Base New Imax wont tune 11m....this sucks

[Recon]

Here is the link to Bells claim about the Solarcon Imax.

https://www.bellscb.com/products/antennas/solarcon/solarcon_IMAX2000.htm

Some years ago I bought a Solarcon I-MAX 2000 from a local CB shop and it was in a Solarcon Box. However, I can't tell if it looked like the box that 357 posted above. I recall there was not much space at the ends of the box for each of the 3 parts of that antenna. If the claim here is, that the IMax is now shorter, then based on my antenna, that would suggest that all 3 parts had to have been made shorter? If so, that should be easy for several folks to figure out if they just set their minds to the task.

I did not measure my IMax until a while later when I started modeling antennas in early 2009. At that time my Solarcon Imax measured overall as noted below.

I measured from tip down to the hub for the top section, and from hub to hub for the second section, and the bottom section from the top of the hub to the top of the 12" inch metal mounting bracket, plus I added 0.25" inches for the two lock washers together.

Tip = 95"
Middle = 93.5"
Base = 84.5"
Mount = 12"
2 Lock washers = 0.25"

Total overall 285.25" inches = 23.77' feet

Does anyone have an Imax 2000 or Max 2000 with different dimensions. I seem to recall numerous reports for Imax dimensions over the years and most did not agree. I always wondered about that.

I mounted the Imax 10' feet high and did not touch the tuning rings per instructions in the manual. I tested the match with my Autek VA1 at the feed point. I made a bandwidth curve on my Antenna Work Sheet. I had the step rate set in 5 channel increments...starting at 26.855 to 27.555 MHz. This is by no means a chart with lots of detail frequency information, nor was it close to the band width for this antenna, but it did produce a notion of a curve.

Unfortunately I was not able to go lower or higher in frequency. That could have possibly indicated where all the bandwidth <2.00:1 SWR was...that we don't see here in the charts.

I recorded the values of R = resistance, X = reactance, SWR, and Z = complex match...using the VA1 right below the frequencies as noted.

Later I went inside and checked the SWR bandwidth on my inline Daiwa H801 meter while using my TS50. I added those results at the bottom of the charts. This also included the feed line noted on each chart.

These old charts were done in pencile, and don't copy well, but here we see the Imax showing, back then, the antenna tending to show a better match a little higher in frequency than the CB band. CB operators using CB radio and a SWR meter would never see this...just using their radio. It might help using the PDF file Zoom feature to see this a little closer up.

So, I wonder if the idea for making the antenna shorter was to appeal more to the Ham Operator in the market...while IMO we are seeing CB becoming pretty much irrelevant.

All a man has to do, maybe, in order to help prove the Imax is currently shorter than the one above would be to check this out, using an antenna analyzer, and report the results over a broader bandwidth than my old reports show.

Dividing 23.77 by 3, each section would be less than 8', so why would Solarcon need to shorten the length?

 

[Recon]

theres 3/4" of threaded stud too.
I dont think Bells is gonna make that up

Doesn't the base of the antenna extend and shroud the SO 239 coax connector? Maybe they shortened the shrouded area and not the actual antenna sections.

 

[Recon]

Here is the link to Bells claim about the Solarcon Imax.

https://www.bellscb.com/products/antennas/solarcon/solarcon_IMAX2000.htm

Some years ago I bought a Solarcon I-MAX 2000 from a local CB shop and it was in a Solarcon Box. However, I can't tell if it looked like the box that 357 posted above. I recall there was not much space at the ends of the box for each of the 3 parts of that antenna. If the claim here is, that the IMax is now shorter, then based on my antenna, that would suggest that all 3 parts had to have been made shorter? If so, that should be easy for several folks to figure out if they just set their minds to the task.

I did not measure my IMax until a while later when I started modeling antennas in early 2009. At that time my Solarcon Imax measured overall as noted below.

I measured from tip down to the hub for the top section, and from hub to hub for the second section, and the bottom section from the top of the hub to the top of the 12" inch metal mounting bracket, plus I added 0.25" inches for the two lock washers together.

Tip = 95"
Middle = 93.5"
Base = 84.5"
Mount = 12"
2 Lock washers = 0.25"

Total overall 285.25" inches = 23.77' feet

Does anyone have an Imax 2000 or Max 2000 with different dimensions. I seem to recall numerous reports for Imax dimensions over the years and most did not agree. I always wondered about that.

