-
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!
Workman W-58 Help needed please!
- Thread starter d1g1man
- Start date
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 .
Yep, and if you study the rules about K-factor, Q, and end effect, maybe you'll get a sense of why the Imax likely shows more bandwidth vs. what we typically hear about expanding the bandwidth using thicker elements.
The Imax probably uses wire for a completely different reason than bandwidth as we generally think about thicker elements on these antennas we talk about, and I wish I could describe that for you. My point was, we never hear much about the effects of wire diameter, and I think its use is profound in certain design ideas.
Glad you appreciate my humour efforts.
My humble thanks for your acceptance of my illustriousness (is that a fucking word?)
really depends on how you interpret blown away, i interpret it as a 5/8 having a better radiation angle for dx (i personally think a99/i max's are cloud warmers, my reasoning being i always hear people boast of how they work what i consider short skip or qrm on them but rarely hear boasts of consistent real dx, i wonder why?), being less prone to causing rfi, and having less noise not just due to the matching network q but also to the fact that more often than not on imax/a99 type antennas the outer skin of the coax shield is hot with common mode current,therefore above ground potential which makes it an excellent long wire for rx'ing shit you don't want to rx. but like i said its open to interpretation.
I appreciate that, seriously overpriced and unbelievably overrated, not to mention my doubts the maker has much of a clue about rf theory, although i really admire his metalworking/cloning abilities. i have that impression from the many threads and some statements he has made in the past.
my mention of that wasn't for you, but for those who confuse db and s units, but it isn't dbd, the second d is a reference to a dipole,so its not relevant when talking about s meters,a 1.5 s units increase would be referenced against the level the signal was/s reading it had before the increase. a db means nothing unless referenced against a start point.
i wouldn't know about licences,licenses conflict with my religious beliefs,lol,the trouble with rfi is you can never be certain you ain't causing it till you get a visit, trust me i found out the hard way 29 years ago.
not exactly a glowing testament to convince me to invest, that word garbage doesn't appeal to me, but i can see how it relates to the i max design
how much bandwidth do you need on an average 120 or 240 ch radio? don't even go for the multiband attributes of the i max, thats a joke, because you can get a 1.0:1 swr on a tuner don't make it an efficient radiator, a dummy load is testament to that.
PROBABLY ?
you seem to be struggling with the concept an antenna works on tx AND rx, although as you use an i max i can understand that, not much point in considering the fact a 5/8 wave will easily blow it away on any signal less than s7 or wherever the noise level is on your i max happens to be, f@ck you might as well dx with the wife and kids in the background talkin g shit, qrm is qrm and has the same result, no low level rx, some of my best contacts came when signal levels were almost zero, you wouldn't even know they were there.
my reference was you saying the i max worked the EU on 10,11,12 and 15m, so as my magmounted antenna did australia which i believe from here is further than the EU is from you, the magmount must be superior, the point i was making was your statement was a measurement of propagation on those days, not the i max performance or lack of it. like i said on a good day a coathanger would work what you quoted, as would a farmers wire fence if loaded up with rf.
how well does it perform in poor propagation? thats the fact no-one ever talks about.
LMAO Jazzy.
I agree with all you posted except the comment of antenna not being reciprocating. If it hears better it must transmit better?? Tell that to a beverage antenna.
The IMAX presents a use able VSWR but is not resonant on 10,11,12, and 15 meters no tuner required. How efficient is it? Well the contacts show it does radiate but as Jazzy pointed out it is propagation doing the work.
Jazzy the IMAX is not the antenna of choice, the MOSLEY PRO67B is what I prefer to use , but it is nice to be able to switch the the IMAX and receive in a circle.
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1376
Jazzy the above link contains eight pages of reviews of the IMAX 2000, you can reply to all the posts until your heart is content.
Once again thanks for the laughs and cheap entertainment. If I ever get back across the pond again I will buy you a pint.
Exactly a measurement of propagation, which contradicts one of your posts stating the IMAX is a cloud warmer. Four to five thousand mile contact is not a cloud warmer at any frequency.
