Workman W-58 Help needed please!

[Needle Bender]

I took down the Imax and put up the Gainmaster and got an average of 1.5 s units increase. Jack, a local AH I helped, did the same thing and he saw squat for difference.

Boggles my tiny mind! {Cry_river} :headbang

 

[jazzsinger]

You are about as dependable as my old chainsaw, pull it one time and it fires up, sure enjoyed the replies cheap entertainment:tongue:

you got me, dependability is my middle name, but feel free to question any of the points i made, i'm sure Eddie will confirm many of them, my memory ain't as bad as it used to be, but just incase it fails me i keep hundreds of pm's and e mails to remind me

i'm glad i amuse you, i'm sure others will see that amusement too.

p.s. i'm far from cheap.

 

[jazzsinger]

Jack,

who's Jack? or are you just mentioning what an i max is really worth?

 

[Needle Bender]

who's Jack? or are you just mentioning what an i max is really worth?

"A local AH..." - just in case he reads this thread

 

[Marconi]

Jazzsinger, I didn't intend to make any disparaging remarks about any test you've done or what results you saw that gave you the opinion you hold in this regard. Different guys see different results all the time.

I simply addressed what I saw in light of your claim that a 5/8 wave ground plane would blow an Imax away. I didn't agree with your claim and I didn't get into your business...for how you did what you did to make your determination. I posted the bases for my opinion and I did ask you if you could maybe produce some similar evidence, but that's not happening I'm sure. You made a totally categorical statement, and I disagreed with what you said, simple.

For me at least, this is not personal. We both have a right to our opinions, and I have a right to disagree with your opinion, OK?

That seems fair to me.

 

[Needle Bender]

Marconi, I may have to beg to agree with Jazzsinger on this one, at least when it comes to receive.

My Imax was one of the noisiest antennas I've ever used. My metal 5/8 'blew it away' in terms of pulling out weak stations which were actually stronger on the Imax when the static wasn't in, (the Imax was installed almost 20' higher than the metal 5/8, here at the bottom of my local hill) but due to static I often had to switch to the metal 5/8 to hear someone coming in with s-2 because I couldn't hear their s-3 on the Imax because the Imax had an s-4 static level where the metal 5/8 had maybe s-1.

As far as transmit, considering the comparatively inefficient matching network of the Imax, I would also venture an inspired guess that at a level of around 1000w-1500w the metal 5/8 would radiate a higher percentage of the RF wattage than would the Imax since I bet the Imax would lose a considerable amount of that RF wattage in matching network heat, and that, coupled with a slightly higher TOA, could possibly cause a situation where the metal 5/8 might seriously beat the Imax to someone afar off where the metal 5/8 just barely gets through clearly enough to be understood, but the Imax doesn't.

Being heard clearly on the one, (though not necessarily with any notable signal strength) but not heard clearly on the other, and if the one can receive clearly when the other cannot, in my book may constitute "Blowing it away" conditions.



:blink:

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

if we don't hear them we cant talk with them , that's for sure

hey NB , what metal 5/8 did you compare to the imax ? did you ever get a chance to use the metal 5/8 at the same height as the imax was ? and if so how did it perform then ?

i've been curious lately why no one has ever made (that i know of) a 5/8 vertical using a aluminum tube for a vertical rather than the wire in a F/G tube , but still using the adjustable matching system that the imax and antron 99 use .

many folks use the F/G supported antennas and are happy with them . but going by what's written by the folks that have had the chance to use them and a traditional 5/8 with 1/4w ground elements in the same location the traditional antenna more often get's better flowers . neither of my home-brewed 5/8 did well without ground elements , the one i did with eight 1/8 wave elements did better , but the ones with 1/4 w/l ground elements did best by far for me . they were all home-made antennas , so i certainly could have made a mistake elsewhere that effected their performance .

i'm definately a believer that a elevated ground-plane at the feed-point of a elevated end-fed antenna makes for a better performing antenna .

some might say to "slope those ground elements upward to make them earn their living"

 

[jazzsinger]

Jazzsinger, I didn't intend to make any disparaging remarks about any test you've done or what results you saw that gave you the opinion you hold in this regard. Different guys see different results all the time.

