I’m glad it was helpful. 73

Absolutely my pleasure.

Despite the “narrow” TBW setting having that anomaly it’s very effective and doesn’t hinder the effectiveness of narrow DX audio. It isn’t glamorous like any narrow DX audio but it does make an advantages difference. So yes, I’ve seen and done the same as you every time. 😂 Funny, the IC7000 sounds great in the “wide” TBW setting with the right mic and settings etc with out that hollow sound being detected, but between older hams practically deaf and most who FAIL to use or understand HOW and WHEN to use their own receive filters prevents the receiving station from enjoying the quality of sound the IC7000 can produce. With these modern rigs you can take anyone’s audio and make it effective to your own needs. What do we need receive filters today for if we don’t know how to use them? 😂

Look for my 10m dx contest video, or another I made switching between the Antron and another antenna showing signal difference.

I am not aware of any such mod, but I also have never modded to alter any transceiver from its original fcc restrictions.

@@N2RRAny This one is not configured for North American frequencies. That is the issue I have. It is rather crippled for icom region 5. I believe it is in income region 1 right now. It is unfortunate.

It is my pleasure to inform that I found a receive modification that opens the range from 0 to 199.99Mhz and 400Mhz to 470Mhz. The transmit is still crippled. But the study is still continuing. There are some ideas that I will be trying after I find my soldering station. The beauty about diode matrix configuration is that they can be soldered and resoldered over and over. It is an easy process. But study still has to be made. A diode in the wrong spot may not be beneficial.

Wow thats fantastic thanks so much for the info! And thank you for your service! Salute!

Antenna work best when placed where the frequencies are. That's not always hi in the sky.

@@Rusted_Link Bro, Have you been drinking again? You just say random words

lol, awesome. Glad to help and hope you enjoy the videos. 73

About the wind, yeah I'm no professional youtuber with high end video equipment. No matter the stupid comments from know it all people the Antron for what it is works well, but its capability's of operation isnt bad. As long as you can tune and get R.F. in the ionosphere you can work stations. Try putting a 102" steel whip on it. Works great!

De wi7ard

Ahhh, I show the antenna I'm using in the very beginning of the video and same antenna I've used in multiple videos. The point of video wasn't an antenna review. It was showing you can work 40m with very little, literally.

Follow up on the speaker wire antenna. Got it set up, tuned it with the FT-817ND tuner, and got one good contact with a station in south western PA. It was a successful project and I will be making it better.. 73s. KD8VSP

Thank you for subscribing. I plan on making some new interesting videos in the near future no one else is doing. The Antron is a good common antenna that’s been around a long time. Why not put it to use. It is true that a ground plane kit may not be quite needed as some other verticals of other designs, but it does still serve a good purpose. If you like your Antron 99 buy a 102” steel whip antenna. Replace the fiberglass whip with that 102” steel whip. Utilize an antenna tuner with it and have lots more fun. It’s a hoot. Tell me what you think afterwards.

