MonkeyMade MM8

[Punkin Head]

How good will a Monkey Made MM8 do mounted on the back of a 93 Bronco? It would be mounted off of the spare tire rack. I know the optimal location would be center of the roof but most of the roof is removable fiberglass except for the cab roof over the front seats. How difficult do you think it would be to tune it on the back center like that? I would run extra ground strap to the mount to make sure the mount was grounded good.

**EDIT** It may be a MM9 cant remember exactly what the model of the antenna is. I won it here a few years ago.

[KG4KGW]

PH, quit goofing around and put a full length antenna on there. 102" whip or better. With a good tuner you may be able to use it on multiple bands. I'm guessing it would probably look pretty good on there too.

[Punkin Head]

PH, quit goofing around and put a full length antenna on there. 102" whip or better. With a good tuner you may be able to use it on multiple bands. I'm guessing it would probably look pretty good on there too.

But I would have to buy the whip. I have the MM already lol. I am cheap!!

[KG4KGW]

You and I both know the whip will out perform the MM antenna. You can likely trade for it if you don't want to spend any money. Plus if you want the whip they are only about $20 bucks.

NON SPONSOR LINKS

Shop the sponsors, you might find it cheaper there too! I just googled it.

The antenna is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of your radio system. You should not be skimping when it comes to your antenna. Especially in a mobile installation. You want to get the most that you can possibly get out of your installation. I could see a reservation on a small car, but on a bronco? Make it look , feel , and operate like a man's truck and put the stainless steel whip on it.

[drdx]

Hey there PH. A whip is the king but you on the MM, so you can start with it. I'm not sure how tall that particular monkey fade tunes to, but if it tunes in the 6 foot range then you will see good performance and tune-ability that a whip doesn't offer, and you're in a high enforcement area there, and height may be an issue.

Since you're a ham, look at that scenario as if it were a dipole, which it sort of is. The antenna itself, is the vertical leg and the vehicle is the (though untuned) horizontal leg, making sort of an L dipole, so it will have a tendency to radiate to the front of the bronco. The rear of the roof being fiberglass may help over a metal roof as far as proximity effect. The questionable may be high rf ground resistance depending on how well the spare tire mount is grounded, easily cured with some super short braid, or do the old grounded short aiming down trick to offer a close up counterpoise for it, like they do on big truck mirrors, making it a loaded dipole of sorts. Check out that K0BG website, lots of good info there about mobile antenna setups and the caring and feeding of them. You may want to choke it right at the feed depending on the results you get, as far as the coax wanting to radiate. Depending on the mount scenario, it can creep in there.

A tuner was mentioned. Are you planning on doing other hf with it? All a tuner does is make the radio happy but it would make a decent cb antenna work well on 20-10m mobile, with efficiency being pretty poor the lower you go, but still doable.

-drdx

[Punkin Head]

Not really planning on doing any other hf with this antenna. Have another more expensive setup in mind for that. This will just be a stock galaxy 959 or cobra 148 and antenna for listening and trying to talk on. I may try and trade the MM for a couple whips. One to use and a spare...

Gotta keep my cb in there and a ham. Never have enough modes of communication lol

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

**Edited because I can't spell**

---

Tue 27 Nov, 2012 19:45 PM

OK so how about this. Whats the performance difference of a 102" steel whip and a 108" steel whip? I have found both and both reasonably priced. I have had 102" whips on the 6" potbelly spring before with good results. but what about the 108, would/could I run the spring? Also whats the cons of a 102 vs 108?

I have been away from the mobile cb setup toooooooo long. This used to be basic knowledge and it seems you start forgetting things as you get older and dont do it all the time....

I can see it now, I will have a 102 or 108 whip, more pills than tylenol makes, a few alternators and lots of tinfoil before this thread is over..lol

[MDYoungblood]

Ok guys he settled on the MM so have you figured out the mount you are going to use. A punk in the middle of the roof would be nice.

