Communications Support Forums
Hi Folks,
First let me apologize if this subject has been discussed before, but I did not have the time to do an extensive search on the matter. I have often wondered why Motorola opted to change the thread-antenna pattern on the XPR7500 series radio, if already the standard female SMA has been proven effective for many years. Don't get me wrong, I own both the standard and stubby and to my amazement, the shorter one works better, in my opinion.
Being on the LMR business for 30+ years, I know and understand antenna physics so please this is just experimentation...
Out of curiosity I measured the radio antenna port and actual factory antennas and they seemed extremely close to the 1/4-32 stud found on the old MX/Gemini radio series, so I found an "old school" from my old collection and I got this:
To my surprise it works better than the current OEM on analog and DMR repeaters. I guess it will be a conversation piece from the few of us that used to work on HT210/220/MT500/MX300's.
AP
First let me apologize if this subject has been discussed before, but I did not have the time to do an extensive search on the matter. I have often wondered why Motorola opted to change the thread-antenna pattern on the XPR7500 series radio, if already the standard female SMA has been proven effective for many years. Don't get me wrong, I own both the standard and stubby and to my amazement, the shorter one works better, in my opinion.
Being on the LMR business for 30+ years, I know and understand antenna physics so please this is just experimentation...
Out of curiosity I measured the radio antenna port and actual factory antennas and they seemed extremely close to the 1/4-32 stud found on the old MX/Gemini radio series, so I found an "old school" from my old collection and I got this:
To my surprise it works better than the current OEM on analog and DMR repeaters. I guess it will be a conversation piece from the few of us that used to work on HT210/220/MT500/MX300's.
AP