Any advantage of the Zephyr model2 vs model 1 rover antenna?

the zephyr 1 is meant to be GPS only. you arent using the internal antenna of the GEO are you. check the survey style to confirm that.

absolutely 100% positive the Zephyr 1 is actively receiving glonass data. and the internal antenna is not. 100% sure.

I don't want to doubt what you're saying but the Zephyr 1 doesn't have an antenna element for the GLONASS frequencies...

A survey grade receiver would recognize that the antenna was non-GLONASS and make you change something.

I own a ProXRT with a zephyr2 with GLONASS and I used to own a ProXH with a zephyr1. I never saw GLONASS with the zephyr1.

I am pretty sure it does not have that capability.

I have had bad antenna cables on a GeoXH and ProXH and was using the internal antenna when I thought I was using the external. The 6000 has Glonass built in to the internal antenna.

> I own a ProXRT with a zephyr2 with GLONASS and I used to own a ProXH with a zephyr1. I never saw GLONASS with the zephyr1.
>
> I am pretty sure it does not have that capability.
>
> I have had bad antenna cables on a GeoXH and ProXH and was using the internal antenna when I thought I was using the external. The 6000 has Glonass built in to the internal antenna.

the ProXH is incapable of receiving GLONASS, i don't understand why you mentioned it. i have a hard time believing someone would using a ProXH with a faulty antenna cable and not know it.

the question was not does the Zephyr model 1 receive GLONASS, that question has already been answered. it does receive GLONASS, tested and verified, 100% okay? the question was "does anyone know the difference between these two antennas? Or have real world experience with these" in other words, has anyone tested the two antennas side by side, or made real world comparisons?

again, the Zephyr model 1 receives GLONASS just fine, tested and verified 100%. i'm not asking for doubted responses.

again, Any advantage of the Zephyr model 2 vs model 1 rover antenna? like has anyone experience better multipath rejection with the model 2?

is anyone really paying any attention to what their equipment is doing and understand the hardware? or is it just me?

> I don't want to doubt what you're saying but the Zephyr 1 doesn't have an antenna element for the GLONASS frequencies...

Note that the NGS antenna calibration file for the 39105 does have GLONASS values.

> > I own a ProXRT with a zephyr2 with GLONASS and I used to own a ProXH with a zephyr1. I never saw GLONASS with the zephyr1.
> >
> > I am pretty sure it does not have that capability.
> >
> > I have had bad antenna cables on a GeoXH and ProXH and was using the internal antenna when I thought I was using the external. The 6000 has Glonass built in to the internal antenna.
>
> the ProXH is incapable of receiving GLONASS, i don't understand why you mentioned it. i have a hard time believing someone would using a ProXH with a faulty antenna cable and not know it.
>
> the question was not does the Zephyr model 1 receive GLONASS, that question has already been answered. it does receive GLONASS, tested and verified, 100% okay? the question was "does anyone know the difference between these two antennas? Or have real world experience with these" in other words, has anyone tested the two antennas side by side, or made real world comparisons?
>
> again, the Zephyr model 1 receives GLONASS just fine, tested and verified 100%. i'm not asking for doubted responses.
>
> again, Any advantage of the Zephyr model 2 vs model 1 rover antenna? like has anyone experience better multipath rejection with the model 2?
>
> is anyone really paying any attention to what their equipment is doing and understand the hardware? or is it just me?

With that kind of attitude I have an idea what you can do with your antenna. I was just trying to help.

You are correct on no Glonass on the ProXH. I don't own it anymore and it has been some time since I used it. We had both the ProXH and the antenna mounted side by side on the roof of a UTV. When the cable went bad you would pick up sats from the ProXH itself and not notice it if you were not paying attention. The cables are really flimsy and go bad often. Personally I am diligent in my methods and I noticed it when it went bad but sometimes employees did not.

I have never tried hooking up the Zephyr1 to my GLONASS ProXRT. Never had a reason too. I generally try to use my equipment as the manufacturer specifies. If you say it gets GLONASS then I guess yours does but Trimble does not advertise it as such.

They do have values, but there are some differences between what you see with a GNSS antenna like the Zephyr 2:

The date - 2013 - seems a little suspect, and I'd like to have someone who understands this better explain the bottom paragraph - it sounds to me like the GLNN values were calculated.

In any case, per Gavin's post below, there is a physical difference between the two and there is no room under the hood for the GLNN antenna stack in a Z1. Trimble has gone through a lot of iterations of mapping antennas; perhaps they had a GNSS antenna for Geos that they still called Zephyr before the Zephyr 2 was officially a product.