3's

Greg

[Punkin Head]

Ok guys he settled on the MM so have you figured out the mount you are going to use. A punk in the middle of the roof would be nice.

3's

Greg

lol I actually am leaning towards the whips. but which one, the 102 or the 108. I like the 108 cause its bigger LOL anybody wanna trade a couple cheap whips for a MM? I am down with that. If not I guess I will add to the antenna collection lol.

---

Tue 27 Nov, 2012 20:31 PM

now another question while I am contemplating the whip. would you mount to the roof on a puck? use a ball mount in the side? or bumper mount on the back? I dont really want to drill the roof. Just to put that out there BUT I do have a trimag mount that I got from DRDX a few years ago. It is sticking on the side of the gangbox on the garage. I have a couple extra mags for it too. I could do a 6 mag mount for the whip on the roof now that I think about it lol.

Ok, ideas that I havent mentioned, thoughts on those ideas, and what would perform best and worst.

[MDYoungblood]

Well my opinion the 102" will survive low tree branches etc. and do minimum damage if you forget and drive into the garage. I have my 102" on the back left corner of my pickup, inside the bed on a homemade mount. If you mount it on a ball mount on the back side the fiberglass top shouldn't effect its performance, it is a little directional but sitting on my driveway that didn't stop me from connecting with Bombero in NM and henryhpsd in the UK at the same time.

3's

Greg

[The DB]

now another question while I am contemplating the whip. would you mount to the roof on a puck? use a ball mount in the side? or bumper mount on the back? I dont really want to drill the roof. Just to put that out there BUT I do have a trimag mount that I got from DRDX a few years ago. It is sticking on the side of the gangbox on the garage. I have a couple extra mags for it too. I could do a 6 mag mount for the whip on the roof now that I think about it lol.

Ok, ideas that I havent mentioned, thoughts on those ideas, and what would perform best and worst.

Any magnet mount will be less efficient than a drilled mount. Fact of life that you cannot get around. Although the tri-mag mount will be better than a single magnet. More surface area to couple the other half of the antenna to the body of the vehicle.

Also, a tri-mag mount is, in my opinion, about half of a step away from drilling holes, if that. If you put it up and leave it, it will cause circular rust areas to form underneath the magnets (and you will get grit underneath the magnets no matter what you do). To minimize the effects of this grit you need to remove magnets and clean underneath them periodically, as well as move them to new metal. Some areas this grit will be more corrosive than others (think Wisconsin winters vs Florida). Also, being not so easy to put in place and remove constantly (compared to pretty any other magnet mount antenna), and if you do it will scratch up the vehicle eventually, even if you are careful.

All this being said, a tri-mag or quad-mag mount is the only choice for this type of antenna for some people. Just make sure you know what you are getting into with the care, especially if you live in an area that gets an abundance of chemicals in winter to keep roads clear.

The extra magnets should not be necessary, tri-mag mounts will hold a 1/4 wave CB antenna without issue even if you hit stuff while going way to fast while driving... Yes I know this from experience.


The DB

[KG4KGW]

I've never heard this about a magnetic mount being less efficient than a direct drill method. Engineering dictates that this is not factual.

Over the years I have heard amateur radio folks, CBers and scanner fans bash the use of magnetic mount antennas. Concerns include flying off the vehicle and becoming a projectile during an auto accident. Other concerns relate to performance and stem primarily on how well the shield of the coax is electrically connected to the ground plane of the car.

I cannot comment on the mechanical realities of the antenna flying off the roof during rapid changes in speed, but can say I have never seen one do so. I encourage anyone with data to propose their article to this web site

So...

Let's talk about the electrical conductivity of a standard mount vs. a magnetic mount antenna. Here is a quote from the newsgroups concerning antennas for scanners...

