just one step up from the vhf plug and pigtail flying lead type. Which is why the orientation of the co-ax can be the difference between good reception with low AGC and poor reception with RF noise.
Just to add.. I've fitted lots of Fusion products in aluminium boats which my company was distributor for, (Australian members may be familiar with Barcrusher Aluminium Plate Boats).
Being metallic using the pigtail antennas just don't work and the splitters aren't much better.
isitstuffed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 09:06 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 1,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by isitstuffed View Post
For AM/ FM broadcast frequencies, height is irrelevant.
That was Post #2 and introduced the topic of the relevance of antenna height on reception.

Then much later in the discussion when antenna height is still under discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by isitstuffed View Post
This is where the derailing starts...
I think the "derailing"--if discussing antenna height is now to be off-topic--began at Post #2, and was introduced by the fellow now complaining that remarks about antenna height are derailing the discussion.
jhebert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 11:58 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,166
Default

Splitters of this nature should be split in half and dumped .... period, over hyped, over priced and over done, waste of space.
Kerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 12:40 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Australia
Posts: 2,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhebert View Post
That was Post #2 and introduced the topic of the relevance of antenna height on reception.

Then much later in the discussion when antenna height is still under discussion:

I think the "derailing"--if discussing antenna height is now to be off-topic--began at Post #2, and was introduced by the fellow now complaining that remarks about antenna height are derailing the discussion.
Did you undergo some special training on being 'thick'? If you did you excelled.

Antenna height was advised as being 'irrelevant' in post 2 because the antenna isn't used by the splitter.
Go back and read the second paragraph in my post 24, read slowly then a second time here.....
Quote:
We are therefore talking about the height of the co-ax feeding the VHF antenna, not the antenna itself.
Why are you waffling on about VHF signal path that has nothing to do with the OPs question on splitters to receive AM/FM Broadcast signals? is that not derailing the OPs thread?.

Go start your own thread on "VHF signal path" and maybe relevant discussion on that subject can take place, albeit a lonely one in your case.
.

Last edited by isitstuffed; 01-07-2017 at 01:14 AM.
isitstuffed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 12:43 AM   #30
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 6,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
Splitters of this nature should be split in half and dumped .... period, over hyped, over priced and over done, waste of space.
As opposed to a 2nd 8' antenna that I have no space for? What are your specific concerns?

As I mentioned in my original post, I am seeking a way to utilize the height of the 8' VHF antenna for FM reception purposes. I don't care about the potential degradation of VHF performance, because it isn't a relative issue where I boat 99.9% of the time. Very few people have a VHF to start with on the lake, and those that do don't monitor a specific channel. This includes rescue/law enforcement.

To make it short and simple for you, I am only doing this as a way to improve my FM reception. Are they horrible at doing that?
autobaun70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 12:49 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Australia
Posts: 2,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
As opposed to a 2nd 8' antenna that I have no space for? What are your specific concerns?

As I mentioned in my original post, I am seeking a way to utilize the height of the 8' VHF antenna for FM reception purposes. I don't care about the potential degradation of VHF performance, because it isn't a relative issue where I boat 99.9% of the time. Very few people have a VHF to start with on the lake, and those that do don't monitor a specific channel. This includes rescue/law enforcement.
One way, thinking outside the square, is to maybe make a short adaptor cable with a PL259 plug to VHF Motorola. Get a PL259 joiner which will enable the VHF antenna to be 'seconded' for AM/FM reception. Its got to be better than a splitter and if it works, you can just use an antenna switch between the two radio's.
isitstuffed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 06:59 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Land down under
Posts: 4,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
Splitters of this nature should be split in half and dumped .... period, over hyped, over priced and over done, waste of space.
But other than that I suspect that you really don't care about them either way.

Over priced? Maybe in the land of oz but here in the land up over 35 bucks in the boating world is chump change. http://www.sailsmarine.com/ItemDetail.aspx?c=165832&l=g

Now the one I used (Shakespeare brand) was not over hyped at all. The only claim made was that it could receive both VHF marine radio frequencies and FM broadcast radio frequencies. Which it did. No better and no worse, as far as I could tell, than not having it installed.

