Correct it does not connect to anything, just sits down the inside of the tube. I blew mine, melted it and it was at the end of the bare cable point there was a burn mark, and a lot less than the watts stated. HOWEVER, part shipped FEDEX and works well, takes more power than before and if you can hear it, you can work it.
-
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.
-
Retevis is giving away Radios for the New Year and Every Member is Eligible. Click Here to see the details!
New antenna from Sirio Gain-Master
- Thread starter dxswe
- Start date
Simon, I don't doubt your ability to work stations with your new GM. Mine is doing surprisingly good too. Maybe that was your burned antenna that I posted a picture of recently in this thread. Sorry, I may have asked this question already, but I haven't seen a response yet and I'm curious.
Did you try and look inside the shrink wrap and see what's in there? If so, how about a picture? Just curious if the new part looks any different from the original part, notwithstanding the burn of course. If so, how about a picture of the inside.
Did Sirio give you any information or caution as they made your antenna right again, or did the new part just pop-up in the Fedex truck one day?
How many watts have you used since the repair?
Hello George my friend ,hope your not caught up in this bad weather. Yes Ok it's a monopole and it sounds you rate the A99 as highly as I do!!!. Yes they work and have sold by the bucket load for sure.I am not pulling them down at all. But all the 5/8 antennas that need comparing to the Gainmaster are in a different ball park to the humble A99 or anything like it....as I'm sure you will agree Mate. My SGM is working well for sure down to Minus 17 degrees the other night.
Hi Dave,
despite the country falling apart with an inch of snow the weather ain't too bad here, maybe i'm just used to sh!t weather, its amazing how switzerland/sweden and other countries manage a bit of snow regularly but our transport system falls apart.
As for the A99, i don't rate it at all, only thing i'd recommend it for is a quick to throw up hilltopping antenna for short dx sessions, other than that theres much better performers that cause less interference and cost less money, but it is truly idiot proof. I can't believe so many people including some who are obviously not that dense,
have swallowed the solarcon/antron marketing hype hook,line and sinker.personally i think the only antennas worth testing against the gainmaster are vector 4000/sigma 4, sirio 827, i10k and similar top performers. Only when thats been done on the same mast/coax in blind tests where the rx station doesn't know which antenna is which will we get a true picture of the gainmaster. In my experience if the tests aren't blind then its human nature to either flatter or put down the testers ego, people often tell you exactly what you want to hear. much better to say antenna A,B or C that way people can't guess which one you want the favourable result from.
i'm very curious about the built in trap on the gainmaster, as it isn't of optimum dimensions known to produce the best CMC choking impedance for 27 mhz.
I remain openminded on this new antenna as i have done since it was first announced, simply because i like the way sirio has gone about tackling the failings of the shakespeare bigstick range.
OK, I've got a wee tidbit of info to whet your appetite and keep this thread alive@!
I installed the new 2nd SGM in place of the IMAX and to my dismay it is still down from the Penetrator500 about the same amount as the 1st SGM.
Then I lowered the P500 to try it on that mast & coax but before I removed the SGM from the IMAX mast I tried my 10 mile test and...
FAR OUT, COOL & GROOVY!@! It's better !!!
It's out TXing the IMAX on the same mast / coax & height by .5 S-units, and keeping up with the Penetrator - almost. It's about a needle width (Icom Pro3 Analog meter) lower, but here's the rub;
I've got ~60' of 9913 on the Penetrator500 and ~90' of 213 on the SGM / IMAX.
I only had the 2nd mast w/IMAX up because I had planned to lower the P500 and redo all the guy wires, so it wasn't there for testing purposes or I would have used the same coax / length to it as the P500 was using.
So, without the P500 in the way, the SGM comes alive!
Oh, the really cool part is I'm seeing just shy of 1 S-unit better receive than on the P500, which is bettering the IMAX in that spot by a full 1.5 S-units-plus.
But the noise is G-O-N-E! Static free and even quieter than the P500.
After the rain I'll try it on the P500 mast.
I'm in agreeable amazement that so many fall prey to this A99 hoopla. Yes it works, and for fear of sounding like I actually LIKE the antenna, I won't say more than that.
I've consistently found the A99 performance 2 FULL S-units lower than the IMAX and close to three less than any good true 5/8 - .64, depending upon distance.
But even one block away, 165 paces, Stu saw 2 S-units difference between my A99 and the IMAX I replaced it with, same location, mast coax, radio, <20 minutes between test comparisons.