Appreciate your comments Richard and duly noted. Except, I’m going to have to disagree with you to an extent. You are correct on a few points, but since this video I’ve learned quite a bit more about verticals between the various types and instillations as well as locations. Everything from the shores of Caribbean islands to hills, pitched ground and poor soil of the Catskill mountains and Hudson Valleys of NY. Now this is my assessment and experimental evaluations. Near by salt water no question is an amazing location to run verticals. If you watch couple of other videos that I have I use a ICOM AH4 vertical that’s only three feet in length and working DX all day into the sunset on beach’s to the hills of Westchester county bush crafting during a poor cycle. I’ve shown multiple times an A & B comparison between a 3el portable yagi beam and that Antron vertical. Time and time again I show there are many times the vertical can beat that yagi under certain conditions. So if the operation calls for it identical in comparison there is no refuting what you see between the two. I currently own a home brew 40m band mono wire vertical that is raised 3 1/2 meters above a pitched ground with not the best soil and concrete surrounding it in a typical suburban community with hills. I do have several radials raised 90° at the feed point from the vertical wire. I use web SDR receivers located around the world to monitor the difference in signal between antennas that are operated remotely from my shack. Consistently nine times out of ten the vertical is beating my dipole at longer distant stations such as for example Hawaii and the Ukraine at its current Height of 8 meters above ground by 1-2 s-units sometimes as much as 3 s-units with QSB pushing it on peaks. The further the station I can see an S-9 on the dipole and a s9+10 on the vertical. Of course there are many times where other stations will say there was no difference to very slight difference. It’s all relative to the hop in signal versus distance on that low angle take off between me and other stations including factoring in what antenna the other station is using. During poor conditions on 40m when local signals are down the vertical beats it hands down just about every time, or at least 9/10 consistently. Observations and theory are okay, but if you’re not actually operating multiple times under various circumstances collecting data and matching that with solar conditions and propagation then It’s just theoretical observations and nothing more. As I played around with configurations at first I thought the vertical was a waste of time if I had a dipole and was going to abandon having both. Guess what I wound up doing?

@@N2RRAny Oh, no doubt the vertical is typically going to have a lower angle of radiation - especially, on a band like 40m where getting a dipole up at least one half wavelength is going to be a challenge. And, you would have to have a dipole up at a full wavelength above ground, or higher, before it would approach the low angle of radiation of a vertical, including Yagi beams. So, for long distance on HF DX a vertical often cannot be beat. All of my comments were in reference to simple vertical omnidirectional antennas and their associated ground systems. Once you start comparing with horizontal antennas, it's a whole other matter involving distance, antenna heights above ground, etc. By far, the most impressive antenna farm I have ever seen belongs to W8JI here in Georgia. He has a large parcel of land with multiple towers, and even has an eight direction Four Square vertical array for 160m - simply amazing. With the flick of a few switches, he can have a vertical beam on 160m pointed just about wherever he wants. He's one of the most brilliant Hams you will ever encounter. Just do a search on W8JI and check out his setup. It's to die for!

Thanks Joe. I have to start making more up to date vids. Enjoy the rest. 73

Yes, it will work elevated. For low angle take off radials elevated a minimum of 1ft. Off the ground, or 10ft. Off the ground improves efficiency greatly. I learned a lot since this video. Just four radials elevated is equivalent to 120 radials laid out on the ground. That’s just the facts. All though it wasn’t really necessary for this type of antenna due to its high impedance matching network and coax used as a counterpoise that would been sufficient additional radials do help weather some want to believe it, or not.

@@N2RRAnyGood information!

longer the better

I and others have experimented and I can confirm as another testimony I can direct you to a link has experimented and the results were positive with radials below it. Yes, the A 99 is an end fed antenna in which you would not necessarily need radials, but will it hurt it to have them? No. Will it benefit to have me? Yes. If you are erecting the A99 a ground plane system will reduce TVI. The same way a ground plane would reduce TVI A ground plane system will perform the same on the ground. An End-fed vertical antenna with high impedance circuit does not necessarily need an elaborate radial system unless it has a good ground, or at least one good radial wire, but one with a low impedance level will have more energy at the feed point needing a much more elaborate radials system,, but any radiation pattern absorbed by the ground is no good so if you can reduce any and all of that absorption the better it will work. There is another West Coast Ham that also in his experimentation showed reduced TV when he had his antenna erected off the ground. He also took signal strength levels and showed an improvement in signal strength at further distances. Forget the modeling program. That works too, but real world results are better. Every environment is different and software modeling just hypothesizes.

Thanks Tom. We'll do it again soon. Was a pleasure and look forward to the next QSO. 73

I would love to get another one.

Chech out DX Commanders' many videos on radials. He has done very extensive field experiments on radials. I see QRP portable folks often using 2 or 3 radials and working plenty of stations. A99 doesn't actually need any radials because of the matching network in the bottom. We all think vertical and go into the need for radials frame of mind but end-feds radials use their matching networks to replace radials. '