Hi all

I know a lot of hams do not like the I-Max 2000 but I have one and need some
help with it.
I think I might have a problem with the center section as I can't get any
reading from end to end with my
multi meter. Is this normal for the center section or have I got a problem?
The antenna is only a week old and has not been put up yet.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Andy

Andy,
I'm afraid you have a problem. The center and top
sections of the antenna are just a single conductor
inside a fibreglass tube, so you should see a short
when measuring resistance from end to end of the
center section (or top section).
'Doc

Andy wrote:

Hi all

I know a lot of hams do not like the I-Max 2000 but I have one and need some
help with it.
I think I might have a problem with the center section as I can't get any
reading from end to end with my
multi meter. Is this normal for the center section or have I got a problem?
The antenna is only a week old and has not been put up yet.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Andy

I have read on the 'net that workmanship is notoriously bad in these antennas.

Dale W4OP

"Andy" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I know a lot of hams do not like the I-Max 2000 but I have one and need
some
help with it.
I think I might have a problem with the center section as I can't get any
reading from end to end with my
multi meter. Is this normal for the center section or have I got a
problem?
The antenna is only a week old and has not been put up yet.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Andy

Andy -

Amateur Radio operators tend to judge equipment like "Consumer Reports"
or identifying some automobiles as "lemons"

Does it work? Quality made? Does the product have value? (For what you
paid .. does it work well?)

KG6AOH has already "exposed" the I-MAX 2000 and Antron 99 antennas (see how
they work)

Antron 99
http://www.qsl.net/kg6aoh/a99/

I-MAX 2000
http://www.qsl.net/kg6aoh/imax2000/

73, w9gb

"G.Beat",
You might take a very close look at the quoted articles.
I think you will find that neither antenna is as much of a
'dog' as they are made out to be, and that there are
distinctions
that have very little practical meaning. And no matter who
wrote
the articles, you should be aware of the intended audience...
'Doc

"'Doc" wrote in message ...


"G.Beat",
You might take a very close look at the quoted articles.
I think you will find that neither antenna is as much of a
'dog' as they are made out to be, and that there are
distinctions
that have very little practical meaning. And no matter who
wrote
the articles, you should be aware of the intended audience...
'Doc


The purpose of the web site reference is for the reader to
understand how the antennas are constructed.

I have no opinion on either antenna ... your reference
of 'dog' and 'intended audience' is non sequitur

w9gb

non sequitur ['n?n 's?kwit?]
noun
1 a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it

2 (Logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
Abbrev.: non seq
[ETYMOLOGY: Latin, literally: it does not follow]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:53:36 GMT, "G.Beat"
wrote:

"'Doc" wrote in message ...


"G.Beat",
You might take a very close look at the quoted articles.
I think you will find that neither antenna is as much of a
'dog' as they are made out to be, and that there are
distinctions
that have very little practical meaning. And no matter who
wrote
the articles, you should be aware of the intended audience...
'Doc


The purpose of the web site reference is for the reader to
understand how the antennas are constructed.

I have no opinion on either antenna ... your reference
of 'dog' and 'intended audience' is non sequitur

w9gb

I think you got your own non sequiters in there. To use your own
words:

"Does it work? Quality made? Does the product have value? (For what
you
paid .. does it work well?)"

If the antenna does work, if it has value (for what you paid...does it
work well) -- and if it does, then the article has little value other
that to look at "quality construction" issues that may or may not be
relevant.

Bob
k5qwg



non sequitur ['n?n 's?kwit?]
noun
1 a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it

2 (Logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
Abbrev.: non seq
[ETYMOLOGY: Latin, literally: it does not follow]

"G.Beat",
"Ubi est ignus?"
'Doc

"G.Beat",
"Ubi est ignus?"
'Doc

Tu ubi sub ubi?

A