Perhaps Australia had the eight element quad and he was working you when you made the contact with your mag mount antenna:laugh:
Jazzsinger, here is a link to an old thread where I was testing my new Gain Master that I had just received in November 2010. You'll see again that my reports using SSB are more conservative as to results, but I saw about the same as Penn and Oggy saw in the video that Penn made.
You don't think much about the A99, so I ask you...do you also think we can setup our A99's in some special high performance way, hooked up on a switch box, and make it perform this close to a Gain Master, another reported very effective working 5/8 wave antenna?
Plus, these guys, your neighbors, are testing using FM, and like you guys claim is the only way to test and be accurate. I can't argue that comparing signals in FM mode is more revealing than my using SSB, but my results tend to show about the same as Penn in spite of the concerns you and others have raised...about my failure with results when testing using SSB.
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/76970-new-antenna-sirio-gain-master-40.html#post248519
This doesn't prove that what you see is wrong, it just shows how different locations can differ in results, and I try to show how I get my results, and in this case we have to consider that someone was able to duplicate what I see separated by thousands of miles.
You don't think much about the A99, so I ask you...do you also think we can setup our A99's in some special high performance way, hooked up on a switch box, and make it perform this close to a Gain Master, another reported very effective working 5/8 wave antenna?
Plus, these guys, your neighbors, are testing using FM, and like you guys claim is the only way to test and be accurate. I can't argue that comparing signals in FM mode is more revealing than my using SSB, but my results tend to show about the same as Penn in spite of the concerns you and others have raised...about my failure with results when testing using SSB.
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-antennas/76970-new-antenna-sirio-gain-master-40.html#post248519
This doesn't prove that what you see is wrong, it just shows how different locations can differ in results, and I try to show how I get my results, and in this case we have to consider that someone was able to duplicate what I see separated by thousands of miles.
eddie,
i see a problem with your nice looking isolated imax model, kirchhoff says no, you can't isolate it like that, if you isolate the mast it must use the coax instead,
adding radials and isolation seems to work in our tests, isolating the mast and winding a coax choke without radials seems not to work in our tests.
i see a problem with your nice looking isolated imax model, kirchhoff says no, you can't isolate it like that, if you isolate the mast it must use the coax instead,
adding radials and isolation seems to work in our tests, isolating the mast and winding a coax choke without radials seems not to work in our tests.
this was the only high performance way i ever found for mounting an A99
although it must be said the ground plane is so much better than the antenna you insert into it
this was the only high performance way i ever found for mounting an A99
although it must be said the ground plane is so much better than the antenna you insert into it
Jazz, I realize this is your opinion for the A99, and I grant you that may also have been your experience, you've made it abundantly clear over time. Everything made by hands of man can at times be made badly, and operate as such. We've all heard other testimonies on A99/Imax failures too, but probably not near as many as the success stories we've also heard and experienced on the air.
Jazz, there are just too many A99's, all over the world working successfully for owners for your categorical words about how bad it is...to hold much real value. The A99 is not nearly as bad as you make out...not-with-standing manufactures errors. So, I guess you're right when you suggested to us that you often tend to overstate your positions a little. But, that's alright with me, I think most understand that by now.
I've seen other's show us on video where they switched their antennas on several of their buddies signals, and sometimes we see notable differences. When I see that I believe what I see.
Jazzsinger, what would you think about such results, if you and I were able to see the same video showing 1.5 sunits difference between an A99 vs. Vector...on switching at the video end of the demonstration?
Would you then believe the video results you just saw?
Personally, I've seen such differences work both ways, show little to no difference, and some switch and show a notable difference. If you guys saw my reports and videos show big signal differences between certain antennas...would you then believe my results were correct?
Jazzy George is just smoking a spliff and yanking many a leg here. Well; a little bit maybe. Not going to dispute either way that these antennas are crap or not. They do work and people do buy them. Are there better antennas than these? Of course. People will often buy what they can afford FIRST before they see any need for a better antenna. I did. Sometimes because of the way they set them up and where they live they have found they work well enough not to need anything better. Sometimes even the best antenna cannot work because of these same factors.
