Imax 2000 or maco v-5/8th

[W5LZ]

Robb,
"anybody bothered to look at the polar pattern that he gave, it might sum up the .64 claim - wouldn't it?"
Don't know about you, but I've never been able to pull up that plot of the antenna that's supposed to be there. I wonder why it isn't encluded in the site with the other information?

Jazzsinger,
Sit down, control yourself, but I agree with your explanation of antenna length. There are a lot of factors you have to consider when looking at antenna 'length'.
Personally, I figure that '.64' and '.625' thingy is just a marketing scheme. A contrived difference that doesn't make any significant difference at all.
- 'Doc

 

[AudioShockwav]

my guess is an electrical centrefed halfwave dipole that is choked and decoupled from the mast.which would put it in the same class as a bigstick with the benefit that choking/decoupling brings.

No Flames here...after looking and looking at the Info they have posted about the Antenna, I have come to the same conclusion.
I would still like to have one to play with...just to see what it will act like in the environment that I have here. My Location is a bit strange as compared to the " normal" location, it would be good to see them build a more durable antenna, and I have needs for different Take off angles that differ from a lot of guys.

73
Jeff

 

[jazzsinger]

No Flames here...after looking and looking at the Info they have posted about the Antenna, I have come to the same conclusion.
I would still like to have one to play with...just to see what it will act like in the environment that I have here. My Location is a bit strange as compared to the " normal" location, it would be good to see them build a more durable antenna, and I have needs for different Take off angles that differ from a lot of guys.

73
Jeff

Don't get me wrong Jeff,I don't think its a bad thing,it may turn out to be the best,sturdiest and easiest to mount 1/2 wave dipole that has ever been invented,with a much reduced risk of rfi into the bargain,but it is what it is and i don't see it being the 5/8 wave buster they are claiming.But i do see it as more advanced than ANY fibreglass antenna thats so far hit the market for 11m,although that also depends on build quality. t could truly end up to be the simplest antenna for newbies to have good success as well.Which I imagine if the price is right will be a major selling feature. i'd certainly have interest in it long before any bigstick,A99,i max or any other fibreglass antenna would draw my attention.

 

[cbradiomagazine.com]

I have to say that review was well a written subjective one dealing mostly with the construction/assembly of an antenna. Unfortunately, it gives no objective facts dealing with performance. A very nice 'non-answer' to the question.
- 'Doc

Objective facts dealing with performance?

I gave a full review on how it performed for me and gave a difference in S unit measurement for receive compared against a Imax. If that's a non-answer I guess you could always ask the manufacturers, but I think my real world test probably is more accurate than the gain claims many of them post on their websites.

As multiple people have said on here - because of mounting location, atmospheric conditions, cloud cover, ground saturation and the numbers of bees flying in the general area at any given time it's basically impossible to really come up with any facts.:bdh:

Some small differences do show up often enough for different people that they could eventually be considered fact - such as the Maco tends to be a bit quieter for many people, and the receive on Maco tends to have a slight edge for local, but all in all I think you could buy either one and be happy. The Imax is more broadbanded straight out of the box than the Maco but the Maco is marketed as a CB or 10 meter antenna and never says that it can do it all.

In my area we have a lot of trees and the tuning ring and radials on the Maco to me was the downside as my antennas routinely get hit by falling branches.

Either way both antennas are cheap and effective.