I simply addressed what I saw in light of your claim that a 5/8 wave ground plane would blow an Imax away. I didn't agree with your claim and I didn't get into your business...for how you did what you did to make your determination. I posted the bases for my opinion and I did ask you if you could maybe produce some similar evidence, but that's not happening I'm sure. You made a totally categorical statement, and I disagreed with what you said, simple.

For me at least, this is not personal. We both have a right to our opinions, and I have a right to disagree with your opinion, OK?

That seems fair to me.

Hi Eddie, its deffo not personal with me mate, but when someone states your submitted evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that i talk shite, then obviously i will question them if they even know how you achieve those results, as your well aware from our many e mail conversations on such matters i'm very aware of how those results were obtained but i also realise you don't have helpful locals, your health isn't up to allowing for the fast antenna changes that accuracy on this matter requires, not even including for the multitude of things antennas being compared with different (albeit only a few feet) propagation paths or at different heights etc.

i don't doubt for a minute you see what you see, but for someone to rubbish me on your results when i doubt if they are even aware of how you came to them, i find astonishing.

Eddie,my reason for mentioning those methods is obvious, they aren't text book, but it was in no way a snidey swipe at you, i know you do the best you can with your resources and health and i have never ever doubted your integrity.I hope you see it as me being honest and not spiteful, because that was how it was intended and i realise i'm not always the best with the written word and sometimes my passion and enthusiasm overrides my common sense.

to be honest with you Eddie, i ain't one for keeping results, but with 30 years of experience and comparing things i've got a fair grasp of how this sh!t goes down in the field.

for instance i once showed my friend how much of a difference moving a car approx 2 feet can make, we were talking line of sight to northern ireland from glasgow at s5, when he moved it jumped to s8 (approx s levels, was a long time ago), obviously due to multipath fading or a distant blocking obstacle, it could easily have went the opposite way, but would still have equally proven my point, which was to understand how an antenna functions you also have to undestand what happens once the wavefront leaves the antenna and how obstacles,ground conductivity,propagation etc affect that.

you are right we both have a right to our opinions, and we both have different geography and ideas of how to compare, thats what forums are all about, hopefully i will learn from you and you from me, because if we agreed on everything we would both learn FUCK ALL.

best 73 mate.George.

 

[wavrider]

really, so your familiar with Eddies testing techniques?
yet they are fine for you to say Eddies right and I'm wrong? you didn't even bother to ask Eddie how he came to those results, I have,and i can tell you right now in my opinion his testing methods are seriously flawed especially when propagation is involved. And to quote something Eddie once told me, he has no-one local to give him honest accurate readings, because those around him can't be @rsed helping him come to more meaningful results. not all those test were done on the same mast,with the same coax in as short a timescale as possible to counteract effects of propagation or multipath signals. thats not even accounting for human error or human ego. oh and i nearly forgot, if i recall correctly most if not all Eddies tests were done whilst receiving ssb or am signals whilst being modulated, and not a constant carrier mode like the fm we use here, make your own conclusion from that.
wavrider, i'll bet you think an i10k will blow it away though, hmmm whats an i10k, oh thats right just a 5/8 gp. theres 5/8 gp's and 5/8 gp's not all are the same,you guys buy your crappy fibreglass rfi generators, i'll stick to properly designed aluminium antennas.
p.s. if you see a 1.5 s point increase on any vertical base antenna comparison (not counting crappy shortened radiators), which incidentally isn't 1.5 db but a 9db increase, it tells you your s meter is shite and not a lot about the actual antenna gain. but i'm sure you'll tell me i'm wrong on that too.when i say blow an i max away, i couldn't give a f@ck how different signal is, if you have 7 s points of sh!te in your receiver, how the f"ck can you talk to anyone at a decent signal comparison level to justify your claims? most s meters are most accurate mid scale,especially the ones on a cb or amateur radio that aren't digital, most of the digital ones suck too, a calibrated attenuator is the one of the best ways to check signal level accurately, but if you can't hear it you can't work it, no matter how good your tx signal maybe, oh and if the fcc kick your door in and liberate your radio due to interference caused by a poorly designed half an antenna you certainly won't be working anyone.

Finally found some time to reply to Jazzy, I need some more cheap entertainment anyway.