The average mag-mount antenna gets its "ground" from the magnetic attraction between the mount and the metal of the car body. This is nowhere near the quality of a good, solid ground connection to the body. We are relying here on the mount, the paint on the car, and the metal underneath to form a "capacitive ground connection". (I scared myself with that one !) The smaller in diameter the magnetic mount is, the less effective this is. It is a simple matter of total area covered by the mount.

First while the mag mount antenna does hold itself to the car via magnetic attraction, there is no other direct electrical benefit related to the magnetism. There is no magnetic "coupling."

The post author correctly identifies the ground connection happens due to the capacitor created between the bottom of the antenna and the metal of the vehicle. The claim this is worse than a direct connection via set screw or other demands verification. Let's do some math to check this out.

First some assumptions:

Paint thickness of autos seems to range from 75-200 microns. Add in clear-coat and primer this might grow to 3x or so. I am not a paint guy so I am not at all sure about these figures, but since capacitance is reduced at greater thickness, we will assume 600 microns for our calculations or about 24 mils (1 mil = 1/1000 inch).
Typical small 2m ham antenna with 3 inch base.
Braid of coax electrically attached to the foil on the bottom of the antenna. Did you notice that mag mount antennas have electrical foil to make the antenna side of the capacitor?
We will derive the capacitive reactance of the above details at 50MHz, 144MHz and 440MHz
Dielectric Constant, K, of clear coat and paint something like 3

Also here is a simplified model of antenna electrical parameters:




The Radiation Resistance is the thing you want your transmitter to work into.
The Ohmic loss is the simple resistive loss of the antenna and its inner connections.
The sum of the Shield Currents exactly equal the current on the inner conductor and flow back to the transmitter on the inside of the outer conductor. If you do not connect the antenna's ground to the local ground around the antenna, the current will simply flow back on the outside of the outer coax conductor and create havoc for your radio and possibly you.
This fact applies equally well to ground mounted HF vertical antennas and is why radials are so important.
Xc is actually part of the resistance from coax shield to ground and adds directly to the overall impedance.
Keeping every resistance or impedance small with respect to the radiation resistance makes or breaks an antenna's efficiency.

Calculating Capacitance between Antenna and Metal

The forumla for the capacitance between two conducting plates is:

C = 0.2258 * K * A / d

Where...

K is the dielectric constant of the material,
A is the overlapping surface area of the plates in square inches,
d is the distance between the plates in inches, and
C is capacitance in pF (pico Farads - 1x10-12 Farads)

Capacitor Area = pi * r^2 = 3.14159 * 1.5^2 ~ 7 sq. in.

Capacitance(pF) = 0.2258 * 3 * 7 / 0.024

Capacitance(pF) = 198pF

Xc = Capacitive Reactance = 1/(2*pi*f*C)

Results:

When f = 50MHz => Xc = 16 Ohms
When f = 144MHz => Xc = 6 Ohms
When f = 440MHz => Xc < 2 Ohms

This probably represents the worst case where the car's paint and clear-coat are super thick as assumed above. Let's redo the calculations for a more probable 8 mils...

Capacitance = 0.2258 * K * A / d

Capacitance(pF) = 0.2258 * 3 * 7 / 0.008

Capacitance(pF) = 593pF

Xc = Capacitive Reactance = 1/(2*pi*f*C)

Results:

When f = 50MHz => Xc = 5 Ohms
When f = 144MHz => Xc < 2 Ohms
When f = 440MHz => Xc < 1 Ohm

The above calculations reveal mag mount antennas do, indeed, provide a very robust AC coupling of the RF shield currents to the metal of the car via capacitive currents.

The impedance presented by the mag-mount/metal interface adds directly to the radiation impedance of the antenna resulting in the final impedance of the antenna approaching 50 ohms... ~36 ohms + Xc. This also directly affects the efficiency of the antenna just like a ground radial system helps a ground mounted vertical.

The post author does understand the area of the mag mount bottom in contact with the car matters with larger being better. He goes on to say...