For a field-ready quick close-range install, it's 'acceptable'. :glare:
73
I installed the new 2nd SGM in place of the IMAX and to my dismay it is still down from the Penetrator500 about the same amount as the 1st SGM.
Then I lowered the P500 to try it on that mast & coax but before I removed the SGM from the IMAX mast I tried my 10 mile test and...
FAR OUT, COOL & GROOVY!@! It's better !!!
It's out TXing the IMAX on the same mast / coax & height by .5 S-units, and keeping up with the Penetrator - almost. It's about a needle width (Icom Pro3 Analog meter) lower, but here's the rub;
I've got ~60' of 9913 on the Penetrator500 and ~90' of 213 on the SGM / IMAX.
I only had the 2nd mast w/IMAX up because I had planned to lower the P500 and redo all the guy wires, so it wasn't there for testing purposes or I would have used the same coax / length to it as the P500 was using.
So, without the P500 in the way, the SGM comes alive!
Oh, the really cool part is I'm seeing just shy of 1 S-unit better receive than on the P500, which is bettering the IMAX in that spot by a full 1.5 S-units-plus.
But the noise is G-O-N-E! Static free and even quieter than the P500.
After the rain I'll try it on the P500 mast.
Hi Dave,...
As for the A99, i don't rate it at all, only thing i'd recommend it for is a quick to throw up hilltopping antenna for short dx sessions, other than that theres much better performers that cause less interference and cost less money, but it is truly idiot proof. I can't believe so many people including some who are obviously not that dense,
I'm in agreeable amazement that so many fall prey to this A99 hoopla. Yes it works, and for fear of sounding like I actually LIKE the antenna, I won't say more than that.
I've consistently found the A99 performance 2 FULL S-units lower than the IMAX and close to three less than any good true 5/8 - .64, depending upon distance.
But even one block away, 165 paces, Stu saw 2 S-units difference between my A99 and the IMAX I replaced it with, same location, mast coax, radio, <20 minutes between test comparisons.
For a field-ready quick close-range install, it's 'acceptable'. :glare:
73
Last edited:
If anything Scott, your results back up everything i've said about differing heights and the fact that two antennas close together WILL interact to varying degrees not to mention the effects of having two testing antennas geographically spaced apart.
Having them tested on the same pole and same coax is the ONLY way to insure no interaction (just because you can't see interaction affecting vswr doesn't mean it isn't affecting signals), no geographical advantage and no height advantage. it also insures coaxial losses from different types of coax or different lengths of coax don't play any significant part in results.
it will be very interesting to see how the SGM performs against your beloved p500 on a like for like basis. Might even shatter the 27 mhz (the only band where .64 is ever mentioned) .64 myth once and for all, eh ?
MYTH? There's no myth, George, - everyone knows the .64 is believed by a small minority to invariably outperform the conventional 5/8 in rare circumstances and at specific, but unknown distances!
What really has me by the proverbial balls is the added receive gain over my "Beloved" Penetrator, and while utilizing a run of inferior coax 50% longer than the better coax on the Penetrator... :w00t:
Also, (except for stations basically directly in line with a line running between the two antennas) both the Penetrator500 and the IMAX were fairly unaffected by the two antennas being 18' apart according to readings I logged when either was up alone, and off the ends I only see about an S-unit of loss.
I can confidently attest to the fact that the SGM definitely needs to be 'alone in space' for it to really shine.
I imagine the SGM will pick up that lost needle-width of TX strength and perhaps even more, plus even GREATER RX, once located on the P500 mast using the shorter length of better coax.
How I'd LOVE to perceive that full "2 S-units of gain" possible from the SGM over a conventional 5/8, or my infinitely superior .64!
As I said before, the Penetrator500 is my "Beloved" only because it's never been beat, even when I tested it against the LW-150, a 3/4 wave Vector / Sigma4 copy.
- Penetrator500 loyalty aside, I'll truly love upgrading my station performance with something new & better!!
What really has me by the proverbial balls is the added receive gain over my "Beloved" Penetrator, and while utilizing a run of inferior coax 50% longer than the better coax on the Penetrator... :w00t:
Also, (except for stations basically directly in line with a line running between the two antennas) both the Penetrator500 and the IMAX were fairly unaffected by the two antennas being 18' apart according to readings I logged when either was up alone, and off the ends I only see about an S-unit of loss.
I can confidently attest to the fact that the SGM definitely needs to be 'alone in space' for it to really shine.
I imagine the SGM will pick up that lost needle-width of TX strength and perhaps even more, plus even GREATER RX, once located on the P500 mast using the shorter length of better coax.
