How is the bandwidth on 10/15/20 for the 12AVQ-- is it any wider then HyGain shows in the literature?
Rick
-
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.
SOLARCON ANTRON 99 VERSES THE SOLARCON IMAX 2000
- Thread starter TonyV225
- Start date
How is the bandwidth on 10/15/20 for the 12AVQ-- is it any wider then HyGain shows in the literature?
Rick
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
not to disrespect or disagree with you 1342 , but im gonna use your post to ask a question ive been wondering about since you kinda brought the subject up .
ive seen many post by folks talking about how broad banded the imax 2000 is . my question is how is that achieved ? according to this link "Except for the lower 2 feet of the Imax 2000, all the rest of the antenna contains nothing more than a straight piece of #14 bare copper wire"
The Imax 2000 EXPOSED!
seems an antenna made with 1 inch to 1/2 inch tubing would be more broad banded since its a much larger diameter radiator than a skinny lil wire . anyone know how this happens ?
Don't be too surprised BootyMon- a skinny wire is used on horizontal dipoles by Hams all of the time - and they can talk around the world with that.
First, the IMAX is usable on so many freq's because it is a dipole and works well with a tuner of you use the right length of masting - sorta. Of course, almost any antenna can be used on other freqs with a tuner, it seems to be more popular because it seems to work well enough when done that way. My IMAX squeaks by/is OK on 11 meters - but on 10 meters the SWR won't even budge - 'flat'. That is the difference between being resonant and adjusting the impedance - nothing more. I haven't use a tuner on it - yet. It can be used for 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 17 meters with a tuner/impedance matching. Check out some of the reviews on eHam for the IMAX. It may have built and meant for the CB; but many Hams have adopted it because it flat out works and is c h e a p.
First, the IMAX is usable on so many freq's because it is a dipole and works well with a tuner of you use the right length of masting - sorta. Of course, almost any antenna can be used on other freqs with a tuner, it seems to be more popular because it seems to work well enough when done that way. My IMAX squeaks by/is OK on 11 meters - but on 10 meters the SWR won't even budge - 'flat'. That is the difference between being resonant and adjusting the impedance - nothing more. I haven't use a tuner on it - yet. It can be used for 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 17 meters with a tuner/impedance matching. Check out some of the reviews on eHam for the IMAX. It may have built and meant for the CB; but many Hams have adopted it because it flat out works and is c h e a p.
Last edited:
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
i wouldnt have thought of the 2k as a dipole . a dipole has a radiator and a ground element , the 2K has no ground element (unless you use the mast or coax) without adding some . not to mention the length , but im still learning .
i wasnt disputing what folks were saying about its broad banded abilities , i was just curious how its more broad banded than the maco , which has a much much much larger surface area than a 14 gauge wire .
i wasnt disputing what folks were saying about its broad banded abilities , i was just curious how its more broad banded than the maco , which has a much much much larger surface area than a 14 gauge wire .
The A-99 is not a dipole, it's an end-fed half wave. Forget the "1/2 wave over a quarter wave" sales talk, it's not. Looks to be link-coupled from the schematics I've seen, I've built several similar ones for the ham bands over the years.
That aside, it should be a decent antenna. Bear in mind though, the wide SWR curve is due partly to it being in the upper part of the HF spectrum, and maybe partly (from the looks of it) to losses in the coil. If I owned one I'd be really tempted to trash the matching network and build my own, but even then I doubt there would be any practical difference on the air.
Rick
That aside, it should be a decent antenna. Bear in mind though, the wide SWR curve is due partly to it being in the upper part of the HF spectrum, and maybe partly (from the looks of it) to losses in the coil. If I owned one I'd be really tempted to trash the matching network and build my own, but even then I doubt there would be any practical difference on the air.
Rick
On HF, the bandwidth difference between, say, a dipole made of 14 gauge copper wire and an identical-length dipole made of copper or aluminum tubing, say 1" in diameter, might be as much as 2-3%. Yes, it's "real", and you can prove that on paper. Given real-world antennas, you will be hard pressed to verify it absolutely.