I am not going to launch into a big tech discussion here, with foot-long words, and math that would give you (and me) a headache. You will just have to take my word for it. And, the really sad part is, the higher the frequency that you monitor, the worse this gets

...where his understanding breaks from reality. The higher the frequency the better. The math is straight forward; You do not have to take anyone's word for it. All other things being equal, capacitors conduct better at higher frequencies as the above math shows. There is no need for foot-long words, but full understanding does require doing a bit of math.

What we have shown above is magnetic mount antennas do, indeed, provide a good connection to the metal it is attached to so long as there is a foil bottom attached to the shield of the coax and the area of this bottom is reasonable large. It is true that as the frequency goes down, the mag mount antenna efficiency also goes down. Many CB antennas for 27MHz have much larger bases not only to support the longer whips, but to provide that extra contact area to keep the Xc low.

It can be argued this large capacitor in contact with the metal of the vehicle may well be more effective than trunk lip mounts that make their contact with one or two small set screws dug through the paint to the metal of the trunk lid or gutter. This is, of course, if the trunk lid is made of a conductor... many are not. This is all especially true if high power is applied to the antenna system. The magnetic mount antenna provides the unique advantage of spreading out the ground currents over a large area rather than through the finite points of locking screws.

A properly installed though-hole NMO mount probably beats the mag mount in shield to ground plane connection as its design provides a large direct contact area from shield to hole avoiding the set screw problem.

When shopping for a magnetic mount antenna you might well benefit from a unit that keeps the Capacitive reactance below, say, 10% of the antenna impedance. For a quarter wave antenna of about 36 ohms that means the mag mount impedance should be under 3 ohms. Much depends on the frequency, paint thickness, dielectric constant and area. Armed with the above technique you can comparison shop with better clarity.

With the above method of calculation, you can easily convince yourself that, at least electrically, the magnetic mount antenna works just fine in many situations and provides the added bonus of putting the antenna in the best position without need for a hole in the roof.

Although this is not my own work, I do believe this to be very accurate. Often we dismiss something as fact and do not take the time to question where the information came from in the first place. This myth is not unlike the "Swing" myth on AM radio. If you have any doubt about the above engineering principles feel free to post your own findings and data, or others that can better shed light on the subject.

[drdx]

Perhaps a Mantenna setup like this would suffice. I'm still amazed that the mobile operating world settles for just a 2 ton mass of metal for their rf ground.





-drdx

[The DB]

Although this is not my own work, I do believe this to be very accurate. Often we dismiss something as fact and do not take the time to question where the information came from in the first place. This myth is not unlike the "Swing" myth on AM radio. If you have any doubt about the above engineering principles feel free to post your own findings and data, or others that can better shed light on the subject.

Actually something I said directly agrees with part of your quote. Also, I have seen the listed equation before, , but never by someone talking about magnet mounts. As the math had to do with creating capacitors and magnet mounts use capacitive coupling it is valid.

The impedance presented by the mag-mount/metal interface adds directly to the radiation impedance of the antenna resulting in the final impedance of the antenna approaching 50 ohms... ~36 ohms + Xc. This also directly affects the efficiency of the antenna just like a ground radial system helps a ground mounted vertical.

This line from your quote is flawed. Reactance added by the capacitive effect does not simply add to the impedance of the antenna, instead you use the pythagorean theorm to determine the presented complex impedance. Think of a right triangle with one leg being the actual impedance of the antenna, the other leg being the impedance from the reactance introduced by the capacitor (the area between the magnets and the metal body of the car) and the hypotenuse being the complex impedance (the impedance presented to the feed line).

Every capacitor (including the one that is in effect here) at a given AC frequency has an impedance rating. This impedance rating shows how much the capacitor resists the flow of AC power, this resistance translates directly to loss, which then adds to losses in efficiency when it comes to signals being transmitted from the antenna. You author seems to have overlooked this only applying the effects in question to the presented SWR rating.