How I'd LOVE to perceive that full "2 S-units of gain" possible from the SGM over a conventional 5/8, or my infinitely superior .64!
As I said before, the Penetrator500 is my "Beloved" only because it's never been beat, even when I tested it against the LW-150, a 3/4 wave Vector / Sigma4 copy.
- Penetrator500 loyalty aside, I'll truly love upgrading my station performance with something new & better!!
cdx thank you for your contributions to this topic!i to have tested my a99 with gpk against the stock imax and also got the same results as you 2s units both sides.and swapped maco for imax which was about 1s+. i had a p500 but did not test it against the imax and got rid of itMYTH? There's no myth, George, - everyone knows the .64 is believed by a small minority to invariably outperform the conventional 5/8 in rare circumstances and at specific, but unknown distances!
What really has me by the proverbial balls is the added receive gain over my "Beloved" Penetrator, and while utilizing a run of inferior coax 50% longer than the better coax on the Penetrator... :w00t:
Also, (except for stations basically directly in line with a line running between the two antennas) both the Penetrator500 and the IMAX were fairly unaffected by the two antennas being 18' apart according to readings I logged when either was up alone, and off the ends I only see about an S-unit of loss.
I can confidently attest to the fact that the SGM definitely needs to be 'alone in space' for it to really shine.
I imagine the SGM will pick up that lost needle-width of TX strength and perhaps even more, plus even GREATER RX, once located on the P500 mast using the shorter length of better coax.
How I'd LOVE to perceive that full "2 S-units of gain" possible from the SGM over a conventional 5/8, or my infinitely superior .64!
As I said before, the Penetrator500 is my "Beloved" only because it's never been beat, even when I tested it against the LW-150, a 3/4 wave Vector / Sigma4 copy.
- Penetrator500 loyalty aside, I'll truly love upgrading my station performance with something new & better!!
.i now have the maco gpk kit and 102 stainless on the imax and dont have anything to compare it to except an old midland 5/8 19footer.i was wondering if your imax was stock or if you have the added 6 inches to its radiator?cdx thank you for your contributions to this topic!i to have tested my a99 with gpk against the stock imax and also got the same results as you 2s units both sides.and swapped maco for imax which was about 1s+. i had a p500 but did not test it against the imax and got rid of it
Replaced the original 96" IMAX top with a 6" longer fiberglass whip from an old Shakespeare Big Stick and retuned the rings, saw ~.5 S-units improvement.
Also added a single .64 radial, but I like your idea of the 102" at the base. How did you get the Maco GP kit to fit, or is it designed for the IMAX?
- A set of Maco V5/8 radials would look really bitchin' on the IMAX.
"believed by a small minority"
i can't help but think those are the keywords on the .64, pmsl. do you not find it strange no other manufacturer on any other band in the spectrum sells .64 antennas? i'm thinking its just more cb bullshit like the A99 9.9 dbi gain.
i can't help but think those are the keywords on the .64, pmsl. do you not find it strange no other manufacturer on any other band in the spectrum sells .64 antennas? i'm thinking its just more cb bullshit like the A99 9.9 dbi gain.
I agree George. I have never seen anything, but CB fairytale stories about .64 wave being superior to anything. I can't deny that CDX007 doesn't have a modified P500 that he claims is a .64 wavelength and that it shows or showed better signals. I doubt we'll see any real proof that the CB chatter about the .64 claim is valid very soon.
I've asked repeatedly for some published report, but nothing.
The only thing I've ever seen that talks about the subject was a report of a report about two Japanese RF engineers duplicating a turn of the 20th century report on the 5/8 wave idea for the newly blossoming broadcast radio spectrum. I never seen this report since. The article noted that the report was never accepted in the science community or in American's broadcast industry back then and nothing except CB has ever really glommed onto the idea since except CB fokelore.
The only thing I have that touts the .64 is my Wolf .64 wave ground plane. If I can get it to return to a good tune one day, I will try and compare it again. I have no complaints for how my .64 Wolf worked before, but it should...for all the features included in the design. The big if is, do all these features that are touted to improve vertical monopoles really work as claimed. IMO, such claims should makes the Wolf .64 a collinear 1/2 wave over a true 1/4 wave with true phase reversing coils and insulators at the very least. I'm not too sure about it being a .64 wave however, excepting maybe in name only. I'm not sure, but it could conform to the math for .64 of a 11 meter wavelength.