It does become more crucial at UHF. For 2M and lower, it's not worth spending time with.
i can tell you this about the imax .
i just installed one here a couple days ago .it replaced my aging 3 piece big stick.
a guy i talk to all the time says to me
"i dont know what your running over there today but your hitting me harder than you ever did befor"
were his exact words.he did not know i changed antennas .when i told him i did his reply was
"that things working good then"
i was hitting him like 2db better .i do hear alot more better too.havent had much wind here since the install but i hear these do whip around in the wind .
my swr out the box is flat across the band ...and flat at least 40 above n below the cb band .
overall i like this antenna so far .i upgraded to lmr240 ultra flex too.
now that 2db increase was with nothing other than a antenna and coax change .
i just added a new 94hp to the mix so we should be booming now..lol...more on that later when i get the reports from the locals .
i give this antenna a 10 rating so far .very happy with it .
i just installed one here a couple days ago .it replaced my aging 3 piece big stick.
a guy i talk to all the time says to me
"i dont know what your running over there today but your hitting me harder than you ever did befor"
were his exact words.he did not know i changed antennas .when i told him i did his reply was
"that things working good then"
i was hitting him like 2db better .i do hear alot more better too.havent had much wind here since the install but i hear these do whip around in the wind .
my swr out the box is flat across the band ...and flat at least 40 above n below the cb band .
overall i like this antenna so far .i upgraded to lmr240 ultra flex too.
now that 2db increase was with nothing other than a antenna and coax change .
i just added a new 94hp to the mix so we should be booming now..lol...more on that later when i get the reports from the locals .
i give this antenna a 10 rating so far .very happy with it .
I have been comparing my antenna again, but I did not get to compare my A99 vs. IMax. I did compare the A99 vs. Astroplane and the AP did better than the A99, but when I insulated the antenna from the mast and added 3 - 102" radials to the hub, the A99 improved almost on par with the AP. I took the A99 down to put up my Imax and I did not try and insulate the Imax or add radials. I found that AP really doing a better job than the Imax at any height up to the tip being 40' feet and more while the AP remained at a 40' tip height. My Imax just has never worked well for me and again IMO this is because the .625 and maybe the .64 antennas just don't seem to work well over very good soil, which I have at my location.
I also believe the AP to be a form of an end fed 1/2 wave antenna with a 1/4 wave feeding arangement that makes it work well with coax and no other form of lossy matching. This is why I think this combination of characteristics allows it to work so well over very good soil, a little better than most, but my modified A99 is close and they both work DX very well. You too might even hear that on the air all the time with guys running A99's. I hear all the time that the A99 is nothing but a worthless dummy load, but IMO I would consider them much better antennas than that if they are mounted over very good soil, like the Gulf Coast of Texas is from Louisians south to Mexico.
Check the ARRL Antenna Handbook for what conditions you have in your area, and if you don't show to have 8 millisiemens of ground conductivity in your area you will probably be better of with a 5/8 wave or better ground plane or other vertical like the Imax. Try clicking on the images below to enlarge.
Attachments
Last edited:
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
another question about the imax . folks say its a >64 and has a hair more gain than a 5/8 antena because of that extra length . but........according to this....
The Imax 2000 EXPOSED!
"Except for the lower 2 feet of the Imax 2000, all the rest of the antenna contains nothing more than a straight piece of #14 bare copper wire."
.......it seems it would only be a 22 foot radiator which is 6 inches short of what a true 5/8 would be . so is it really a .64 wave antenna , or a slightly short 5/8 wave antenna ? im not trying to diss the antenna . i have a line on one (currently being used) for $30 . im thinking use the 4 108 inch wires from my homebrew starduster on it so it has a ground plane with a coax choke 9 feet below it (for possible CMCs') and insulate it from a mast . i believe it was bob85 that said many of his locals have had very good results installing it like that .
The Imax 2000 EXPOSED!
"Except for the lower 2 feet of the Imax 2000, all the rest of the antenna contains nothing more than a straight piece of #14 bare copper wire."
