"Vinnie S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:47:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:53:15 -0400, Vinnie S.
wrote:

OK, I purchased the Imax-2000 which is a 5/8 wave antenna. There are 2
options
for a ground plane kit:

1. First is a four fiberglass 6 foot radials, angled down (appears 45
degrees),
as seen he


http://www.durhamradio.com/s/custome...at=1684&page=1


2. This is another kit. It has four aluminum 7 foot radials. This is
horizontal,
and not angeled, as seen he


http://www.majestic-comm.com/product...rsupply/Boomer


Which one would be better?


You should give Frank's suggestion a look as it does contain a lot of
information on antennas.

But to answer your question, your particular type of antenna, like the
A-99, is designed to decouple with no radials. Adding radials to this
type of antenna does very little to improve performance. It's more
about marketing hype than actual performance improvement.



I should have been clearer. I wasn't trying to improve performance, since
it is
a 5/8. But from the reading I have done (no thanks to anything Frank
posted), I
was simply seeing if thise would lower the angle of radiation, and reduce
potential for any king of interference. I am sorry id my lack of knowledge
in
this field, insults Frank.

Vinnie S.

The Imax is actually longer than 5/8 wave. Like .64 wave.

How far off the ground? The lower it is the more effective the radials are
due to take off angle, the higher you get the less effective. I have heard
use them if the feed point is less than 36 feet. My Imax is less than that
and I have no radials. It performs VERY well. But new tower is being
contemplated!!!!

Damn..... BuryFlex, Imax, Sounds like we have a lot of the same stuff !!!!!!

Best
Chad

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:43:41 -0500, "Chad Wahls"
wrote:


The Imax is actually longer than 5/8 wave. Like .64 wave.


Not to be a smart ass or anything, but if you convert .64 into its
fractional equivalent, what do you get?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:24:09 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:43:41 -0500, "Chad Wahls"
wrote:


The Imax is actually longer than 5/8 wave. Like .64 wave.


Not to be a smart ass or anything, but if you convert .64 into its
fractional equivalent, what do you get?

According to this, they're damn close:

http://www.shadowstorm.com/cb/CB_Myths_Exploded.html

Vinnie S.

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:43:41 -0500, "Chad Wahls"
wrote:


The Imax is actually longer than 5/8 wave. Like .64 wave.


Not to be a smart ass or anything, but if you convert .64 into its
fractional equivalent, what do you get?

:-)

Jeff


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:43:41 -0500, "Chad Wahls"
wrote:


The Imax is actually longer than 5/8 wave. Like .64 wave.


Not to be a smart ass or anything, but if you convert .64 into its
fractional equivalent, what do you get?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj


..625 making the Imax longer than 5/8 wave. I know I know. Close enough.

Chad