• 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.

imax vs i10k

i have used the antron 99 and the sig and also now am using a 10k that i got used form a friend that got out of cb. the results that i have found is that they all pretty much give the same perfomance no real difference to really justify the cost of a new 10k if talk distance is all you are after the a99 does a great job. but the real advantage i find with the 10k is that it is a very well built antenna and it really does null tvi. to me the cost is justifyable when tvi is an issue and you live in a climent that has bad winters and is harsh. have the 10k now but still love my trusty a99 it made me a beliver in fiberglass antennas. actually i am a old starduster guy from when antenna specialist made them. mine finally went down after 20 years and six coax changes. before that it was a rat shack 5/8 wave geeeeeeee that goes back maybe 30 years
 
radioreddz said:
i have used the antron 99 and the sig and also now am using a 10k that i got used form a friend that got out of cb. the results that i have found is that they all pretty much give the same perfomance no real difference to really justify the cost of a new 10k if talk distance is all you are after the a99 does a great job. but the real advantage i find with the 10k is that it is a very well built antenna and it really does null tvi. to me the cost is justifyable when tvi is an issue and you live in a climent that has bad winters and is harsh. have the 10k now but still love my trusty a99 it made me a beliver in fiberglass antennas. actually i am a old starduster guy from when antenna specialist made them. mine finally went down after 20 years and six coax changes. before that it was a rat shack 5/8 wave geeeeeeee that goes back maybe 30 years

thats like saying there is no difference in rg58 and good coax,
guess a yugo will get you to the store aswell as a escalade.

if you cant tell the difference there is something seriously wrong.
 
radioreddz said:
i have used the antron 99 and the sig and also now am using a 10k that i got used form a friend that got out of cb. the results that i have found is that they all pretty much give the same perfomance no real difference to really justify the cost of a new 10k if talk distance is all you are after the a99 does a great job. but the real advantage i find with the 10k is that it is a very well built antenna and it really does null tvi. to me the cost is justifyable when tvi is an issue and you live in a climent that has bad winters and is harsh. have the 10k now but still love my trusty a99 it made me a beliver in fiberglass antennas. actually i am a old starduster guy from when antenna specialist made them. mine finally went down after 20 years and six coax changes. before that it was a rat shack 5/8 wave geeeeeeee that goes back maybe 30 years

Of all the omni base antennas I have ever owned my old A-99 had the best "ears" (RX) out of any of my other base antennas. This very affordable 1/2 wave base antenna was a very efficient and reliable performer.
 
No no no, I'm not about to get into yet another debate on the Sigma IV! I've read the patent and I've heard all the arguments...I was just throwing some bait on the hook to see who would bite.

Bob, you crack me up!!!! :p :p
 
Well not all A99's are the same. Everyone I have ever used works very well, except some show a lot of noise at times. The one I use is very old, I don't even know how old. Of course I have refinished it several times, but it still works as good as anything I have, if the tips are at about the same height. There, I said that again didn't I.

I have to go along with radioreddz. I love my old Stardusters, that little old 1/4 wave GP. And he is right, they can be hard on the feed line the way they feed, but it never stopped me from communicating on it. I worked it right along with all the big boys around. Sometimes I wished I had one of those old 5 year old water attenuated feed lines around, they seemed to helped make things nice and quite on receive, even if I did have to give up a few watts of output on TX, or was it just the Starduster all along?

At the moment I also have a Wolf .64 up and working at 30’. It is about 5 feet lower than the A99 and it is every bit as good as the A99. Some tell me the .64 produces a bit stronger signal. Others comment about the audio being better than the A99 and others see the same. Sometimes I can even hear the audio difference myself, imagination that, audio difference!
 
FL Native said:
thats like saying there is no difference in rg58 and good coax, guess a yugo will get you to the store aswell as a escalade.

if you cant tell the difference there is something seriously wrong.
well i did say the 10k is better built and nulls tvi, but in my set up in which both were mounted on a 5' tripod and with 30' 0f mast i see no differnce in the tx and rx between the a99 and 10k honestly. if a harsh invironment ur in and tvi is a problem than i can see th 10k. me i live out in the bonnies of southern maryland flat land and mild winters.
 
radioreddz said:
well i did say the 10k is better built and nulls tvi, but in my set up in which both were mounted on a 5' tripod and with 30' 0f mast i see no differnce in the tx and rx between the a99 and 10k honestly. if a harsh invironment ur in and tvi is a problem than i can see th 10k. me i live out in the bonnies of southern maryland flat land and mild winters.
oh i see what your saying now.
 
The I10k might be a good antenna I never tried one so I don't know.I know I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a ground plane when you can get a pretty good beam for that kind of money.I am geting back in to cb's after a couple of years.I was going to put up a beam but I don't have a bunch of money right now so I was thinking about buying a maco v58 or a sirio 827 to put up on my 70ft tower any ideals wich antenna is better.I will be running a older black rci2950 with a superstar dm452 echo power mike and i'll be running a cobra xl250 2 pill amp behind the radio.I bought a pyramid ps46kx power supply to run my radio and amp.I think my amp puts out about 200 watts on am and about 250 watts on sideband.I will be using a diawa cn-801hp meter to monitor my wattage and swr constanly.Any ideals on which antenna is better maco v58 or sirio 827.
 
hey guys i am just winding chief up a little :twisted: , i have no idea what wavelength they are other than what it said on the box and instructions i got, what i do know is the only antenna i ever owned that may have equalled or beaten it at this or my last location was the ham big mac which was another 32ft antenna and definately not another halfwave in disguise, thats just an observation not a scientific test :D

i would love to meet up with chief and marconi to do battle in a large field with our antenna of choice, maybe if i win the lottery i will be on my way to chiefs place with my slightly bent pieces of aluminum or is that aluminium, the winner can buy the beer :idea: ,,, what do you guys like to drink :LOL: :LOL:

Sounds like fun, antenna of choice? full wave loop, 2:1 current balun, what beer do you like to drink?

