Harris antennas?

[ih784]

Does anyone have any experience with this antenna? I’m between this one and a Larsen Tri band.

 

[mmckenna]

They work, but the bases are HUGE and they lead to a lot of damage if used on a taller vehicle. That one also looks kind of beat up for the price.

I wouldn't pay $72 for that monstrosity. It's used and looks like it's been hit. You can get a brand new antenna that isn't dorky looking for less money.

I've been running the Larsen NMO-150/450/758SH and been very happy with it. I have one on my personal truck and one on my work truck.

Mobile Antenna Tri-Band 150-165,450-470,700/800MHz Larsen NMO150/450/758

Tri-band antenna covers 150-174, 430-520 & 750-870, 100 Watts, Whip Length 16.5", NMO (Pogo Contact)

theantennafarm.com

There is a spring in the base, plus the whip is pretty flexible. I've hit a lot of low tree branches with mine.

I've also been using the EM Wave EM-M430002. It's not as flexible as the Larsen, but works just as well. Plus, it's cheaper:

EM Wave EM-M43002 - Triple Band Mobile Antennas

Tri-Band 150-162/450-490/763-870 MHz IP67 Rated Roof Mount Antenna

theantennafarm.com

I wouldn't pay $72 for a used antenna like that. No knowing what kind of abuse it has seen.

 

[ih784]

Nice. I’ve got a Larsen NMO-150/450/800 (based off of your other threads) and I’m happy with it. I’ve seen Harris used and wasn’t sure how they stacked up. For the money, I’ll stick with Larsen lol. Thank you!

 

[mmckenna]

Nice. I’ve got a Larsen NMO-150/450/800 (based off of your other threads) and I’m happy with it. I’ve seen Harris used and wasn’t sure how they stacked up. For the money, I’ll stick with Larsen lol. Thank you!

The newer Larsen's are more flexible than the old ones, a good choice if this is for mobile use.
The EM Wave's are nice, but stiffer.

 

[prcguy]

Most of the commercial triband antennas work within a few dB of each other so its an ok performing antenna. Here is one of the best deals in triband and this one competes with the Harris, which is a rebranded Laird.

AN000131A01 Motorola All Band Mobile Antenna Vehicle Roof Top New-n-Box Complete | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for AN000131A01 Motorola All Band Mobile Antenna Vehicle Roof Top New-n-Box Complete at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[ih784]

I know Larsen has acoil? About 1/2 the way up as does the Harris and EM Wave. You think this one (AN000131A01) on eBay would perform just as well?

 

[mmckenna]

I know Larsen has acoil? About 1/2 the way up as does the Harris and EM Wave. You think this one (AN000131A01) on eBay would perform just as well?

I played with one for a bit. I honestly couldn't tell the difference. Maybe prcguy would on a test range with calibrated equipment.

The Motorola's are pretty good antennas, and the price is great.

Our county stopped using them since they had a bad habit of snapping off on the base when finding a low tree branch (common in our areas when the officer is in an SUV).


If your application is mobile and not on a tall vehicle, the low price of the one prcguy linked to is awfully attractive. I almost bought one just for the NMO mount and a spare test antenna.

 

[prcguy]

This should answer some of these questions. Open the antenna test data here:

Antenna range testing between multiband mobile antennas

I was going to add more to this package of information like a diagram of the setup, but I may never get to that so here its is as-is. I've been wanting to do an antenna range comparison of multi-band mobile antennas for some time and the recent purchase of a COMPACtenna LMR-1 compelled me to put...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[Ubbe]

Here is one of the best deals in triband and this one competes with the Harris, which is a rebranded Laird.

Do you know anything about how that Motorola are designed? It has less than 2:1 SWR over 136-174, 380-520 and 698-960MHz. It has to be very ineffective, almost like a dummy load, to have that low SWR?

Datasheet says unity gain and radiation pattern for 485MHz shows 10dB down from the diagram of 150MHz, which seems to be the steel rods 1/4 length frequency. For 762MHz it shows 5dB down.

/Ubbe

 

[ih784]

Do you know anything about how that Motorola are designed? It has less than 2:1 SWR over 136-174, 380-520 and 698-960MHz. It has to be very ineffective, almost like a dummy load, to have that low SWR?

Datasheet says unity gain and radiation pattern for 485MHz shows 10dB down from the diagram of 150MHz, which seems to be the steel rods 1/4 length frequency. For 762MHz it shows 5dB down.

/Ubbe

So, its no good?

 

[prcguy]

Do you know anything about how that Motorola are designed? It has less than 2:1 SWR over 136-174, 380-520 and 698-960MHz. It has to be very ineffective, almost like a dummy load, to have that low SWR?

Datasheet says unity gain and radiation pattern for 485MHz shows 10dB down from the diagram of 150MHz, which seems to be the steel rods 1/4 length frequency. For 762MHz it shows 5dB down.

/Ubbe

I want to cut one of the PCTEL/Motorola antennas apart but haven't got the nerve yet. I appears to be just a wide tapered radiator with bands selected by discontinuities in the radiator. VHF uses the entire whip, UHF maybe the base and the spring then 700/800 in the lower base. I don't find any coils, traps or other components in these antennas.

The newer version of this antenna uses a large tapered spring and from what I can tell its a continuous metal radiator from base to tip and the tapered spring adds a lot of BW. Both antennas have a good match across much more than the advertised frequency range but they probably don't advertise that because they are sold with specific triband radios where the extra BW doesnt matter.

Here is what the current model looks like and its VSWR plot is nearly identical to the previous model. The spring on the new model is not vary stiff allowing the spring and whip to move around at low vehicle speeds and the spring bends at a very wide spot making loud clunking noise in the vehicle.

 

[mmckenna]

Here is what the current model looks like and its VSWR plot is nearly identical to the previous model. The spring on the new model is not vary stiff allowing the spring and whip to move around at low vehicle speeds and the spring bends at a very wide spot making loud clunking noise in the vehicle.

I put one of those on my work truck connected to a Harris XL-200M.

Lasted about 15 minutes. Every speed bump, pot hole, driveway, that thing would thunk around on the roof. It worked fine for the limited testing I did. But could not imagine some poor officer driving around an entire shift with that noise.

The older Laird versions that Motorola sold seemed to have a base below the spring that was just a hollow tube about 1" in diameter. That's usually where they snapped off when the tree branch found it. Laird/Motorola haven't been able to perfect this antenna design yet. The Larsen/EM Wave provided plenty of bandwidth for our use, and none of the drawbacks (yet).

 

[prcguy]

I think they are a little too ugly on a vehicle even for me and that's saying a lot. I use the fat Laird/Harris and PCTEL/Motorola multiband antennas more for temporary base use on a ground plane. Mate that with a Harris XG-100M or APX8500 on a Motorola wedgee speaker base and its "anywhere, any time baby!"

 

[mmckenna]

I think they are a little too ugly on a vehicle even for me and that's saying a lot. I use the fat Laird/Harris and PCTEL/Motorola multiband antennas more for temporary base use on a ground plane. Mate that with a Harris XG-100M or APX8500 on a Motorola wedgee speaker base and its "anywhere, any time baby!"

That's a good idea.

At work, we were referring to that model antenna as the "HPA", or Huge Phallic Antenna. Seems like they really want people to know that they have a huge antenna.