.......it seems it would only be a 22 foot radiator which is 6 inches short of what a true 5/8 would be . so is it really a .64 wave antenna , or a slightly short 5/8 wave antenna ? im not trying to diss the antenna . i have a line on one (currently being used) for $30 . im thinking use the 4 108 inch wires from my homebrew starduster on it so it has a ground plane with a coax choke 9 feet below it (for possible CMCs') and insulate it from a mast . i believe it was bob85 that said many of his locals have had very good results installing it like that .
BM, that stuff about the Imax being a .64 and better is probably a bunch of hog wash. Just like you say, the math don't even work out in the explaination of it in the article, much less when you get down to measuring things. The difference is so small anyway that the whole issue is arguable. When that study was done for very low frequency broadcast in the 1930's sometime, it was determined that there was some advantage in the minsicule range and everything since then has been totally blown out of proportion. If we quote facts then it is a good idea to get the facts straight and just because someone on the Internet says something blue is really green, don't mean we have to pass that bad info on, because we ingore the facts. Would you like for me to do the math and post it here to prove my point about that mystery discovery in the article. The only mystery in that article is that anyone believes what the guys says about the 270.5" and he bases his argument on that length. You can't dispute the pictures, but most people take what folks say as gosple and forget any thought about the right of wrong of the matter. My Imax is 284.5" long and some of that may be the matching stuff at the base and I don't know the answer to that. I take his word that the radiator is probably just as he is talking about and if he's correct and the actual radiating element is 270.5---it is a bit short of .625 wavelength and is even more short of .64 wavelength, so ask yourself, what is 833 saying, "I can't even prove my own idea?"
Bob85 didn't say that Booty Monster. Maybe the Imax will respond to such modifications that Bob85 talked about, but Bob85 did not say anything in those remarks about the Imax.
Put a pencil to it and prove it for yourself.
Bob85 didn't say that Booty Monster. Maybe the Imax will respond to such modifications that Bob85 talked about, but Bob85 did not say anything in those remarks about the Imax.
Put a pencil to it and prove it for yourself.
Last edited:
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
i apologize if i miss quoted bob 85 . i thought i recalled him telling me that in a PM . my bad .
"If we quote facts then it is a good idea to get the facts straight and just because someone on the Internet says something blue is really green, don't mean we have to pass that bad info on, because we ingore the facts."
thats true .
this is and has been my go to place for accurate information for a few years now .
"If we quote facts then it is a good idea to get the facts straight and just because someone on the Internet says something blue is really green, don't mean we have to pass that bad info on, because we ingore the facts."
thats true .
this is and has been my go to place for accurate information for a few years now .
i believe the broadbandness is due to the matching coil not the #14 wire. and think you are right and a thicker gauge wire may be more broadbanded.the radiator length however does not fall short of a 5/8 wave but at least a 5/8 wave to a .64 wave at 22 1/2 feet.if you try different calculators online you will get different answers ranging from 21.5-22.5 feet for a 5/8 at the middle of the cb band.i had a imax with a 102 inch steel whip as the top whip making my radiator length 23 feet 2 inches.also the bottom sectiondoes have 14 gauge but the top section is only around 20 gauge wire thats why i had changed my whip with a steel whip for the top.i am not sure of the gauge of the middle section.in the past 7 years or so i have owned 3 antennas antron with gpk kit,maco 5/8 up now and imax.the antron was 2s units under the imax and the imax had no ground planes and the maco seems to be about 1s unit lower on tx and rx from the imax.
This is exactly right. The broad bandwidth comes from the matching method used and in all cases will indicate a loss in efficiency.
A larger diameter radiator will increase the bandwidth of say a 2:1 range, but it will only change it very slightly unless you are talking about a 3 foot diameter ;-) 16ga to 12ga isn't going to make much of a difference in wire sizes and bandwidth ranges.
Playing around with various antennas, when I have one up that all the sudden doesn't need to be tuned as often, I go back through and check everything in the system, because I'm getting losses somewhere.
