Look the difference between aluminum vs cooper. anyways the antenna is in the air and its woking really good, i like it. its not a broadband antenna, but its good. i need the top element and the beta match or the number 7
-
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.
The penetrator
- Thread starter Robalo
- Start date
- Status
Good work Robalo. What does this suggest about the old claim, "...don't get too close to the feed point when you tune with an analyzer or you will ruin your readings?"
Personally, I think the difference here is due to the size difference in material and not the material itself.
I am curious as to what difference it makes that HyGain located the Ground Plane so high up on the radiator of these old CLR type antennas? I know that the design sure makes for a very secure base for the antnenna and my experience with the CLR, which is very similar, suggest a very effective performer.
I would save that new one until this one breakes in some serious way. Over the years your new one will be worth a lot more money and if you don't destroy the box it comes in.
Good luck!
Personally, I think the difference here is due to the size difference in material and not the material itself.
I am curious as to what difference it makes that HyGain located the Ground Plane so high up on the radiator of these old CLR type antennas? I know that the design sure makes for a very secure base for the antnenna and my experience with the CLR, which is very similar, suggest a very effective performer.
I would save that new one until this one breakes in some serious way. Over the years your new one will be worth a lot more money and if you don't destroy the box it comes in.
Good luck!
Marconi thanks for the help with this antenna. its working good. also, i dont have new one yet, the photo is from ebay. they're just the parts only. I ordered the I-10k already from steve. i wonder which one will be better between alpha V 5/8 super penetrator, or the I-10k, i guess i'll find out soon
thanks 73' Robalo
thanks 73' Robalo
I was going to say the same thing Marconi said about the difference most likely being the size of the material rather than the material itself. Try a piece of c o p p e r tubing instead of the wire and see what happens. Also a difference of 40KHz like you had can make a few ohms difference. BTW why are you testing around 27.700 anyway?? The band is from 26.965-27.405. 
Take some readings before the Penetrator comes down, check them again after the I-10K goes up, and let us know what you found.Gearhead said:
The I-10K is mechanically and electrically superior to the Maco. mechanically, maybe....electrically, yea, sure, why not. performance-wise, there is NO measurable difference. those who believe that are lining up for coily & jay-made beams. jo-gunns school of gain lives on.
I hope you are not implying that Jay or Dan are signing on to Jo-Gunn's gain claims. There is no way Jay would ever do this and although I'm not one of Dan's biggest fans, he too has more integrity than that.davegrantsr said:
Why is it that when someone comes out with a better product, there is always someone there to knock it? Maybe Dave just like stirring the pot?!
Dave, you already agree that the I-10K is both mechanically and electrically superior. How is it that it can't also perform better?
the laws of physics, einsteins theory of relativity & the magna carta ALL state that a piece of wire, copper or aluminum tube in freespace will do 'X'. you can increase efficiency in a particular direction or plane, at various angles, or with different forms of feed. HOW MUCH of an increase in efficiency there is, is where i have the problem. you can rewrite science when it comes to the planets, maybe, but, in this case, you can't rewite it. when it comes to beams (yagi or quad), the only NOTICEABLE way to improve them, is make them bigger....to a point.
as for dan & steve, OK, maybe i directed too much of my wrath on them. i've never actually 'talked' with them, but i have had an email conversation or 2 with dan. he never ever ever ever claimed that his (mobile) antennas outperformed ANYTHING to me. he said his customers claims speak for themselves. that sounds like secret coded double talk to me for sure. while he DOES built a fine piece of equipment, that may tune perfectly at 27.025 mHz, and be MECHANICALLY superior to MOST other antennas out there, , it is NOT super-antenna. and, i won't deny that his & jays beams are probably FINE performers. and, no, i don't even know what gain figures they claim, but, a 3-4-5-6 element beam is a 3-4-5-6 element beam no matter who builds & designs it. while it may excel in 1 area, & be good in others, it CANNOT & WILL NOT be THAT MUCH SUPERIOR in EVERY SINGLE WAY to substantiate exorbitant prices. yea, it may well be built like a tank, but do you know how much a rotator costs that can spin a tank? the performance difference between it & a 3 elelment maco will NEVER ever justify the price. buy a jo gunn for real life gain & its build quality. same with an i10k or a coily. claim superior engineering that'll withstand armageddon, i may buy that, claim design qualities that equal anything else ever built & i will probably buy that, but please do not continue to insult my intelligence with astronomical gain & superiority claims.