If anybody can produce something reliable that has been published in any ligament non-biased type periodical that will support this idea of the .64 wavelength radiator being superior to anything in the CB or other radio spectrums...................
I "Marconi," will gladly contribute $50 to WWRF.
Here's some food for thought (lol):
Wolf Radio.com CB, Ham, Pirate Radio Antennas [CB Antenna]
I really like this ad. An IMAX is now a .64:
http://cars2.ebay.com.au/IMAX-2000-...PLANE-KIT_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ200472431617
Someone needs to dispel this as a hoax or a fact by experimentation and EZNEC magic - lol . . .
Wolf Radio.com CB, Ham, Pirate Radio Antennas [CB Antenna]
I really like this ad. An IMAX is now a .64:
http://cars2.ebay.com.au/IMAX-2000-...PLANE-KIT_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ200472431617
Someone needs to dispel this as a hoax or a fact by experimentation and EZNEC magic - lol . . .
OK, guys, now you know that was tongue-in-cheek, right? 
Anyway, I 'bout fainted when I saw the $375 AUD price for an IMAX and radials kit. YIKES! You could get a couple of SGMs there for less and have a superior performing antenna.
Marconi, Have you an interest in a P500?
I'm tempted to ship one to you to test for that $50 you mentioned, which would probably be enough to cover shipping both ways.
I've yet to place the SGM on the same mast & coax as the Penetrator and get a sig rep from Phil's Pro3, so it might even be down from the Penetrator, depending on location.
I hope to have that done tomorrow, I'm planning to place the unsmashed coax Sirio Gain Master in place of the Penetrator, with my SGM still up 18' away, get sig reps, then lower mine and try the better one on the P500 mast and report here.
It does have the no-radial thing going for it, especially for those wanting to have a great performer in a tree, but I cannot yet say the Penetrator has definitely lost to the SGM,
...but I hope so!
Anyway, I 'bout fainted when I saw the $375 AUD price for an IMAX and radials kit. YIKES! You could get a couple of SGMs there for less and have a superior performing antenna.
Marconi, Have you an interest in a P500?
I'm tempted to ship one to you to test for that $50 you mentioned, which would probably be enough to cover shipping both ways.
I've yet to place the SGM on the same mast & coax as the Penetrator and get a sig rep from Phil's Pro3, so it might even be down from the Penetrator, depending on location.
I hope to have that done tomorrow, I'm planning to place the unsmashed coax Sirio Gain Master in place of the Penetrator, with my SGM still up 18' away, get sig reps, then lower mine and try the better one on the P500 mast and report here.
It does have the no-radial thing going for it, especially for those wanting to have a great performer in a tree, but I cannot yet say the Penetrator has definitely lost to the SGM,
...but I hope so!
Yep deffo food for thought, infact i'm thinking thats a nice job the way he converted a 1/4,1/2 and 5/8 wave radiation pattern to be a 1/4,1/2 and .64 wave in the "where does the gain come from" section.
what amazes me is if the .64 was better,why leave out the 5/8 wave for direct comparison? i find that very mystifying.
another thing puzzles me, a 5/8 wave is only truly 5/8 wave at one frequency, so by the laws of reciprocality that would also be the case for a .64 wave, as has been mentioned by simon 004 on another forum, there must be a point depending on the bandwidth you use them on that one becomes the other.
as you go higher in frequency away from the centre frequency that 5/8 wave will soon be .64 wave.going in the opposite direction the .64 will soon be a 5/8 wave.
see what i'm getting at here?
Now that would be interesting, infact what i find even more interesting is if it were true why hasn't it been modelled before to prove the case? its not as if this is a new claim.
Even if there were a difference which i doubt very much, i'm certain eznec or any other modelling software would be able to show that difference as it would be minute.
As for the i max 2000 being a .64 wave, i find that fascinating too, seeing as in the instruction manual and the sellers text where he contradicts his earlier .64 statement you find the immortal (The antenna is designed as a 5/8 wave IMAX end fed variable mutual transductance tuned antenna.)
Now its not as if solarcon DON'T have a history of bullshitting, infact they could seriously give many forum bullshitters a right good run for their money if previous claims are anything to go by.
Do you not find it strange even solarcon a company with a massive history of bullshitting refused to jump on the .64 myth and cash in on it? These guys are masters of hype and even they don't believe the .64 myth.
THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN CB, pmsl.