Because these fiberglass antennas have a lossy inductor coil - that is not to say they are entirely a waste of time. They may well have more noise due to being more broad-banded; but they can and do work 10, 11, 12, 15, and 17m (worked both Ireland and Japan on 17m with an Imax). Never had a noise problem with mine; not really. A monoband aluminum antenna with ~2mHz of bandwidth may be better overall and less noisy. But if you bought an A99 or an Imax because you want to use it for these other bands; then it is the right antenna and then the aluminum antenna loses. Point of view; perspective.
It is like saying that just because a caveman smoked a fat spliff that he found the need to make fast food a reality . . .
Because these fiberglass antennas have a lossy inductor coil - that is not to say they are entirely a waste of time. They may well have more noise due to being more broad-banded; but they can and do work 10, 11, 12, 15, and 17m (worked both Ireland and Japan on 17m with an Imax). Never had a noise problem with mine; not really. A monoband aluminum antenna with ~2mHz of bandwidth may be better overall and less noisy. But if you bought an A99 or an Imax because you want to use it for these other bands; then it is the right antenna and then the aluminum antenna loses. Point of view; perspective.
It is like saying that just because a caveman smoked a fat spliff that he found the need to make fast food a reality . . .
Last edited:
Working successfully is another thing wide open to interpretation , my interpretation is being consistantly able to work long distance f layer prop when its around, if your interpretation is working short hop/sporadic e or the guy along the street not to mention half the tv's in the street, then i guess it could be classed as successful, bottom line is if i buy an antenna, i expect to find it all in the box, not half of it. just because a lot of people swear by them don't mean its good, just that antron/solarcon marketing swallowed in the gullible in huge numbers, you know like all those people who used to think our planet was flat.
i consider the whole of the european union as local work, not dx, or to be more technical, one hell of a lot of qrm.
you want to know what i really think, then here goes:
you talk of what i say of having no real value, then straight after, go into paragraphs about guys "switching antennas". your totally missing the point Eddie, if the antennas are switched through a switch which may not even have equal port losses, not to mention the fact you are now dealing with two antennas, on different masts, probably at different heights spaced apart, no doubt using different types and lengths of coax and seeing completely different propagation path/s, if ever there was a case of no real value, you just covered it mate.
would i believe the results i saw?
totally irrelevant, as the playing field is not level, unless you use the antennas on same mast, with same coax/accessories within a very short timescale to minimise the effect of changing propagation conditions and a constant carrier mode with a highly accurate step attenuator, then i won't even waste my time watching the video or reading the results because they are totally meaningless due to far too many variables being allowed, not to mention i would insist it was repeated several times before i even began to believe it, i'm a very hard person to convince and an even harder person to bullshit.
if you tried to convince the science world of any new theory under the conditions/variables you accept yourself and accept in all of the videos, you would be laughed at, i'm sorry Eddie, i know its not what you wanted to hear, but it is my HONEST opinion.
as for s units and s meter readings, 99.999% of them should be beside Alice in wonderland, s units on a cb could vary between about .0001 db and about 20db there is that much inaccuracy in those meters, they are not serious test equipment. i'd rather trust my hearing than an s meter, far more accurate as i'm sure bob 85 will testify too, as its something we have both talked about many times, but it still isn't accurate, only top notch test gear is, that reads in real db's not fantasy ones, i'm certain bob has told you this even more times than i have.
i do understand its the only way you can do it due to health and local numpties, and i'm not knocking that, but you must see where i'm coming from, i need more accuracy and minimal variables including repeat results to be convinced, one video convinces me of nothing.
one thing we'll always agree on though is the attributes of the humble underrated starduster.
Bob, I don't think I could have explained your issue in a suitable way, but I did try to draw attention to the issue without getting into kirchoff's rules. Kirchoff, wasn't even on my mind, so you're probably right.