I mounted the Imax 10' feet high and did not touch the tuning rings per instructions in the manual. I tested the match with my Autek VA1 at the feed point. I made a bandwidth curve on my Antenna Work Sheet. I had the step rate set in 5 channel increments...starting at 26.855 to 27.555 MHz. This is by no means a chart with lots of detail frequency information, nor was it close to the band width for this antenna, but it did produce a notion of a curve.

Unfortunately I was not able to go lower or higher in frequency. That could have possibly indicated where all the bandwidth <2.00:1 SWR was...that we don't see here in the charts.

I recorded the values of R = resistance, X = reactance, SWR, and Z = complex match...using the VA1 right below the frequencies as noted.

Later I went inside and checked the SWR bandwidth on my inline Daiwa H801 meter while using my TS50. I added those results at the bottom of the charts. This also included the feed line noted on each chart.

These old charts were done in pencile, and don't copy well, but here we see the Imax showing, back then, the antenna tending to show a better match a little higher in frequency than the CB band. CB operators using CB radio and a SWR meter would never see this...just using their radio. It might help using the PDF file Zoom feature to see this a little closer up.

So, I wonder if the idea for making the antenna shorter was to appeal more to the Ham Operator in the market...while IMO we are seeing CB becoming pretty much irrelevant.

All a man has to do, maybe, in order to help prove the Imax is currently shorter than the one above would be to check this out, using an antenna analyzer, and report the results over a broader bandwidth than my old reports show.

The spec sheet states; Box Dimensions are 97" X 5" X 2" (extra long shipping code) and shipped via UPS only. If 97" is classified as "extra" long, what is considered long?
There must be a noticeable difference in length. Maybe anything longer than 72" is considered extra long. I think your hunch is right-on about the antenna being tailored towards Ham Operators. Solarcon could have made a four-section antenna with shorter sections and still be usable for 11 meter band.

 

[Recon]

theres 3/4" of threaded stud too.
I dont think Bells is gonna make that up

I think the top two sections are actually 95-1/4" long + 3/4" for the threaded studs, with the end result being 8' sections.

 

[Recon]

Here is the link to Bells claim about the Solarcon Imax.

https://www.bellscb.com/products/antennas/solarcon/solarcon_IMAX2000.htm

Some years ago I bought a Solarcon I-MAX 2000 from a local CB shop and it was in a Solarcon Box. However, I can't tell if it looked like the box that 357 posted above. I recall there was not much space at the ends of the box for each of the 3 parts of that antenna. If the claim here is, that the IMax is now shorter, then based on my antenna, that would suggest that all 3 parts had to have been made shorter? If so, that should be easy for several folks to figure out if they just set their minds to the task.

I did not measure my IMax until a while later when I started modeling antennas in early 2009. At that time my Solarcon Imax measured overall as noted below.

I measured from tip down to the hub for the top section, and from hub to hub for the second section, and the bottom section from the top of the hub to the top of the 12" inch metal mounting bracket, plus I added 0.25" inches for the two lock washers together.

Tip = 95"
Middle = 93.5"
Base = 84.5"
Mount = 12"
2 Lock washers = 0.25"

Total overall 285.25" inches = 23.77' feet

Does anyone have an Imax 2000 or Max 2000 with different dimensions. I seem to recall numerous reports for Imax dimensions over the years and most did not agree. I always wondered about that.

I mounted the Imax 10' feet high and did not touch the tuning rings per instructions in the manual. I tested the match with my Autek VA1 at the feed point. I made a bandwidth curve on my Antenna Work Sheet. I had the step rate set in 5 channel increments...starting at 26.855 to 27.555 MHz. This is by no means a chart with lots of detail frequency information, nor was it close to the band width for this antenna, but it did produce a notion of a curve.

Unfortunately I was not able to go lower or higher in frequency. That could have possibly indicated where all the bandwidth <2.00:1 SWR was...that we don't see here in the charts.

I recorded the values of R = resistance, X = reactance, SWR, and Z = complex match...using the VA1 right below the frequencies as noted.

Later I went inside and checked the SWR bandwidth on my inline Daiwa H801 meter while using my TS50. I added those results at the bottom of the charts. This also included the feed line noted on each chart.

These old charts were done in pencile, and don't copy well, but here we see the Imax showing, back then, the antenna tending to show a better match a little higher in frequency than the CB band. CB operators using CB radio and a SWR meter would never see this...just using their radio. It might help using the PDF file Zoom feature to see this a little closer up.

So, I wonder if the idea for making the antenna shorter was to appeal more to the Ham Operator in the market...while IMO we are seeing CB becoming pretty much irrelevant.

