-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
IMAX 2000 VERSES THE SOLARCON / ANTRON 99
- Thread starter TonyV225
- Start date
I must respectfully disagree 100%.
When conditions were present, I have talked to England, Ireland, and Belgium on 17m with it and using NO MORE THAN 70 WATTS to do it. From San Jose CA I might add.
Japan a half dozen times as well.
I still maintain that it is the best bang-for-buck vertical antenna in the $100 category. Sure, you can spend more. But you can't get the multi-band function for that much money that works as well.
I disagree as well. I have mine at only 12ft. and I made a 8000 mile contact with Australia. Not good enough?
Perhaps you have bad soil or an other wise bad mounting location. Do you live in the desert where the soil is not conducive?
Marconi,
The good news about any of the antenna modeling programs is that they do give you an indication of what's possible with any particular antenna. The bad news is that those programs can only take consideration -only- those things that you 'plug' into them. If you want to know what this, that, or the other will happen if you put this, that, or the other close to an antenna you have to model that 'this, that, or the other' along with the affected antenna. Unless you do that, you will not get any kind of pertinent information. That's what I meant with that, "Oooo Yeah, that sounds exciting, doesn't it! (Yeah, right.)". You've had enough experience with 'EZNec' that I'll bet you know exactly what I mean.
- 'Doc
The good news about any of the antenna modeling programs is that they do give you an indication of what's possible with any particular antenna. The bad news is that those programs can only take consideration -only- those things that you 'plug' into them. If you want to know what this, that, or the other will happen if you put this, that, or the other close to an antenna you have to model that 'this, that, or the other' along with the affected antenna. Unless you do that, you will not get any kind of pertinent information. That's what I meant with that, "Oooo Yeah, that sounds exciting, doesn't it! (Yeah, right.)". You've had enough experience with 'EZNec' that I'll bet you know exactly what I mean.
- 'Doc
the Imax without the GPK will give about a 1/2 s unit higher signal than the A99 with the GPK but add the GPK to the Imax and then the Imax wins hands down. Imax GPK is worth alot towards the horizen. thats ground wave
GR,
Seems I have read something along the lines of what you mentioned somewhere. or Is this your personal observation, modeling and or testing or can you post the reference to your quote.
Seems I have read something along the lines of what you mentioned somewhere. or Is this your personal observation, modeling and or testing or can you post the reference to your quote.
the Imax without the GPK will give about a 1/2 s unit higher signal than the A99 with the GPK but add the GPK to the Imax and then the Imax wins hands down. Imax GPK is worth alot towards the horizen. thats ground wave
Grim, what you're seeing sure can happen in the real world...because there is so much stuff on the Earth that affects radio waves along with changes in conditions.
Models are models, and just well calculated numbers based on some very complicated math, while your real world results are something else again. Such factors have to be considered in your thinking. I might have tried to compare these two models in the same Eznec modeling Real Earth environment, but I wasn't trying to compare them to your real world results. Maybe this is not so easy to understand.
However, I think my Imax model did show a minuscule advantage over the A99, and on that we might agree. As I recall I did not model with the GPK attached to either, so that too could make some difference. I might try that, and see if the results show as much difference as you note.
My model results don't change from day to day or even hour to hour as long as the data stays the same, but the signals you see in your real world observations surely can change, sometimes right before your eyes. This too has to be considered.
i have a A-99 at 38' mounted on my roof on a tripod, also a Imax 2000 straped to the chimney at 38' 30' away from the A-99 and on a push up pole 40' from the Imax 2000 at 38' a Maco V5000. in all honesty i really see no real kick azz diference between any of the 3 local or DX. each antenna is connected directly into the radio. the radios i have been using are sitting right next to each other on the bench. i'm using 2- Rci 2950 radio and 1-president HR-2510 and they all are within 5 watts of each other. none of the 3 antennas out really out shine the other in some directions the A-99 might out do V5000 and the I-2000 i guese it maybe the higher angle of radiation in a shorter path out of the antenna. i live in an area in Maryland where it's relativley flat. one thing i do like about the I-2000 and the A-99 is the band width which really sucks with the V5000. knowing what i know now i would not for any reason replace an A-99 with a I-2000 or V5000 looking for kick azz difference. only problem with the A-99's from an inside source is that there manufactoring quality control stinks, thats why you have some guys out there with A-99's that just kick azz and you have some that are pure pigs that can't talk as far as there coax is long. just listen when conditions are rolling with DX and how many guys you hear out ther running A-99's at 10 to 18' talking around the world. i think the A-99 is the best antenna bang for the buck. even the ham guys are picking up more on them for 10 meters. ground wave i have talked on SSB with my A-99 as far as with the I-2000 or V5000 switching between radios and antennas. just like with a lot stuff in the radio world there is a lot of hype,miss-information and theory that just don't match up with real world
i agree with what ya said for the most part .one thing you didnt mention is location
for you you said its fairly flat were ya live so i think just about any antenna would
work good for you. now for me i live in a valley and theres other valley around me
some as close as 10 miles .the a99/ imax just didnt for me . i use a sirio 2016 now
much better i still have drop offs in other valleys. but i will say not all antennas perform the same at my location and i will testifify that in court if nessary
I tend to agree with radioreddz. That's about the way I see things working here as well. Albeit, I only use one radio at a time with a switch box when working multiple antennas. Some will argue that even the use of a switch box makes a difference that can nullify comparison results, but I can't detect any difference when comparing a switch box...in use or not.
I've never had similar experiences as Hotrod and I don't know what the Sirio 2016 is, but I guess it is a 5/8 wave. Under such conditions as Hotrod describes, it would be my thinking that maybe an antenna with a little higher TOA might do better. I could be wrong in my thinking, but I've heard Hotrod's words on the subject said before.
I've never had similar experiences as Hotrod and I don't know what the Sirio 2016 is, but I guess it is a 5/8 wave. Under such conditions as Hotrod describes, it would be my thinking that maybe an antenna with a little higher TOA might do better. I could be wrong in my thinking, but I've heard Hotrod's words on the subject said before.
When I say that 'Doc, I'm talking about similar vertical CB antennas. You may be talking about anything from 80 - 440, right? As cheap and as lazy as you make claim to be, I would doubt you have more than one similar antenna for any purpose, right?