Look at this puppy:

[Link: wade-antenna.com]



A 12 foot long helical UHF antenna with 21+db gain!

For the less adventurous, also comes in a 5.4 foot long version ([Link: wade-antenna.com]), and in pairs or quads...

Are you using one of them?



I'm using the Channel Master 4228HD and it works well. But the gain is down around 12db average, so it looks like the Wade unit should do a better job.

I could use an antenna that would pull in a station some ninety miles out....

This looks like a killer antenna for distances more than fifty miles if the transmitters are pretty close together, that is, all in the same direction from you.

If the transmitters you want to receive are not all in the same direction, you'd do well to get an antenna with less gain. More gain, in general, means a narrower reception pattern.

Great find!

In general, I am a bit disappointed that there have not been any major breakthroughs in antenna design for television over the last 50 or 60 years. I guess its just physics and funding holding things back. Most new antennas are just re-marketed as HD antennas and some are not much better than rabbit ears with bad amplifiers.
I am comparing antenna progress to the revolution in television technology. From black and white round tv tubes to computerized hd flat screen digital sets today. There are many cm4228 and clones around today but these are just an array of bowties that have been around forever.
Where is the Steve Jobs of antennas to come up with something really innovative. Perhaps we need computerized, intelligent amplifiers mounted at the antenna mast?

NFASTRO, check out Antennas Direct. They come out with new designs all the time. The laws of physics aren't being amended though so there's some constraints on what's possible. Most of re-designs are aimed at optimizing channels 7 to 51, and to attract people to OTA by having aesthetically pleasing products.

I've bought 2 AD products now to replace my old Channel Master. Channel Master just seems to be interested in making the same products cheaper (and not pass on the savings to the customer).

http://www.antennasdirect.com/

In a recent independent test, the Antennas Direct "Clearstream 4" placed well below than the comparable CM4228 in multiple categories....


Nuff said....

I have nothing against the CM4228 (I am using it right now) or against many of the newer "HD" antennas that are re-packaged and look sleek for the benfefit of the consumer. Underneath, they all use the same old technology that was around fifty years ago.

My point was that the laws of physics and electromagnetism still rule and no one has been able to make a revolutionary change in antennas to match the progress in tv's or computers. I guess I am waiting for someone to invent some sort of intelligent antenna that can give us ten times the gain of today's antennas.

With regards to the CM4228 and the multitude of clones, I have always wondered why the bowties are all the same length. Should some be constructed longer to receive lower frequencies, and some shorter to enhance higher frequencies? Dimensions and packaging are probably a problem with this design.

One review of one antenna and you diss the whole company??

The C5 is pretty radical design for a VHF antenna. I know a number of people in my neighbourhood have installed a DB-4e for UHF. That one has pretty good reviews. It's bowties are different than your standard 4-bays.

This is because, as noted, physics is the same. In fact, let me point out that the original meaning of "state of the art" was "well, that's how we're doing it these days." This "old technology" is state of the art from the point of view of that definition and also from the newer point of view that "it's the best thing there is."


I'm sorry, but it's just silly to expect that fixed laws of physics regarding frequencies, wavelengths, and electromagnetics will somehow change at the same time that we have gone from tubes to transistors to ICs to high-density ICs; and from tube displays to plasma and LCD. It's like expecting the cup to change from open side up to open side down because man went from the stone age to the modern age. A cup still must be open side up. Antennas follow fixed rules.


Now, there's an idea: integrate the TV with the antenna and have the TV command mechanical changes to the antenna to optimize the signal!


People will package whatever works, so no, it's not packaging. My favorite long-distance FM antenna came in an eight foot long box.

If I understand correctly, antennas of any particular length work optimally at one frequency, but they work nearly optimally at nearby frequencies and multiples of the fundamental. I guess this doesn't explain why a bowtie works so well over such a large range of frequencies, though.

As for length, yes, VHF antennas are always longer than UHF. In the ham world, the obvious example is that an 80 meter antenna is bigger than a 2 meter antenna. The AM band has wavelengths from almost 600 meters to about 200 meters... yet we've had antennas that work reasonably well over the entire range.

Right now I'm still using my vertical stack of two Televes DAT-75 antennas imported some years ago from the UK. Considering my physical location in a slight valley, I get fairly good long-distance reception.

they exist Google smart antennas. The issue in the end is that any external antenna feeding multiple tuners can't be pointed in different directions. So the idea never caught on.


PS [Link: en.wikipedia.org]