| Author |
Message |
    
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 290
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 11, 2013 - 6:56 am: | 
|
I had a person that replace the top section of the I-MAX 2000 with a whip antenna. He said it is the same length as the top section he had replace. He had said it did not change his SWR and that it had help his receive and transmit a little. Can any person tell me if they have done this and what difference if any had you seen? Also any Tech's can you add some information on this subject? |
Starface
Senior Member
Username: Starface
Post Number: 3261
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 14, 2013 - 4:57 pm: |
|
I have to be educated on this one.
How does changing a top section of an antenna with one of the same length make TX and RX any better?
Await to be educated.
George
KI4NBE
|
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 291
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 14, 2013 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Hello Starface, Been a while since we have spoken. Well, the guy that I had spoke with had said that the whip antenna is bigger round than the the copper house wire that is in it. So, he think's that it has more surface area to receive the signal and transmit with. I tried to get him to tell me just how much difference it had made but all he would say is that he promise that it did help. He would not say what the meter had said or what other's had said. So I had thought what better place to find out is to ask here. What do you or any other's have to say? At least if the top section would ever break it would be better than the factory top section and never break again. |
Dale
Senior Member
Username: Dale
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 6:51 pm: |
|
imho the imax /a99 type antennas are prone to
pick up noise. replacing the top section with
the correct lenth of stainless steel whip
may reduce the noise or get rid of it completely.
with quieter recieve i can see how you be able
to pickup those weak stations.far as transmit
i dont see how it would change but guess it could
be possible. again just my opinions
dale/a.k.a.hotrod
cef426
cvc#64
454 [dx numbers]
38lsb
|
Starface
Senior Member
Username: Starface
Post Number: 3262
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 3:26 am: |
|
Tech 833 is more of the Antenna expert so I'll wait a bit more to read his out come on this.
Good to speak with everyone again now to do so on the air.
73
George
KI4NBE
|
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 292
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 1:07 pm: |
|
I will wait on Tech 833 as well. I am not sure but, I think there had been some related question on this before. However this is a very interesting subject. At the very least we could use the steal whip for a replacement for the top section if it were to break. I am sure there is some person that had already done this and can help with some more information to help answer this question. |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2013 - 10:30 am: |
|
I don't think going to a steel whip from the wire would make sufficient change to the surface area to be noticable. Going from wire tubing - yes. Most likeky, he cleaned the connection up in the process without realising it
Tech237
N7AUS
God made me an athiest, who are you to question his wisdom?
|
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 21, 2013 - 10:31 am: |
|
I don't think going to a steel whip from the wire would make sufficient change to the surface area to be noticable. Going from wire tubing - yes. Most likeky, he cleaned the connection up in the process without realising it
Tech237
N7AUS
God made me an athiest, who are you to question his wisdom?
|
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 2271
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Absolutely no difference. Literally- none.
"A guy said..." is how almost every untrue statement begins. "An expert said..." is how almost every antenna untruth begins.
I once had a guy (who has no idea of my background) spend a great amount of time telling me all about his research into pure silver tips for CB antennas and how it made the RF just jump right off the antenna and produce so much more gain, etc. He used large, scientific words and phrases. I nodded and listend. I didn't want to spoil his fun.
Sometimes the "experts" know deep down that they are wrong, but enjoy the moment of being considered an expert by one or more of their peers.
Your radio 'Mythbuster' since 1998
|
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 295
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Hello 833, Well I had spoke with this guy again last night and he of course is saying that he had a 2 s unit increase on his receive and about 1 s unit on transmit. Well after this claim had been made of course I had a feeling that this could not be true. But, of course one could only hope. This is one reason I ask these question's here. To get the truth. Thank's a lot for your help. |
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 296
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 7:55 am: |
|
I use the term (this guy) because I do not ever post a name nor would any person likely would know this person. Of course I am no expert in this hobby so when a person would tell me about what they had done and how it had help them I would listen. I have no way of telling if some of the thing's I am told really would work. That is why as I have said in my previous post that is why I ask question's here so as to find out if it is true or not or perhaps just another cb radio myth. I guess I trust people to much and give every person a benefit of a doubt. However I should have known when he made his claim of the gain he had seen was just pie in the sky. Now will I tell him he is wrong? No. Perhaps he did not put the antenna in the same exact place down to the last square inch and that is why he had seen an increase in signal. I do not know. But, that is my benefit of doubt I give. The reason I had thought that his claim might have some truth is that the Maco 5000 antenna has better receive than the imax 2000 because it has more surface area. So I had thought that the extra surface area on the whip had help. Tech 833, I thank you so very much for your expert advise and you have alway's told me the truth and have never let me down. Everything you have ever told me had help me so much in this hobby that I have been in for over 42 year's and I am still learning. I think 833 that you are the best in your field. |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 2272
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Charlie,
The reason the Maco receives better than the Imax 2000 (barely) is because it has a more efficient matching network than the Imax, and it has an effective counterpoise, not because of surface area.
However, the Maco's higher Q also means less bandwidth. For example, the Imax 2000 can be used all across the 11m CB band, the 10m ham band and the 12m ham band, without retuning. When the Maco is tuned to the 11m CB band, it can only be used there without retuning. The SWR skyrockets outside the CB band (and efficiency drops off rapidly).
So, the Imax tuning network is a compromise. They make no secret about that. However, it meets the objective of an inexpensive yet reliable way to match the antenna while keeping the physical form inside the rather small diameter radome, and while providing DC isolation up to 14 KV to meet certain rules. It's also much easier to tune than a Maco. In fact, adjustment or tuning is seldom required by the consumer for an Imax 2000. There's no such thing as "no tuning required" on a Maco.
Your radio 'Mythbuster' since 1998
|
Charliebrown
Intermediate Member
Username: Charliebrown
Post Number: 297
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 7:07 am: |
|
Tech 833, I agree. What antenna is my favorite and the one I use? The Imax 2000. It is quick and easy to install. You do not have to adjust the swr when installed and it is a very wide band antenna with the best swr across the band coverage it is design for. The Imax is also very light. Once again my hat is off to you 833 for so much work and effort you put into helping us to learn to be better in this hobby of our's whether it is ham, cb, or short wave, or scanner. |
Starface
Senior Member
Username: Starface
Post Number: 3265
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 4:12 am: |
|
Thanks I have been Educated once again.
George
KI4NBE
|
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 2273
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 1:45 am: |
|
My hat is off to you for sharing your experience with everyone.
I still think the Imax is a great antenna. It's the closest thing to a "put it up and forget about it" antenna that also gives very good performance.
Your radio 'Mythbuster' since 1998
|