With an SDR that I use as a receiver now, it's very handy as I can actually see the Q of my antenna shown as a hump in the spectrum if the tuner is engaged. The best performing antennas I've had all had a rather pronounced and narrow peak 'hump' in the display.
They required tweaking the inductor more frequently across large band spaces, but they were more efficient too.
10 and 11m are huge band spaces. If you have a proper antenna, it will need a tuner to cover the full range end to end or it will have a matching section that basically accomplishes the compromise for you and will ultimately incur more losses than a decent quality manual tuner would.
A99 vs the IMAX...
Both relatively inexpensive
Both fiberglass
Both very easy to install
Both come from the factory with pre-adjusted SWR
Both work well
The REAL contest in these two, is the fact that the IMAX just works better than the A99. You have to pay $20 more for the IMAX.
Is it worth it.
IMO? Yes!
Do you need the ground plane kit? No.
Are the claims about the IMAX correct? Yes
If you can buy the IMAX for $30 BootyMon - Buy it!!!
One S unit is equivalent to 6db. If the IMAX is consistently getting 1 S-unit more than a Maco; then it has the 6db that they claim. If it is getting 2-S units more than the A99; then it has 12db gain. That is - comparing it to other antennas is how that info has been gathered.
S-units and db's are a bit confusing to understand, but it is on the Ham test - so it would be wise to remember that now! Are there better antennas? Sure - but you have to pay a lot more for them. Money spent vs gain? The IMAX is the clear winner. Since I put up my IMAX, two other people I talk to locally have bought them and like them also. They haven't been disappointed - for cost or performance. I doubt that you will be disappointed as well.
BootyMon - you were one of the first people to advise me to get a IMAX when I became a member here.
You weren't wrong.
It's your turn, go for it dude!!!
EDIT:
Think about this point. True, the Interceptor is a better antenna and will probably talk farther and receive better. Quieter? Hmmm...I think that is a question of the radio being used and the noise sources around you - like noisy power poles/transformers. Comparing prices between the IMAX and the Interceptor is where the story is. The Interceptor is ~$400 and the IMAX is ~$100. For the money, the IMAX gives a better bang-for-buck. Vertical omni-directional antennas don't have to be expensive to work well; they all need to be setup right. I'd like to have an Interceptor or a Predator, but for $100 the IMAX is a LOT of antenna...
Both relatively inexpensive
Both fiberglass
Both very easy to install
Both come from the factory with pre-adjusted SWR
Both work well
The REAL contest in these two, is the fact that the IMAX just works better than the A99. You have to pay $20 more for the IMAX.
Is it worth it.
IMO? Yes!
Do you need the ground plane kit? No.
Are the claims about the IMAX correct? Yes
If you can buy the IMAX for $30 BootyMon - Buy it!!!
One S unit is equivalent to 6db. If the IMAX is consistently getting 1 S-unit more than a Maco; then it has the 6db that they claim. If it is getting 2-S units more than the A99; then it has 12db gain. That is - comparing it to other antennas is how that info has been gathered.
S-units and db's are a bit confusing to understand, but it is on the Ham test - so it would be wise to remember that now! Are there better antennas? Sure - but you have to pay a lot more for them. Money spent vs gain? The IMAX is the clear winner. Since I put up my IMAX, two other people I talk to locally have bought them and like them also. They haven't been disappointed - for cost or performance. I doubt that you will be disappointed as well.
BootyMon - you were one of the first people to advise me to get a IMAX when I became a member here.
You weren't wrong.
It's your turn, go for it dude!!!
EDIT:
Think about this point. True, the Interceptor is a better antenna and will probably talk farther and receive better. Quieter? Hmmm...I think that is a question of the radio being used and the noise sources around you - like noisy power poles/transformers. Comparing prices between the IMAX and the Interceptor is where the story is. The Interceptor is ~$400 and the IMAX is ~$100. For the money, the IMAX gives a better bang-for-buck. Vertical omni-directional antennas don't have to be expensive to work well; they all need to be setup right. I'd like to have an Interceptor or a Predator, but for $100 the IMAX is a LOT of antenna...
Last edited: