this thread is the a99 versus imax2000 and your trying to sell a i-10k,you must be an idiot
-
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
this thread is the a99 versus imax2000 and your trying to sell a i-10k,you must be an idiot
why does it seem like 90 percent of the threads end up pluging the i-10k?how about a imax 2000 with 102 inch whip on top and grounplanes at 30 degrees!if i wanted to spend 400 dollars on an antenna i would by a beam!
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
so what is the best way to install a 2000 ?
im in central va and the ground here is dark and moist and great for gardening . the terain around me rises and falls gently but no big hills or low spots for a mile or two and then its mostly creek bottoms , im on a higher than average area . there some 60 to 100ish feet tall trees around the yards perimeter . antenna will be mounted at the end of a rancher with a bracket at the peak of the roof about 14 to 15 feet high . id like to get the feedpoint up to 30 feet but i CANT guy so im probally gonna be limited to about 23-25 feet . i am going to be adding ground radials to it . i currently use four 12 gauge wires sloped on my 1/4wgp . i was thinking of upgrading them to four 108 inch sections of cable TV coax (i have a lot of it for some reason) using just the shield thinking the larger diameter may have a positive effect . any thought on if it may help anything or if its just a waste of time ? i do plan to use a coax choke for CMCs , i may have enough coax to do one at both the feedpoint and 9 feet below the feedpoint , i will if i do . if i dont ill just do the one 9 feet below .
my main question is should this antenna be isolated/insulated from metal mast and ground ?
i think a lot of the bleeding/splatter comments about the 99s/2000s are because the antenna doesnt have ground radials and will try to use the coax and mast in place of them . an antenna has to have something to work against and will use what it can find . and also because it seems many folks use overdriven class c amps and overmodulated radios on them , which certianly add to the problem . im thinking the combo of ground radials , isolating/insulating the antenna from the metal mast and the coax choke to keep the signal up in the air is the way to go . but my thinking gets me in trouble sometimes , LOL , so im checking with you folks to see if im on the right path or not .
thanks
im in central va and the ground here is dark and moist and great for gardening . the terain around me rises and falls gently but no big hills or low spots for a mile or two and then its mostly creek bottoms , im on a higher than average area . there some 60 to 100ish feet tall trees around the yards perimeter . antenna will be mounted at the end of a rancher with a bracket at the peak of the roof about 14 to 15 feet high . id like to get the feedpoint up to 30 feet but i CANT guy so im probally gonna be limited to about 23-25 feet . i am going to be adding ground radials to it . i currently use four 12 gauge wires sloped on my 1/4wgp . i was thinking of upgrading them to four 108 inch sections of cable TV coax (i have a lot of it for some reason) using just the shield thinking the larger diameter may have a positive effect . any thought on if it may help anything or if its just a waste of time ? i do plan to use a coax choke for CMCs , i may have enough coax to do one at both the feedpoint and 9 feet below the feedpoint , i will if i do . if i dont ill just do the one 9 feet below .
my main question is should this antenna be isolated/insulated from metal mast and ground ?
i think a lot of the bleeding/splatter comments about the 99s/2000s are because the antenna doesnt have ground radials and will try to use the coax and mast in place of them . an antenna has to have something to work against and will use what it can find . and also because it seems many folks use overdriven class c amps and overmodulated radios on them , which certianly add to the problem . im thinking the combo of ground radials , isolating/insulating the antenna from the metal mast and the coax choke to keep the signal up in the air is the way to go . but my thinking gets me in trouble sometimes , LOL , so im checking with you folks to see if im on the right path or not .
thanks
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
i couldnt sleep and was using the search function here with "imax" and i think i found my answers in these two threads .....
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/21937-imax-2000-ground-plain.html
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/32337-modified-silver-rod-spiderplane.html
id still appreciate any comments folks may have though .
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/21937-imax-2000-ground-plain.html
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/32337-modified-silver-rod-spiderplane.html
id still appreciate any comments folks may have though .
Booty M.,
"my main question is should this antenna be isolated/insulated from metal mast and ground ?
i think a lot of the bleeding/splatter comments about the 99s/2000s are because the antenna doesnt have ground radials and will try to use the coax and mast in place of them . an antenna has to have something to work against and will use what it can find..."
If you will change that "lot" in the second sentence to "some", I'll agree with your thinking. There are several reasons why a neighbor may have interference and not all of them are the fault of the antenna system. One of those 'fault' that can cause interference that people don't seem to 'remember' is plain old ordinary proximity, RF overload to the interfered with device. That isn't the 'biggy', or the most baddest thing, but it is certainly one of the causes of all that interference.
A couple misconception about groundplane antennas is that there's no radiation from those radials, and there's no RF under/below those radials. They do, and there is. Another possible misconception about interference is that there's only -ONE- cause of it for any general set of circumstances. It's a very safe bet that there are always more than just one 'problem' area/device/whatever. Some times, the 'cure' may be placed in such a spot that it affects what seems to be only one thing, but in fact, can be 'curing' more than one problem area/device/whatever. That's the cause of some misunderstandings about the whole thing. So how do you know if it was just one thing and not several, or just a couple, or what? By doing a lot more digging/work. Ain't that a fun thought?
- 'Doc
"my main question is should this antenna be isolated/insulated from metal mast and ground ?
i think a lot of the bleeding/splatter comments about the 99s/2000s are because the antenna doesnt have ground radials and will try to use the coax and mast in place of them . an antenna has to have something to work against and will use what it can find..."
If you will change that "lot" in the second sentence to "some", I'll agree with your thinking. There are several reasons why a neighbor may have interference and not all of them are the fault of the antenna system. One of those 'fault' that can cause interference that people don't seem to 'remember' is plain old ordinary proximity, RF overload to the interfered with device. That isn't the 'biggy', or the most baddest thing, but it is certainly one of the causes of all that interference.
A couple misconception about groundplane antennas is that there's no radiation from those radials, and there's no RF under/below those radials. They do, and there is. Another possible misconception about interference is that there's only -ONE- cause of it for any general set of circumstances. It's a very safe bet that there are always more than just one 'problem' area/device/whatever. Some times, the 'cure' may be placed in such a spot that it affects what seems to be only one thing, but in fact, can be 'curing' more than one problem area/device/whatever. That's the cause of some misunderstandings about the whole thing. So how do you know if it was just one thing and not several, or just a couple, or what? By doing a lot more digging/work. Ain't that a fun thought?
- 'Doc
I mounted my IMAX on a flat, 8 ft garage roof. I have four dacron guy wires/90 degrees apart set close to the feedpoint. The antenna is NOT isolated from the 20 ft mast. I don't have any complaints from neighbors. It doesn't have ground planes - either. I have another 10 ft mast section that I am about to add. I use the Belden 9913Flex, it's a 50 ft piece. Some say that it is too much quality in that coax for 11 meters; but I believe every extra watt and efficiency %'s that I can get out of my antenna system is well worth it...
But the lower height (less than the desirable 36 ft) gives me a lower skip angle, so skip has been pretty decent for a barefoot radio (barefoot radio-lol; an OmegaForce will modulate up to 70 watts PEP - this one does w/3-ERF2030's final MOSFETs). But I am going to put it up another 10 ft and add more guy wires. I'm about ~20 ft away from power wires; so I get a bit of noise from them. I have a large ferrite bobbin that is just below the feedpoint of the coax to the antenna. That is pretty much it. For what I have spent and the time that I have put into monkeying with this antenna setup, I have no complaints. Quite the opposite is true, it is a real performer. I used to have an aluminum 5/8 wave Radio Shack/Archer antenna in the same spot many years ago - and it performed pretty well - but not as well as this IMAX has. I'm pleased with it...
But the lower height (less than the desirable 36 ft) gives me a lower skip angle, so skip has been pretty decent for a barefoot radio (barefoot radio-lol; an OmegaForce will modulate up to 70 watts PEP - this one does w/3-ERF2030's final MOSFETs). But I am going to put it up another 10 ft and add more guy wires. I'm about ~20 ft away from power wires; so I get a bit of noise from them. I have a large ferrite bobbin that is just below the feedpoint of the coax to the antenna. That is pretty much it. For what I have spent and the time that I have put into monkeying with this antenna setup, I have no complaints. Quite the opposite is true, it is a real performer. I used to have an aluminum 5/8 wave Radio Shack/Archer antenna in the same spot many years ago - and it performed pretty well - but not as well as this IMAX has. I'm pleased with it...
Last edited:
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
"But the lower height (less than the desirable 36 ft) gives me a lower skip angle........."
"Rob i though i recalled you posting something along those lines and i wanted to ask about it later but couldnt find it again , thanks for bringing it back up . im not saying youre wrong or dismissing your info because I DONT KNOW MYSELF. so im asking here not accusing . acording to part of this article it says ....
The Ultimate Guide to 11 Meter CB Antennas
"Quite simply, the higher then antenna is, the lower the angle of radiation."
but you seem to have a opposite effect . is there something unique to your install that might cause that to happen ? just curious .
i just use 50 ft of 8x i got from sparkys . it does have a nice full braid compleetly covering the stuff that seperates it from the center conductor . som coax shield looks like a chain link fence and you can clearly see the insulating stuff through it when the outer covering is removed . all coax is not created equal even if it is the same size and it can varx greatly in quality .
thanks
"Rob i though i recalled you posting something along those lines and i wanted to ask about it later but couldnt find it again , thanks for bringing it back up . im not saying youre wrong or dismissing your info because I DONT KNOW MYSELF. so im asking here not accusing . acording to part of this article it says ....
The Ultimate Guide to 11 Meter CB Antennas
"Quite simply, the higher then antenna is, the lower the angle of radiation."
but you seem to have a opposite effect . is there something unique to your install that might cause that to happen ? just curious .
i just use 50 ft of 8x i got from sparkys . it does have a nice full braid compleetly covering the stuff that seperates it from the center conductor . som coax shield looks like a chain link fence and you can clearly see the insulating stuff through it when the outer covering is removed . all coax is not created equal even if it is the same size and it can varx greatly in quality .
thanks
Nice tip BootyMon.
36 feet to the feedpoint is considered the minmum preferred height for 11 meters - equivalent to 1 full wavelength. 33 ft for 10 meters, and so on. So you see, my antenna needs to go up 10 more feet. Sure it will work with less - it has quite well so far. But it should be put at the proper height for maximizing the antenna system - to get the most out of it. Could I put it up higher? Sure, but then it would cost more and possibly make it unstable. Or cost a lot more to make it very stable. So, there is a trade-off. That is what I am going to do - and why I am going to do it that way.
I have read and believed that putting an antenna higher was better for talking locally; and lower if DX is your thang. There is some info that is confusing me here, so thank you for that tip. However, when looking for a Ham antenna, the info was saying that the closer the antenna was mounted to the ground; the better it would be for skip propagation. They also used the term 'lower angle'. So between the article that you pointed out and what I've have read previously, I must say that I am a bit confused over this point too.
I consider you a friend, BootyMon. I may be a Ham; but that doesn't mean that I know everything about radio. Because that just isn't so - I do not. If I knew everything about radio; maybe it wouldn't be as fun anymore. So then I would have to make fun of people who knew less.
But I wouldn't do that.
That isn't me - and that is a fact...
Do I get down on some qrz mentalities?
Well...That is another can of worms...
36 feet to the feedpoint is considered the minmum preferred height for 11 meters - equivalent to 1 full wavelength. 33 ft for 10 meters, and so on. So you see, my antenna needs to go up 10 more feet. Sure it will work with less - it has quite well so far. But it should be put at the proper height for maximizing the antenna system - to get the most out of it. Could I put it up higher? Sure, but then it would cost more and possibly make it unstable. Or cost a lot more to make it very stable. So, there is a trade-off. That is what I am going to do - and why I am going to do it that way.
I have read and believed that putting an antenna higher was better for talking locally; and lower if DX is your thang. There is some info that is confusing me here, so thank you for that tip. However, when looking for a Ham antenna, the info was saying that the closer the antenna was mounted to the ground; the better it would be for skip propagation. They also used the term 'lower angle'. So between the article that you pointed out and what I've have read previously, I must say that I am a bit confused over this point too.
I consider you a friend, BootyMon. I may be a Ham; but that doesn't mean that I know everything about radio. Because that just isn't so - I do not. If I knew everything about radio; maybe it wouldn't be as fun anymore. So then I would have to make fun of people who knew less.
But I wouldn't do that.
That isn't me - and that is a fact...
Do I get down on some qrz mentalities?
Well...That is another can of worms...
Last edited:
Antenna height.
Lots of variations in that. In general, antgenna height is in the form of multiples or partials of wave lengths of the frequency of interest. It isn't necessarily expressed in feet, yards, meters, etc.
There is no -ONE- 'best' antenna height. That 'best' is determined by, available area, possibilities, probabilities, practicalities, and cost. In other words, it depends on the circumstances, and what you can do. The lowest usable antenna height is about 1 inch above ground level. The next higher 'step' is high enough so that you don't clothes-line yourself on it. After that, it's whatever you can get considering any limitations you happen to have. 'Best' height isn't ever going to be the same in every circumstance. That 'best' height is also determined by everything around where that antenna is going to be. Sometimes lower is better than higher. Safest 'average' guess is... higher. Every antenna I've ever put up worked to some extent no matter what it's height was. Most of the time they tended to work 'better' if I could get them higher. There was seldom (if ever) a huge difference unless the height difference was huge too. When expectations exceed practical limits, it isn't the practical limit's fault, it the expectations being unreasonable for the circumstances. The only two methods of dealing with that are to extend those 'limits', or live with the results.
And something to think about is, why is any particular height is thought to be better than another height? It's a fairly simple answer, doesn't really have anything to do with propagation. Has a lot to do with how you have to feed that antenna to make it work the best without a lot of changing all the time. Think about it...
- 'Doc
Lots of variations in that. In general, antgenna height is in the form of multiples or partials of wave lengths of the frequency of interest. It isn't necessarily expressed in feet, yards, meters, etc.
There is no -ONE- 'best' antenna height. That 'best' is determined by, available area, possibilities, probabilities, practicalities, and cost. In other words, it depends on the circumstances, and what you can do. The lowest usable antenna height is about 1 inch above ground level. The next higher 'step' is high enough so that you don't clothes-line yourself on it. After that, it's whatever you can get considering any limitations you happen to have. 'Best' height isn't ever going to be the same in every circumstance. That 'best' height is also determined by everything around where that antenna is going to be. Sometimes lower is better than higher. Safest 'average' guess is... higher. Every antenna I've ever put up worked to some extent no matter what it's height was. Most of the time they tended to work 'better' if I could get them higher. There was seldom (if ever) a huge difference unless the height difference was huge too. When expectations exceed practical limits, it isn't the practical limit's fault, it the expectations being unreasonable for the circumstances. The only two methods of dealing with that are to extend those 'limits', or live with the results.
And something to think about is, why is any particular height is thought to be better than another height? It's a fairly simple answer, doesn't really have anything to do with propagation. Has a lot to do with how you have to feed that antenna to make it work the best without a lot of changing all the time. Think about it...
- 'Doc
You had to go back five years to complain about spelling? Bet you could find a lot of it without having to go that far back...
- 'Doc
- 'Doc
Learn to spell It's VERSUS not Verses which is what the words of a poem are called!
You need to learn punctuation.
I've done a few side by side tests with the a99 and the imax. Mounted at the same base height of 24 ft the imax performed about 1 s point better. However if the a99 was raised so the antenna was at the same tip height as the imax I couldn't see any difference. The a99 was more prone to CMC than the imax. I ended up fitting wire ground planes ,ugly choke and insulating from the mast on both . The imax does indeed work on 15 meters with an swr of 1.7 without a tuner,( I don't understand why, it is a 1/2 wave at this frequency and the swr should be off the scale)after fitting 10 meter 1/4 wave radials the swr went up to just under a 2.At this point I sold the a99 and the imax became my reference ant untill it was replaced by the Gain master. The sun eats the glass on the solarcon antennas in pretty quick time here. I paint or tape all my fiberglass before installation.
Learn to spell It's VERSUS not Verses which is what the words of a poem are called!
Bill, really? Why? I though anyone who owns a Harley would be cooler than that.
i have to agree with this . i did side by side tests many years ago w/ 30 ft telescopic mast
and if i made both antenna tips the same lenth there was no noticed difference.
after i put on a gkp on the a99 using 102 whips ive noticed slightly quieter recieve
and 1 local reported about a needlewith more signal. so if ya want better performance
id say raise up antenna more, maybe add gpk use 102 whip though. if my memory
is correct the imax was more broaded if thats what ya want. imho the differences
didnt justify the cost