I will also note that there is something called a capacitive ground in broadcast antennas which works on the same principles. This type of ground is used where the ground below the antenna is especially bad conductivity wise, and is difficult to bury wires in. In these bad soil conditions it can be a very efficient ground connection even if it is smaller than the traditional ground plane for those frequencies. If you scale the capacitor size to CB antennas you will note that CB antennas use tiny capacitors compared to these antennas, although they are much closer to what they are being coupled to which actually helps.

In short no matter what you do or how you justify it pushing the AC current through a capacitive connection will always induce some amount of loss. This loss will be greater than any gains that you would get from the apparent improved SWR that the article alludes to (although it does not mention SWR by name).

Also with cars, especially newer ones (as opposed to 25 plus years ago although this applies to those vehicles as well, especially if they were restored) the entire body of the vehicle is not one electrical unit as far as the antenna is concerned. The unibody frame will act as a unit, each door, the trunk lid, the hood, the fenders, the bumpers, the exhaust (assuming these parts are made out of metal) all act as separate units as well as any metal piece on the car. Each one of these will react with the antenna, each other, and the earth below the vehicle. Each piece adds to inefficiency and ground losses. Using a magnet mount over a proper mount simply adds another piece that is capacitively connected to everything else.

Unfortunately I do not know who you quoted or where it was quoted from so I am limited to what was posted here. I do not know if he explained his post further, or if he made corrections, or any discussion that happened after it was posted. He used a well known formula to base his post on, but I question some of his knowledge of antenna theory beyond that. However, one of our conclusions with regards to using magnet mounts is the same with the same basic reasoning, the larger the magnet the better.


The DB

---

Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 6:21 AM

Perhaps a Mantenna setup like this would suffice. I'm still amazed that the mobile operating world settles for just a 2 ton mass of metal for their rf ground.





-drdx

You posted while I was typing my last post, I thought about including it but didn't as I am not sure of the ops familiarity with it.

I am still waiting for you to post more about what is happening with it/how well it is working.


The DB

['Doc]

"I'm still amazed that the mobile operating world settles for just a 2 ton mass of metal for their rf ground."
No on is limited by the '2 ton mass of metal' because what's under that mass also contributes to the 'ground', as in the 'dirt'/concrete/whatever, through more of that capacitive coupling. That's pretty easy to illustrate. Ever driven across a bridge or something other than the road you were on and have the received signals get better??
It's also frequency dependent. That mass of metal's 'size' is much larger at VHF than HF and is certainly adequate at the higher frequencies. That capacitive coupling at higher frequencies is also 'larger', meaning better.
- 'Doc

[KG4KGW]

You'll have to bump me an email DB to get the source. I'm on my last warning for NON sponsor links and can't post it here.

There is a great deal of technical and engineering data out there to support the theory in his document, but like anything it is theory. Not written in stone fact. Until there are some finite laboratory studies that put these ideas to the test and show some real data that is reproduce able we would just be picking the subject to death.

One could certainly argue that because the capacitive coupling is taking place in a magnetic field and therefore losses are being cancelled by inductive gains. This isn't even easy to measure since we are not talking about just voltages, but fields that interact with everything. The closest we can even begin to come without some serious equipment to test would be to use both types of antennas mounted at the same point on the vehicle and take field strength measurements.

I would be willing to bet you will see no appreciable difference in the two antennas radiated signals.

You are merely splitting hairs between voltages leading and lagging the current.

XC = 1 / ( 2 * π * f * C )

Where XC is capacitive reactance, f is frequency in Hz, and C is capacitance in Farads. As capacitance increases, XC falls, and more current is drawn.

XL = 2 * π * f * L

Where XL is inductive reactance, f is frequency in Hz, and L is inductance in Henrys.

Exactly opposite a capacitor, as inductance decreases, XL falls, and more current is drawn.

I have never anywhere seen the Pythagorean theorem used in radio other than to find the length of a support guy on a tower. (email me links so we don't violate the link rule)


Since it it not a "radio related site" and is only a technical paper on the process of calculating complex impedance I will give you the link here (you can't easily copy formulas because of blocked fonts and characters).

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~ ... edance.pdf This is a link to the mathematical process used for calculation of complex impedance and is not a radio related link. The principles here are applicable to RF energy as RF energy is AC in nature.

[The DB]

You'll have to bump me an email DB to get the source. I'm on my last warning for NON sponsor links and can't post it here.

I'll see if I can find an email address for you here in a bit, otherwise I'll send you a pm with one of mine.

There is a great deal of technical and engineering data out there to support the theory in his document, but like anything it is theory. Not written in stone fact. Until there are some finite laboratory studies that put these ideas to the test and show some real data that is reproduce able we would just be picking the subject to death.

At least the math when it comes to capacitance appears to be pretty close, I have used it in the past, although not for antennas. It looks like the formula for determining the capacitance/impedance of a capacitor, although I didn't look it up to verify it.

One could certainly argue that because the capacitive coupling is taking place in a magnetic field and therefore losses are being cancelled by inductive gains. This isn't even easy to measure since we are not talking about just voltages, but fields that interact with everything. The closest we can even begin to come without some serious equipment to test would be to use both types of antennas mounted at the same point on the vehicle and take field strength measurements.

Capacitive coupling is in essence connecting something electrically through a capacitor (or something that acts like a capacitor, in this case the magnet mount that we are discussing). This causes reactance and thus impedance. It does not matter if this is in a magnetic field or not, the impedance is still there. Every capacitor (and thus everything that is capacitively coupled to something else) has impedance. This can be minimized by using larger magnets. The more surface area at play the more capacitance and the less impedance exist.

Capacitance is canceled by an equal amount of inductance. No argument there. My question is where is this "inductive gain" coming from? Capacitance is being added to the system, so I know where that is coming from, but is there some hidden coil on his tri-magnet mount I don't know about to add in inductance and cancel the capacitance? Additional inductance has to come from somewhere.

I would be willing to bet you will see no appreciable difference in the two antennas radiated signals.

It is well within the realm of possibility no one will notice any difference at all. This is due to the fact that it takes a lot more of a difference to affect a how strongly a signal appears to a receiving station than many people realize.

You are merely splitting hairs between voltages leading and lagging the current.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say... While you could make the jump from what I said to voltage leading/trailing the current, it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

I have never anywhere seen the Pythagorean theorem used in radio other than to find the length of a support guy on a tower. (email me links so we don't violate the link rule)

Search for "impedance triangle". If you have trouble finding info I'll get you several links. If you find a good one it may even include where the phase angle is in the triangle. Most of the pages you find will not be direct antenna sites, but the information is still relevant.

Actually, reading through it again, he isn't actually arguing that my statement is wrong:

A properly installed though-hole NMO mount probably beats the mag mount in shield to ground plane connection as its design provides a large direct contact area from shield to hole avoiding the set screw problem.

Why didn't I notice that before...

Also efficiency is just one thing I mentioned in an incomplete list...


The DB

[KG4KGW]

Thanks for the info Db.I'll search around and see if I can find more info on it. You can never learn too much and we all know there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you stumble on any links send them over in the mail for me as I've never used this method. Trig isn't taught the same now as it was when I was in school even though all the answers end up the same. I think more time is spent explaining the answer than is spent on how you arrive there.

[Punkin Head]

So I have a Cobra 148 GTL Phillipines model that I picked up that will be going in the Bronco, unless I decide to put the Galaxy DX 959 in there that I traded an Otterbox phone case for lol. I am gonna put a 102" whip on it, the local ratshack has a couple in stock. Now, do I wanna put a ball mount in the rear quarter panel or a mount of some kind on the bumper.... I have used a heavy duty ball mount before in a toolbox that I liked. I just cant find it online and I dont remember who made it. All I can find are the ones like ratshack sells. Are they good mounts? Does anybody recommend a good mount?