All a man has to do, maybe, in order to help prove the Imax is currently shorter than the one above would be to check this out, using an antenna analyzer, and report the results over a broader bandwidth than my old reports show.

OK folks, I just finished talking to a person of authority at SOLARCON and she informed me that the length of the MAX 2000 is still 24'. End of the mystery.

 

[Marconi]

Dividing 23.77 by 3, each section would be less than 8', so why would Solarcon need to shorten the length?

My thoughts exactly.

OK folks, I just finished talking to a person of authority at SOLARCON and she informed me that the length of the MAX 2000 is still 24'. End of the mystery.

Well, did Bells start this BS or is Solarcon lying. This World is corrupt and continually getting worse.

 

[Marconi]

Maybe 357 is dealing with the possible difference between the IMax 2000 and the Max 2000.

 

[Recon]

OK folks, I just finished talking to a person of authority at SOLARCON and she informed me that the length of the MAX 2000 is still 24'. End of the mystery.

Do yo

My thoughts exactly.



Well, did Bells start this BS or is Solarcon lying. This World is corrupt and continually getting worse.

Do you remember the TV series; Sergeant Preston of the Yukon?
At the end of each episode he said to his dog; "Well King, this case is closed". (ha! ha! ha!)
If there is one part I would change on the mast sections on the MAX 2000 and the A99, are the lock-washers. I prefer an internal tooth lock-washer for this particular application because you have to exert a good amount of torque on the connection sleeves to compress the standard lock-washer. The chrome can be damaged and there is the possibility of separating the bond between the fiberglass and the sleeve.
The ideal locking device would be to eliminate the lock-washers and insert a nylok pellet or a nylok strip into the threads. If the standard lock-washer is not fully compressed flat, sooner or later the threaded joints will vibrate loose.​

 

[Recon]

Maybe 357 is dealing with the possible difference between the IMax 2000 and the Max 2000.

I thought the I MAX 2000 is the same as the MAX 2000. Yes / no?
If my memory is intact, the top area of the bottom section does not have a hexagon surface to grip onto when threading the second section into it. I had a difficult time gripping the smooth chrome surface with a "home brew" strap wrench and compressing the lock-washer. Those stainless steel lock-washers are tough to compress.

 

[W4KVW]

Had my IMax 2000 for 7 years.. Saturday night i was talking to some guy on FM 29.600 just 50w good thing i was watching my meters as my SWR whet from 1:1.2 to 1:3.5 and after that would not work at all even with the tuner..
i would key up and it would creep from 1:2.2 to 1:3.5 taking it down next Saturday need a friend to bring a latter

1.3.5 is nothing to worry about.If it's near the RED then start worrying.I have seen so many that broke in the center that I will stick with my ANTRON 99 that works like a champ at just 30 ft.Also what kind of SWR meter are you using that gives those kinds of readings?

SIX-SHOOTER

 

[KD2GOE]

1.3.5 is nothing to worry about.If it's near the RED then start worrying.I have seen so many that broke in the center that I will stick with my ANTRON 99 that works like a champ at just 30 ft.Also what kind of SWR meter are you using that gives those kinds of readings?

SIX-SHOOTER

i meant to type 3.5:1 my SWR shot up to 3.5

 

[W4KVW]

i meant to type 3.5:1 my SWR shot up to 3.5

OK now that makes better sense. 3.5.1 is for sure Bad.Sounds like a bad connector or water has gotten into the coax.

SIX-SHOOTER

 

[Recon]

That does it for me...no I-Max 2000 in my future.

"Solarcon decided to shorten the antenna so that it would ship easier."

WDX-556

11/19/2019
I received the email below from Bells CB Radio a few minutes ago.

I was told by the people that now own Solarcon that they indeed shortened the Imax. I sent 13 units that I could not tune to 27 Mhz back for credit.

 

[Recon]

What antenna designer would just chop down the length with no regard for tuning?
Humm
Looks like the fired the only engineer they had and put the shipping department in charge.

You can run 2.1 to 1 swer's and it is really not that bad, BUT.....
This is not going to go over well with most CB operators.
Seems strange that they would disregard there main customer base.
Bad bussiness from my view point.
( que the Antron in a garbage can picture)

73
Jeff

This is a reply from Bells CB Radio.

I do not know exactly, but i am guessing an overall shortening if 6" (2" each section), and that is why it only wants to tune in the 10 meter band.

 

[S&W357]

Hmmm...that doesn't sound good.


WDX-556