What’s in a Faux Nagoya (not a question)

[SteveShannon]

I dropped my Alinco radio tonight and it landed on the Tidradio 771 antenna. The antenna was a copy of the Nagoya 771, which produced surprisingly good results. Compared to the standard rubber duck antenna, I get two whole s-units registered on the local DMR repeater; my signal report goes from S6 to S8, with no other changes. Not bad for an antenna that came free with my first UV5R. 
Anyway, I could see that it was at minimum bent, but when I picked it up it became obvious that a nylon stud that connects the antenna element to the SMA connector was sheared. 
I guess that means I need to go antenna shopping.
Here is a picture of the innards:

[WRUU653]

I do like this kind of stuff. I guess that’s why I took things apart as a kid. Thanks for sharing @Sshannon . I’m guessing the radio is okay as you didn’t show the insides of it, so that’s good news

[SteveShannon]

Yeah, I didn’t see any damage on it.  The antenna gave its life to protect the radio. 

The male SMA that’s on the radio showed no sign of damage either. The female SMA on the antenna unscrewed easily and I put the original rubber duck antenna on.

Taking things apart (and learning to put them together again) led me to a satisfying career as an engineer.

[Lscott]

7 hours ago, Sshannon said:

The male SMA that’s on the radio showed no sign of damage either.

Some people feel the switch to SMA, from BNC, on HT's was a mistake by the major manufactures. The opinion is BNC connectors are physically stronger. 

[Sab02r]

Thanks for posting the pic. That actually looks like a solid attempt at making a useful antenna (not that I am any kind of expert), and not just a placeholder.

Your UV5R came with a Tidradio 771.  My UV5R came with an Abbree AR 771. The only difference I can see between the two is the text and color of the print near the base.  I am guessing both are knockoffs of the Nagoya 771.  Perhaps they are built by the same manufacturer, and then private labeled.

This actually is a question:  What's in a name?

Is the 771 designation just a model number that is being copied so that buyers associate the antenna with a model perceived as being good, or does a 771 have specific qualities related to the number 771 (the way a 427 engine has a bore and stroke that nominally totals 427 cubic inches)?

[SteveShannon]

41 minutes ago, Sab02r said:

Thanks for posting the pic. That actually looks like a solid attempt at making a useful antenna (not that I am any kind of expert), and not just a placeholder.

Your UV5R came with a Tidradio 771.  My UV5R came with an Abbree AR 771. The only difference I can see between the two is the text and color of the print near the base.  I am guessing both are knockoffs of the Nagoya 771.  Perhaps they are built by the same manufacturer, and then private labeled.

This actually is a question:  What's in a name?

Is the 771 designation just a model number that is being copied so that buyers associate the antenna with a model perceived as being good, or does a 771 have specific qualities related to the number 771 (the way a 427 engine has a bore and stroke that nominally totals 427 cubic inches)?

I suspect you’re absolutely correct about our antennas coming from the same antenna mill.  It’s a relatively easy design to build; the element is connected to the SMA adapter with a loading coil. A capacitor bridges the shield to the coil.  I can count the coils and read the cap value if anyone wants, but it’s obviously nothing that revolutionizes handheld antennas. Nor does it have to be.  Also like you say, silkscreen the 771 number on it to take advantage of a recognized product. Comet and Diamond make similar antennas as well.  I’ll probably pick up one or two of them, but I have no intention of opening them up to see how they look. Of course I had no intention of popping this open.

[SteveShannon]

52 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Some people feel the switch to SMA, from BNC, on HT's was a mistake by the major manufactures. The opinion is BNC connectors are physically stronger. 

I haven’t looked at the specs of either.  Nor does my accident prove that the SMA connector is strong.  But I do feel that if I dropped a radio on a BNC connector the thin wall would be much easier to dent, which could make it unusable without some work. Dropping this radio on its male SMA has almost zero chance of damaging the recessed threaded portion or the recessed pin.  Dropping one of my other antennas on its female SMA could conceivably damage the male threads on the connector, making it unusable without some work.

I know folks have criticized the fact that the male pin of the SMA connector could be bent or sheared, which couldn’t be repaired in the field if that connector half is installed on the radio.  It’s possible, but I suspect the likelihood of that is less than damaging the protruding male threaded portion of the female SMA connector.  

 

[WRVX790]

On 3/5/2023 at 9:22 PM, WRUU653 said:

I do like this kind of stuff. I guess that’s why I took things apart as a kid. Thanks for sharing @Sshannon . I’m guessing the radio is okay as you didn’t show the insides of it, so that’s good news

 

I too was compelled to disassemble things around the house to see what was inside when I was a kid. That never really goes away, does it? 

Thanks, Steve, for the photo. Always interested in peeking behind the curtain.