Yes I am familiar with Eddie's testing methods. Not the most scientific but through sheer determination he compares and posts the results. They are not conclusive due to everything you mentioned in your illustrious post.

I said the 5/8 WL will not blow away an IMAX on performance. I do not care who is right or who is wrong. I am discussing the statement about one 5/8 wl blowing away another antenna.

I know nothing about an I 10K, never owned one, never will.

Perhaps re-read my post, 1.5 S units is supposed to be 9DBD if the receive signal meter is calibrated which I have yet to see one that is in either CB or Amateur rigs, some come close to being but not perfect.

I am not worried about the FCC coming to my door, they have all my information and know how to get in contact with me. I am in their data base. Something about having a license if I recall.

Now JAZZY lets look at these two antennas. Needle bender pretty much hit it on the nail head.

The IMAX has a lossy matching system, a low "Q" matching network, thus it allows all sorts of garbage to come through. Probably why it has a lot of noise on the receive. This also attributes to the wide bandwidth.

The 5/8 wl has a higher "Q" section matching and thus eliminates more of the noise, thus a quieter receive. Not as wide a bandwidth as the IMAX.

The Imax is probably less efficient radiator than the 5/8 wl due also to the "Q" of the matching network.

SO I would say in my opinion that the 5/8 wl has a "SLIGHT" advantage over the IMAX, I agree the 5/8 wl is a better antenna due to more efficiency and less loss in the matching network.

Sure will not blow away the IMAX in any comparisons.

 

[wavrider]

no shit, i've worked australia on 20w with a magmount antenna, so by your reckoning does that make a magmount antenna superior?

on all of those bands in good conditions you could work the eu on a coathanger, god its been done on handheld radios with telescopic antennas and indoor antennas.

ever consider the fact the guy with the decent antenna on the other end was working you and not you him, i bet you havent, just like all those fools who pay a dollar or two for qsl's from some guy running an 8 element yagi, but hey, he told you you were s9r5 so you must be booming out,lol.

Well said, I do not QSL.

Mag mount superior to what? What reference do you use for comparison?

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

"The IMAX has a lossy matching system, a low "Q" matching network, thus it allows all sorts of garbage to come through. Probably why it has a lot of noise on the receive. This also attributes to the wide bandwidth.

The 5/8 wl has a higher "Q" section matching and thus eliminates more of the noise, thus a quieter receive. Not as wide a bandwidth as the IMAX."


i don't recall any comments about a matching network allowing more noise than another .... how does that happen ?
how lossy is the matching system in the imax compared to the one on a maco loop or a typical tapped coil 5/8 ? is it detectable by the human ear ? or just by electronic measuring devices ?

 

[Marconi]

Jazzsinger, naturally I tend to agree with Wavrider's points, I think he feels the same regarding your idea using the statement "...blow away the Imax."

I also don't consider anything I do as beyond all doubt, I'm trying to learn through conversations on this forum, and I've changed my methods for testing based on much of what I've heard here on the WWRF. I might be more curious than others about the details, so I look to evidence and what others might say in the process, you included Jazzsinger. It is easy to always agree, and just look at the pictures.

But, that said, I also agree with most everything else you said here, but it is a little unfair for you to make the determination you did as being right-on, vs. my determination as being off base...when we're both held to similar limitations in nature. When you test quickly on the same install, and see a difference or no difference, it's about the same as I do a different way. We report what we think we see.

In my case I just try to show others what I see, and in the process that exposes me to whatever I do...only when it stimulates comments. When I see something in a real life experience I try and see if modeling will support my thinking, so I started using my models to clarify my thinking for others, and sometimes, even when it doesn't work out like I expect.

We both have to experience all the limitations you noted here and I have worked my Imax by itself and compared it to other reports with it stacked side-by-side with another antenna, and there's just not that much difference, and my antennas are 36' feet apart. I know your argument makes a good point though.

I also did not consider the Imax being, on par or not with other 5/8 wave antennas in the receive department, like Booty suggested. For me it is a forgone conclusion that the Imax is generally noisier.