> Trimble has gone through a lot of iterations of mapping antennas; perhaps they had a GNSS antenna for Geos that they still called Zephyr before the Zephyr 2 was officially a product.

I'd be surprised if they changed any of the electrical stuff without changing the model number, though. I think I counted 10 different Zephyr model numbers.

Since L1 for both GPS and GLO are both in the same ballpark -- 1575.42 and 1602+ MHz, respectively -- I'm wondering if the GPS-only antenna picks up the GLO signals, just not as well as an optimized antenna. The separate GLO elements might have been added to later models to improve the GLO reception.

with and with out the Zephyr model 1. I blocked the internal antenna as shown in the photos.

data with the Zephyr model 1

it appears that the GPS L2C signal is received as it should.

the question is
is the GLONASS L2 signal received as well as it would with the Zephyr 2 ? i can live without a better GLONASS L2 signal. as shown in the photos the GLONASS L2 signal with the Zephyr model 1 is plenty good enough for me.

**Though a more important question is,
--Is multipath rejection better with the model 2 ?--
This is the important question I have.

> Cool. If you can live witrhout the L2 then that changes a lot.
>
NO! I said, I can live without a BETTER GLONASS L2 SIGNAL!
good grief..

> > Cool. If you can live witrhout the L2 then that changes a lot.
> >
> NO! I said, I can live without a BETTER GLONASS L2 SIGNAL!
> good grief..

Take it easy big fella, I can see the vein popping up on your forehead, no need to climb in the curtains as they say north of here... 😉

> Take it easy big fella, I can see the vein popping up on your forehead, no need to climb in the curtains as they say north of here... 😉

really? with all due respect, my husband would be abhorrently shocked if the previous statement were true. you know, the "big" & "fella" and the "vein popping up on your forehead" thing. i'm on a fact finding mission here, not a personal criticism campaign. since when was it an offense to be corrected?

well, at this point the Zephyr M1 rover has proven it self to work exceptionally well in difficult circumstances. the only question i have is if the Zephyr M2 has better multipath rejection. you see what my question is? if i can find a rover antenna that is a proven superior to the Zephyr M1, then i'm interested. so obviously the question gos to the Zephyr M2.
with all due respect i have no interest in the G5 or G8. or resellers.

It seems to me that Trimble has applied the name "Zephyr" to a great many antenna models over the years. The first "Zephyr" I ever used was c.1999, before GLONASS was a viable constellation. That definitely did not collect the Russian birds, nor did the 5700 receiver it hooked up to. It was also about the size of a dinner plate. I'm not sure that we are comparing apples to apples in this thread.

> The Tornado (same family as the Z1 and Z2) is (according to thier literature) optimized for canopy and high-multipath environments. I have tested that firsthand and found a Tornado w/6000 to work better in such environments even over a Z2 (we have a test and training site along a path from the open and then running into the woods).
>

curious, what was the method used to compare the Tornado and the Zephyr 2?

there is no datasheet for the Tornado.

and no information sheet for the Tornado like the Zephyr Design Performance document.

so, i've have trepidations of the Tornado and just wondered if it just wasn't an L2/GLONASS enabled Hurricane/Tempest type antenna. and such little info out there about it, you are the first one who has said anything about any experience of it. still skeptical.

data with the Zephyr model 1

I don't doubt you, Joan. It's just that I'm concerned that advise you may get about "Zephyrs" may be based on experience with models other than that which you intend.

Gavin is going to as knowledgeable about these things as anyone in the country. You are lucky to have him as a resource. It is noticeable that no Trimble dealers/salespeople have chimed in on this thread as yet. I know at least one who does occasionally post.

> I don't doubt you, Joan. It's just that I'm concerned that advise you may get about "Zephyrs" may be based on experience with models other than that which you intend.
>
yes, thank you, i understand that. i figure if the geod models were improved then so would be the rover. a matter of deducing the pieces to resolve an informed answer.
> Gavin is going to as knowledgeable about these things as anyone in the country. You are lucky to have him as a resource. It is noticeable that no Trimble dealers/salespeople have chimed in on this thread as yet. I know at least one who does occasionally post.

you guys have been very helpful and it is greatly appreciated. i hope people will continue to post their thoughts here.

i'm beginning to lean toward that very minor difference if any between the two models.

the thought never crossed my mind to call a salesperson or a dealer, knowing the marketing answer i'd receive.