I had plenty of space. The splitter was small. It did not prevent me from storing other stuff by taking up needed space.
alloyboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 10:11 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,460
Default

Where I boat, a simple hidden wire antenna "installed" using duct tape, is adequate. The only reception problems are with stations in the LPFM service, typically universities, which are limited to 100 watts, and if you're more than 5 miles away the only solution is a high-gain yagi, impractical on a boat.

My feeling is that if a simple wire doesn't work in your situation, get a dedicated FM external antenna, and not a kluge compromise, and like VHF antennas, get a brand with an established reputation, for both performance and durability. There will still be dead areas, one advantage AM can have, if you can tolerate the programming selection.
Karl in NY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 10:40 AM   #34
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 6,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl in NY View Post
Where I boat, a simple hidden wire antenna "installed" using duct tape, is adequate. The only reception problems are with stations in the LPFM service, typically universities, which are limited to 100 watts, and if you're more than 5 miles away the only solution is a high-gain yagi, impractical on a boat.

My feeling is that if a simple wire doesn't work in your situation, get a dedicated FM external antenna, and not a kluge compromise, and like VHF antennas, get a brand with an established reputation, for both performance and durability. There will still be dead areas, one advantage AM can have, if you can tolerate the programming selection.
The issue with a separate antenna is folding it for bridge clearance. No additional space on the starboard (helm) side, and when solo I need to be able to access it from the helm.
autobaun70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 12:43 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
The issue with a separate antenna is folding it for bridge clearance. No additional space on the starboard (helm) side, and when solo I need to be able to access it from the helm.

It should be known well ahead of time that a bridge is coming up...can't you just drift for a minute to fold-down all antennas?

Or, possibly fabricate a crossbar for both antennas, controlled by one ratchet mount?
I don't know if there is an out-of-the-box solution, but if you're creative and handy, should be doable. Actually, ratchet mounts have never made much sense to me...a mount with just two positions (up, and folded down) would suffice, unless you like to run antennas at a stylish
30° rake, a poor idea in the first place.
Karl in NY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 12:53 PM   #36
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
The issue with a separate antenna is folding it for bridge clearance. No additional space on the starboard (helm) side, and when solo I need to be able to access it from the helm.
I put a 3 foot rubber duck type FM/AM antenna on a CC years ago for the same reason, if it was up it just bent over with no issues. A small stainless steel whip will also work this way

Jim
jfwireless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 01:27 PM   #37
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 6,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfwireless View Post
I put a 3 foot rubber duck type FM/AM antenna on a CC years ago for the same reason, if it was up it just bent over with no issues. A small stainless steel whip will also work this way

Jim
I would consider a stainless whip if I could find one that threads to a standard ratchet mount. I would still need to fold to put on the cover at the end of each weekend. Speed is key in that regard. Also don't see any taller than 3 feet, which negates my goal of the tallest antenna possible for picking up distant radio stations.
autobaun70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 01:35 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Land down under
Posts: 4,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl in NY View Post

My feeling is that if a simple wire doesn't work in your situation, get a dedicated FM external antenna, and not a kluge compromise, and like VHF antennas, get a brand with an established reputation, for both performance and durability. There will still be dead areas, one advantage AM can have, if you can tolerate the programming selection.
What one sees as a multi-function device (splitter) another sees as a kluge compromise.

Is a multi-function fish finder/radar a kluge device? Should folks be informed to always use separate devices?

Funny that.
alloyboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 03:09 PM   #39
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
I would consider a stainless whip if I could find one that threads to a standard ratchet mount. I would still need to fold to put on the cover at the end of each weekend. Speed is key in that regard. Also don't see any taller than 3 feet, which negates my goal of the tallest antenna possible for picking up distant radio stations.
I don't think you will find a stainless whip that will mount on your ratchet mount, but with a little work you can adapt an aluminum angel bracket to the racket mount for your stainless whip.

Jim
jfwireless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2017, 03:12 PM   #40
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Hinesville GA
Posts: 3,624
Default

I use one of these stuck inside my consol, seems to work well enough for me.
https://www.amazon.com/Metra-44-UA20.../dp/B0007WRQ8K
Gnrphil is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 PM.


©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.9.3.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.