The best kept secret in cb up till now is Bob 85 admitted to me the sigma 4 was a j pole, but as he's a real good mate i promised i wouldn't tell anyone,OOOOOOOOOPS, lol.
he also confided with me that he had been secretly modifying an i max and that if you stick an upturned metal dustbin around the base and stick a 9ft whip on the top you inadvertantly create a .80 lambda j pole which will easily outperform any other antenna ever built including the sigma 4/vector 4000 j pole he is so fond of.Bob would kill me if he knew i'd told anyone about his acme i max/j pole hybrid.
What's the myth part, -that adding 6.5" to the length of a 5/8 (enough added length to force a retuning of the matching network) has any beneficial effect at all on the signal? At least it's an additional (2.5%) of capture area which, if nothing else, should help receive.
George, I didn't invent or modify it to be .64, that's factory (6.5" longer than an I-10K or Sigma5/8 tuned for same freq.) but I have tested it against the metal 5/8 Sigma5/8 & I-10K and at distance the Penetrator always came out on top, but now I'm also wondering about the Penetrator having elevated radials; with reference to the strongest 11" of reverse current at the base being split off and sent toward earth... maybe that's what is helping to make the most difference?
Somewhere on the web I remember seeing a graph from tests done 4-5 decades ago which showed the angle of radiation of various wave-length antennas and it appeared the 5/8 was on the front left top of the plateau with the .64 a little to the right of the 5/8 at the top right of the plateau of lowest TOA.
So even if they had an identical radiation angle, wouldn't you want the most metal you could get in the air?
One clean advantage to the .64 is it's lower feed point impedance which requires less matching, therefore possibly providing a little less loss in the matching network.
As careful tuning as is required by so many antennas, including the Vector / Sigma4, wouldn't it stand to reason that enough length to re-tune a 5/8 from the center of the 10m band to the center of your CB band, might actually have a noticeable effect on performance, especially at greater distances?
Also, (and before factoring in any K or velocity factors) when set to the shortest length [11811 x .64 ÷ 27.405] for a .64 on US CB band, Ch.40 (27.405MHz) it should be ~275.8" whereas the longest a .625 or 5/8 would be, for Ch.1 (26.965) would measure only 273.75" - over 2" shorter than the shortest .64 for our 40 channels, so I don't see it losing too much performance due to frequency variation.
- Just tune it to the highest channel and you'll still have at least 1/3 the benefit on the lowest channel without exceeding .64 on any, and without even taking into account the Q of the diameter of the tubing.
3:30am here,
- 'night.
George, I didn't invent or modify it to be .64, that's factory (6.5" longer than an I-10K or Sigma5/8 tuned for same freq.) but I have tested it against the metal 5/8 Sigma5/8 & I-10K and at distance the Penetrator always came out on top, but now I'm also wondering about the Penetrator having elevated radials; with reference to the strongest 11" of reverse current at the base being split off and sent toward earth... maybe that's what is helping to make the most difference?
Somewhere on the web I remember seeing a graph from tests done 4-5 decades ago which showed the angle of radiation of various wave-length antennas and it appeared the 5/8 was on the front left top of the plateau with the .64 a little to the right of the 5/8 at the top right of the plateau of lowest TOA.
So even if they had an identical radiation angle, wouldn't you want the most metal you could get in the air?
One clean advantage to the .64 is it's lower feed point impedance which requires less matching, therefore possibly providing a little less loss in the matching network.
As careful tuning as is required by so many antennas, including the Vector / Sigma4, wouldn't it stand to reason that enough length to re-tune a 5/8 from the center of the 10m band to the center of your CB band, might actually have a noticeable effect on performance, especially at greater distances?
Also, (and before factoring in any K or velocity factors) when set to the shortest length [11811 x .64 ÷ 27.405] for a .64 on US CB band, Ch.40 (27.405MHz) it should be ~275.8" whereas the longest a .625 or 5/8 would be, for Ch.1 (26.965) would measure only 273.75" - over 2" shorter than the shortest .64 for our 40 channels, so I don't see it losing too much performance due to frequency variation.
- Just tune it to the highest channel and you'll still have at least 1/3 the benefit on the lowest channel without exceeding .64 on any, and without even taking into account the Q of the diameter of the tubing.
3:30am here,
- 'night.
Last edited:
we should have the first production run of the i-jay ready soon jazz,
your order has been processed, awaiting materials from dxengineering, they don't do the pink fiberglass tube you requested so mel called at boots for some varnish, i will ship it with the antenna at no extra cost
your order has been processed, awaiting materials from dxengineering, they don't do the pink fiberglass tube you requested so mel called at boots for some varnish, i will ship it with the antenna at no extra cost