I agree that the kirckoff rules apply, but I can't implement the coax feed line with confidence, so I use isolation as a method of removing much of the current effects from the pattern as I can and let the pattern stand as though it was perfect as a result. We've talked many times about doing the isolation bit, and the need to add a choke for the feed line. And if we didn't, such and incomplete setup and the feed line would seem to simply replace the isolated mast idea, and the whole mess would act the same...as if we didn't isolate the mast at all, and the currents would flow right on down the mast radiating as they go. This leaves us with the idea that we have to consider radials. Another topic.
I was just trying to show in a simple way the effects of removing the current path for the mast on these models, as if the models were correct and following the Mr. K's rules maybe. And, without trying to do something that was way over my head, and maybe most others on this forum.
We can easily see that this .625 antenna needs radials, or else connecting the mast directly to the antenna will send the pattern almost straight up and we could only talk to the birds. So I asked the question, on-the-other-hand does the Imax without radials, one that is connected directly to the mast, and not isolated, really performs as badly as the pattern suggest, 1.02dbi @ 8* degrees, vs. 3.83dbi @ 8* degrees compared to the antenna that is isolated? According to the model, would doing this likely produce a difference that many could possibly detect when on air? I think it would.
I think Imax/A99 users will tell us this is not my experience for the way these two work, in other words they just don't work that bad. I just didn't want to get all into some technical details, and not be able to explain.
So, my conclusion would be that maybe the Imax/A99 matching coil device does something special, for the most part, that tries to balance the feed point enough to decouple the antenna from the support, and thus it works without radials. Shockwave suggested the same thing I think.
I'll bet if you took the radials off of your I-10K you would see a big bad difference. I'm not that well schooled on the subject of end fed radiators, but I have read the work of AA5TB, and that is the bases of this idea for how I think the Imax/A99 might work.
Right now I can't even remember what provoked me to do this little modeling project for this discussion. That was back on page #6, and a lot of words have been posted since. However, you're right about that model not being perfect or even near perfect. I first made the antenna without isolation, and the pattern looked terrible, so I made another with isolation and I included both for the guys to consider. I didn't even suggest that these models didn't have feed lines, and that would have to be considered. And if feed lines were included then a choke of some kind would likely also be needed.
I guess the main thing this project might suggest to us is that if the Imax/A99 matching device does take care of the problems that no radials cause in your I-10K, then maybe it might help explain a little for why we see similar results with the Imax type models here, with and without radials. This is not withstanding the model without radials that is not isolated, and having no matching device to help isolate the antenna like a real Imax might have.
Who would have though that to possibly be the case, and do we hear stories suggesting the same,
Last edited:
Working successfully is another thing wide open to interpretation , my interpretation is being consistantly able to work long distance f layer prop when its around, if your interpretation is working short hop/sporadic e or the guy along the street not to mention half the tv's in the street, then i guess it could be classed as successful, bottom line is if i buy an antenna, i expect to find it all in the box, not half of it. just because a lot of people swear by them don't mean its good, just that antron/solarcon marketing swallowed in the gullible in huge numbers, you know like all those people who used to think our planet was flat.
i consider the whole of the european union as local work, not dx, or to be more technical, one hell of a lot of qrm.
you want to know what i really think, then here goes:
you talk of what i say of having no real value, then straight after, go into paragraphs about guys "switching antennas". your totally missing the point Eddie, if the antennas are switched through a switch which may not even have equal port losses, not to mention the fact you are now dealing with two antennas, on different masts, probably at different heights spaced apart, no doubt using different types and lengths of coax and seeing completely different propagation path/s, if ever there was a case of no real value, you just covered it mate.
would i believe the results i saw?
totally irrelevant, as the playing field is not level, unless you use the antennas on same mast, with same coax/accessories within a very short timescale to minimise the effect of changing propagation conditions and a constant carrier mode with a highly accurate step attenuator, then i won't even waste my time watching the video or reading the results because they are totally meaningless due to far too many variables being allowed, not to mention i would insist it was repeated several times before i even began to believe it, i'm a very hard person to convince and an even harder person to bullshit.
if you tried to convince the science world of any new theory under the conditions/variables you accept yourself and accept in all of the videos, you would be laughed at, i'm sorry Eddie, i know its not what you wanted to hear, but it is my HONEST opinion.