I don't think that is what you meant using the statement, "...blown away", but if it was then we could all agree. I was surprised you didn't take me to task on the models for the Imax model that was not isolated. I thought it only fair to post both the good results along with the bad results. I don't think any of us believes an Imax mounted directly to a support mast is really as bad as the pattern indicates. I also don't think we would find many Imax antennas physically isolated from the mast, so something in the matching area of that antenna is working to isolate the antenna from the mast, because when I isolate it in the model the pattern returns to what might be considered a normal pattern, and there I see a big difference. I would be surprised if I just isolated a real Imax, and the pattern went to heck in a hand basket like this model suggested. If it did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Did that particular model catch any body's attention, probably not? Likely few, really even looked at the model for information.

So Jazzsinger, all is good, I consider most of your remarks here appropriate

 

[wavrider]

Booty lots of info on tuned input circuits on the WWW.

Basically a low "Q" can be compared to a filter.

If you are using a 5KC filter in the radio it is going to receive 5KC wide of signal.

Now select 2.4 KC filter (typical SSB filter) and it cuts the receive width in half.

So compared to a antenna tuned input a higher Q puts the RF at the transmitted frequency into the antenna and basically attenuates the harmonics per say. This is the reason the IMAX and A99 have the reputation as splatter sticks, the low Q matching network.

You can also look at amplifier tuned input circuits, sort of the same as antenna tuned input circuits.

"The IMAX has a lossy matching system, a low "Q" matching network, thus it allows all sorts of garbage to come through. Probably why it has a lot of noise on the receive. This also attributes to the wide bandwidth.

The 5/8 wl has a higher "Q" section matching and thus eliminates more of the noise, thus a quieter receive. Not as wide a bandwidth as the IMAX."


i don't recall any comments about a matching network allowing more noise than another .... how does that happen ?
how lossy is the matching system in the imax compared to the one on a maco loop or a typical tapped coil 5/8 ? is it detectable by the human ear ? or just by electronic measuring devices ?

 

[Marconi]

"The IMAX has a lossy matching system, a low "Q" matching network, thus it allows all sorts of garbage to come through. Probably why it has a lot of noise on the receive. This also attributes to the wide bandwidth.

The 5/8 wl has a higher "Q" section matching and thus eliminates more of the noise, thus a quieter receive. Not as wide a bandwidth as the IMAX."


i don't recall any comments about a matching network allowing more noise than another .... how does that happen ?
how lossy is the matching system in the imax compared to the one on a maco loop or a typical tapped coil 5/8 ? is it detectable by the human ear ? or just by electronic measuring devices ?

BM, I think most of us are guilty of having opinions and ideas based on what we read and think we understand, and what we hear from others. We all hear the reports that the Imax/A99 matching coil is really lossy, but I ask what difference does it make in something that we can determine just working our radio. Maybe this matcher is the source of the white noise we all tend to experience using these antennas, but I can't be sure.

Other that the general ideas about low "Q" and bandwidth, I wonder how most guys figure the Imax/A99 matcher is as bad as they suggest, and furthermore how much difference does it make, so we can tell...just using our radios. There are some technical rules concerning wire diameter that might be meaningful in such a discussion, and both the Imax/A99 use thin radiator wire, but that subject or the importance of thin wire in such use typically goes with no discussion. Is that important? There are many considerations to be made regarding antennas, but most seem to be ignored.

Personally, I don't think most guys really know, they just pick a subject or a product and are persuaded how it works and how good it is, with no more thought or consideration...than how they decide which fork they want to use to eat with.

I know I don't know the answer to your question.

I've heard the same said about Jay's trombone tuner, so I modeled it and found results that might add something unexpected by me and something that I never heard described before. The horizontal pattern I see develop in this model could support his claim for superiority if it is true. But, when I posted the model it got very little attention, with hardly no comments, so I figure that most don't give a hoot about the antenna, and/or the same regarding modeling, so take your pick.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

thanks guys . funny you mention the wire in the imax ..... every time someone mentions how broad banded they are it always makes me think about how larger diameter elements are said to be more broad-banded than smaller diameter ones , but i think i read somewhere that the matching system in the imax is the cause of that broad banded ability , the same one that's lossy and causes noise and the same one that allows it to work well for some folks without typical ground elements . and i'm back at all antennas are compromises , some more obvious than others .