That piece of wire should out perform any gp, and can be built for less then $10.00(y)
 
"I was thinking about buying a maco v58 or a sirio 827"

the 827 seems to have issues with loosing its coil connection with the verticle . Bob85 has had to fix his a couple of times .
 
"I was thinking about buying a maco v58 or a sirio 827"

the 827 seems to have issues with loosing its coil connection with the verticle . Bob85 has had to fix his a couple of times .

Oh no BM, does this mean that you're not going to settle the argument of the century regarding radials for us? I was counting on you to test your 5/8 wave with various radial configurations even if it had to be done down low.

I guess I was right, I don't know of a soul that will take the time to test such ideas or cares enough. So, oh my the arguments will just go on and on.
 
Oh no BM, does this mean that you're not going to settle the argument of the century regarding radials for us? I was counting on you to test your 5/8 wave with various radial configurations even if it had to be done down low.

I guess I was right, I don't know of a soul that will take the time to test such ideas or cares enough. So, oh my the arguments will just go on and on.

That's easy. Four full 1/4 wave radials are better then eight radials that are less then five feet long. Eight full 1/4 wave radials makes no practical difference over the first four.
 
Oh no BM, does this mean that you're not going to settle the argument of the century regarding radials for us? I was counting on you to test your 5/8 wave with various radial configurations even if it had to be done down low.

I guess I was right, I don't know of a soul that will take the time to test such ideas or cares enough. So, oh my the arguments will just go on and on.

hey marconi , i went and looked at the solid aluminium rod , but it seemed to have a lot of movement/flex in a 12 ft length in the 1/4 inch and 3/16 inch diameter and the 3/8 looked like it would snap befor bending like i need it too to do the install the way i have planed . what im think of now is eight 6 footers all horizontal or just going with four 9 ft horizontal . at least now i have an idea of what the materials ill be using are like . even if i could have done some backyard testing it wouldnt have settled anything LOL , as im sure youre aware of , hehehehe . its only one location .

That's easy. Four full 1/4 wave radials are better then eight radials that are less then five feet long. Eight full 1/4 wave radials makes no practical difference over the first four.

hey shockwave , care to offer any opinions on eight 6 footers on a 5/8 WGP for ground elements compared to four 9 footers ? using less elements is easier but the cost is only a few dollars different , the extra time and effort doesnt matter since its just repetitive . the shorter the rods the less they wiggle . i cold even do sixteen 6 footers i think .

id like to tinker with it some , but the more i think about it the more i realize id just like to have something different from everybody else ........ but not sacrifacing performance to have that . LOL i want my cake and to be able to eat it too , hehehehe .
 
BM, need I repeat myself about your considering to use of those thin rods for radials?
 
That's easy. Four full 1/4 wave radials are better then eight radials that are less then five feet long. Eight full 1/4 wave radials makes no practical difference over the first four.

Hello Shockwave. I may agree with your first comment, simply because of some modeling work that W5ALT did. Admittedly he did not address adding radials, but he does model for varying lengths of radials for the 5/8 and his report supports the idea that longer radials tend to be a little better up to a point about a 1/2 wl. He also notes that radials any longer will change things dramatically. I tend to agree with his conclusions, assuming his modeling is close to correct.

See: W5ALT Antennas

Bob and I discussed this and he suggested that because the report does not indicate if the feed line and mast are included in his modeling, the report is useless. So, I'm not sure about the results, I don't know what he did either. I could be convinced of the errors of my ways on this issue however, if you have a bases of thought or testing even theory, and not just the claim.

Not sure at all about your second comment either. I haven't specifically compared adding radials to my 5/8 wave yet. However, when I did with my 1/4 wave, I saw a remarkable difference in performance using both a field strength meter and taking real world signals on-air back in 2006. That was pretty convincing for me, I had never seen such a dramatic response. I have my notes, and I will see if I can duplicate that effort to be sure. Then I will have something else to show, even if I have to disclaim my previous work.

I've had two episodes where I saw some indications that my I-10K and my .64 Wolf don't work well unless they have the full radial setup. A radial feel out of the Wolf and it noticeably affected the SWR. I checked my I-10K last summer to see if I could remove just part of the radials and I removed the tips, but no-way-no. The match was bad, but again I did nothing more---like try to retune. So both experiences were inconclusive for me to decide on shorter of no radials. The third deal is that my Imax works fine without radials at all, but in that case I suspect it is the matching scheme that allows it to still show a good match and work pretty good to boot. That just doesn't happen on the 5/8 or .64 I note above.

If your right Shockwave, four is just as good as eight, then I think it is probably because there is too little current flowing in the area of the radials (not a bad thing), to make a difference. IMO this is for sure the case if we compare my idea to the radials positioned in the maximum current area of a 1/4 wl setup.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.