as for s units and s meter readings, 99.999% of them should be beside Alice in wonderland, s units on a cb could vary between about .0001 db and about 20db there is that much inaccuracy in those meters, they are not serious test equipment. i'd rather trust my hearing than an s meter, far more accurate as i'm sure bob 85 will testify too, as its something we have both talked about many times, but it still isn't accurate, only top notch test gear is, that reads in real db's not fantasy ones, i'm certain bob has told you this even more times than i have.
i do understand its the only way you can do it due to health and local numpties, and i'm not knocking that, but you must see where i'm coming from, i need more accuracy and minimal variables including repeat results to be convinced, one video convinces me of nothing.
one thing we'll always agree on though is the attributes of the humble underrated starduster.
JS, you're right, but I didn't have a clue that your interest in two way radio was that syphiscated as to use. No wonder you don't have a high opinion for a simple A99, a CB antenna. I also didn't realize the European Union was so small as to be local work on the radio to England. My local work goes out at best about 100-200 miles, and I thought you guys experienced about the same, so are you telling us the EU is that small, I didn't know that.
The only real thing I felt was lacking real value was you claim talking about "...blowing the Imax/A99 away," and you know I didn't mean that in a mean personal way.
I think your right about the testing. I never said my testing was the only way, it was just my way and I tried to show what and how I did it. We know nothing about what you've done except what your words tell us. I've also looked high and low for years now trying to find some real depictions of real testing, and that has never happened that I could understand. Jazz, you talk a good scenario, but it would be nice to see that in action. Maybe that would really be convincing, not like the less than professional stuff I'm able to show.
BTW, have you any links showing or discussing such testing as you're talking about that are testing some of these antenna we talk about.
Concerning modeling, I told Bob a while back that all the stuff on Cebik's website including stuff I've even bought from him discussing his ideas for modeling, all the models shown that were in any detail good enough to try and duplicate, and there are not many, show Cebik using the simplest sort of examples similar to what I produce. There is nothing special, concerning matching designs and application of same to the models, and most of his models seem to be done in free space as he uses them to describe his words in the text. I'm not even sure that matching is an appropriate effort in free space models. Some supposed experts have even suggested to me that matching is consider a loss issue and therefore should be removed for the free space model just like an attached mast...unless you have specific reason for the mast to be a part of the antenna.
BTW, I find the models produced for talking points by W8JI and some other notables are all really brief and simple too, without hardly any real detail necessary to duplicate. Just to be clear, I don't think any of these guys have any responsiblity to make their models any more detailed than they already are for most of the topics work they do for their Websites, but I was expecting a little bit more modeling detail from the stuff on how to model I bought from Cebik. The stuff I bought for about $100 dollars was nothing more that topic stuff we can all see on his Website and I was amazed.
So modeling is in the same category as the professional type testing you talk about here, and it would be nice if you or someone had some links along those lines as well, and in particular models for these CB antennas we talk about.
I sure would like to be able to do my stuff in a more professional manner, but I don't think that will happen to me like it, no doubt has happened with you. Last year, at the insistence of guys on this forum, I did numerous test using several antennas I had on the same mast using the same system. I noted very little differences. I wish it had been otherwise, so I could be more convincing, but that too was not to be. I posted most of this stuff, but that didn't seem to make any difference to you guys either.
Jazzsinger, I might even consider to pay you for some really good procedural information and videos on testing my antennas. Just post the links here, and I'll pay you on Tuesday.
Last edited:
Bob, I forgot to ask you how your radials were configured in the test you noted above. The radials on the ..625 model I posted are not typical for the Imax, and I'm not even sure you're talking about and Imax/A99. I personally think the .625 wave Imax does a good job of decoupling the antenna from the feed line at this particular height of 40' feet in this model, but you can see by the red line of the two mast, that isolating does a little bit better when it has a horizontal radial setup. That could be different with slanted down radials and the angle of slant might make some notable difference.
If you're talking about an Imax/A99 with slanted down radials then let me know, and I'll fix the models, and see what Eznec suggest.