---

Sun 02 Dec, 2012 15:37 PM

I am working on a custom bracket design that will let me mount my radio in the center console of the Bronco. I will end up with both the CB and the HF in the console. Have the expensive electronics out of sight, out of mind. The antennas will be there but the radios will be hidden. I may cut a vent hold on each side of the console and put a fan that will draw fresh air in one side and out the other, which will come in handy should I decide to put a small a/b amp in there. I will have my external speaker mounted to the front of the console or have a wire that I can run from the external speaker jack on the radio to the accessory jack on the in dash cd player I have and use the car stereo for the external speaker.

I will run all wires and cables under the carpet and up into the console to keep it clean looking. I will be posting pics once I get it ready to put in. I am sure it will be redesigned several times before the finished product lol.

Here is an example of the console its going to be in. I am too lazy to go take a pic of the actual console in the truck so thank you google search for this pic lol.

[KG4KGW]

PH I managed RS stores for 6 years. I can tell you that the suppliers they have today are not as good as the ones for days of Yore. The quality has really gone out the window and the price is off the charts on the consumer end.

Honestly, I don't buy anything from them anymore. When I went to work for them they sold quality products and had knowledgeable staff. They actually made you take a huge list of certifications before you could sell the products. You can get away with the whip without a problem. It's hard to mess up a piece of stainless steel. I have heard somewhere that there are some that are hollow floating around, but I believe this is not true. A hollow rod would not bend very well and would soon find itself broken.

I used a mirror mount on my truck, discarding one side of it and using the side with the actual antenna mount. I bolted this right to the rear bumper of the truck. Since yours has a lift gate you may have to hold it up to the bumper and see where it will be falling. You don't want to obstruct your lift gate. I didn't bother with a spring, but in a drive-thru I sometimes with I had put one on there. Although it would raise the height a few inches, I don't agree that this will help much on the output as you will end up having to shave that off somewhere. Mine was resonant at 28.5 without any adjustment. I am still below 1.8 on 11 meters.

I only used 2 of the 4 bolt holes in the mount on opposite corners. I just didn't want to drill so many holes in the bumper. I've never been a fan of those ball mounts, and after selling them and ...returning them over and over for years I wouldn't waste my money on one. Just my opinion and caveat emptor buying them from anywhere these days.

[MDYoungblood]

Hey Punkin Head,
CB World has the ball mount you are looking for; http://www.wearecb.com/store/ ... p-575.html . This is the only ball mount that can survive the abuse I put it thought. Out of all the antennas out there the 102" is the way to go. In my opinion the worst place to put one is on the bumper. For one it put metal next to half the antennas length, makes it impossible to tune unless you are using a tuner. If you need a riser instead of a spring, PM me and I will send you a website for them.

3's

Greg

[Punkin Head]

Hey Punkin Head,
CB World has the ball mount you are looking for; http://www.wearecb.com/store/ ... p-575.html . This is the only ball mount that can survive the abuse I put it thought. Out of all the antennas out there the 102" is the way to go. In my opinion the worst place to put one is on the bumper. For one it put metal next to half the antennas length, makes it impossible to tune unless you are using a tuner. If you need a riser instead of a spring, PM me and I will send you a website for them.

3's

Greg

That looks alot like the one I had before. The only difference is the one I had was brass instead of stainless steel. Thanks for the link MD, I think I will try that one out

[MDYoungblood]

Okay I know how makes the brass ones too, I'll send you a PM.

Greg

['Doc]

Hate to tell you but that 'Hustler' ball-mount has problems too. Deals with how the two halves fit together. I don't remember exactly what the 'cure' is but it isn't a biggy. I've had a lot of problems with ball mounts, usually the more readily available ones such as from Radio Shack. The problem I had was with the base insulator, just wasn't very durable, broke easily.
Now, if you can find one of the 20/30 year old monsters that used to be around, that's a completely different animal!
- 'Doc