as for dan & steve, OK, maybe i directed too much of my wrath on them. i've never actually 'talked' with them, but i have had an email conversation or 2 with dan. he never ever ever ever claimed that his (mobile) antennas outperformed ANYTHING to me. he said his customers claims speak for themselves. that sounds like secret coded double talk to me for sure. while he DOES built a fine piece of equipment, that may tune perfectly at 27.025 mHz, and be MECHANICALLY superior to MOST other antennas out there, , it is NOT super-antenna. and, i won't deny that his & jays beams are probably FINE performers. and, no, i don't even know what gain figures they claim, but, a 3-4-5-6 element beam is a 3-4-5-6 element beam no matter who builds & designs it. while it may excel in 1 area, & be good in others, it CANNOT & WILL NOT be THAT MUCH SUPERIOR in EVERY SINGLE WAY to substantiate exorbitant prices. yea, it may well be built like a tank, but do you know how much a rotator costs that can spin a tank? the performance difference between it & a 3 elelment maco will NEVER ever justify the price. buy a jo gunn for real life gain & its build quality. same with an i10k or a coily. claim superior engineering that'll withstand armageddon, i may buy that, claim design qualities that equal anything else ever built & i will probably buy that, but please do not continue to insult my intelligence with astronomical gain & superiority claims.
Yes, I agree! I have often said that a 5/8 is a 5/8 is a 5/8.davegrantsr said:
Ding ding ding......we agree!davegrantsr said:
Well, at least you admit that its your problem and not necessarily wrong.davegrantsr said:
Bigger elements and longer booms may increase output, but when I talk about efficiency, I'm speaking of the ability to lessen the loss in the feedpoint. Some feedpoint designs have less loss than others. The more signal you get into the radiating elements the better!davegrantsr said:
Not true. We have learned over the years that by just re-spacing the elements and lengthening the booms, we can increase performance considerably. Then there are better feedpoints as well as direct fed 50-ohm "Optimized Wideband Antenna" designs.davegrantsr said:
Ahh, you base your "problem" on the price tag. Quality materials cost money. Then there is what people are willing to pay for one's intellectual property (design). Is it worth it? Only you can decide for you, but that doesn't change the fact that some antennas are just better.davegrantsr said:
Maybe not to you, but that depends on how you define, "performance difference". What about the guys who need an antenna that can survive high winds and/or power? What about the other guy who's looking for a direct fed antenna or the guy who occasionally runs 10K+ but doesn't want to suffer the loss of a 10K gamma at lower power levels?davegrantsr said:
Have you ever seen the "build quality" of a Jo-Gunn? It uses wood screws to hold the elements in place. And to top it all off, they use a gamma match system! No thank you!davegrantsr said:
What "astronomical gain & superiority claims"? While it's true that the I-10K works better and that preliminary tests show that the Crusader beam works better, I've never made any gain claims.davegrantsr said:
Its been tough to follow the bouncing around between the 5/8 omnis and the beams, but I performed flawlessly. What you decide is worth it to you is all on you. If you feel insulted because I'm right, then you will have to deal with that too. This doesn't change the fact that some antennas work better than others.
Thanks for this opportunity to discuss this with you.
Good job! I had one of those ~ 20 years ago and am still kicking myself in the rear for letting it go.
see there, chief, 1 of us may not be such a bad person afterall.
the jo gunn statement was made facetiously.
i stand by the 3-4-5-6 element is a 3-4-5-6 element because, YES, you can optimize spacing & boom length to tailor performance to your specs-fwd gain, rejection, or a combination of both. you can do that with a 'laying around,old' maco m103....if you don't mind buying a new boom, etc. any shmo who can read could BUILD one from scratch just by reading a set of maco's directions. and, build one like the proverbial tank. R&D costs $$, but a set of maco instructions is free. and i can purchase EVERYTHING for FAR less then $450 from my local tubing supplier. trust me, while my environment does not receive 100 mph wind gusts with regularity, it is a foreboding environment for anything that spends its life outdoors. and, my 3 element well bent & rebent WILSON 3 element beam keeps on ticking. NOT tank-erized. i don't use 5kw base anymore. while i know conditions did not allow for 5kw into a beam to 'make the contact' more then once in my lifetime, i never remember an incident of a single 3-500zg being unable to contact the same person the 5kw did. that was through a gamma. is there more loss there then through other matching systems? yea, but again obviously not enough to justify the cost of.....anyway, a careful re-read of my previous post admits that steve & dan are not neccessarily the 'claimers' of superhuman antenna performance, but moreso their customers. but then again, if i was them, i'd be reluctant to post a consumers claim of '5 S-unit gain over an....' on MY website. sure, say the consumers 'X' antenna was smoked if you will, but, that is not what those comments infer. don't get me wrong, give me 1 of their beams or 5/8 waves & up it'll go. i never said they don't 'work'. just not $350 worth better.
and, i thank YOU for this lovely opportunity to discuss a subject near & dear to my heart, that, truthfully has no lasting effect whatsoever on my life . now, bring on the skip 8)
the jo gunn statement was made facetiously.
i stand by the 3-4-5-6 element is a 3-4-5-6 element because, YES, you can optimize spacing & boom length to tailor performance to your specs-fwd gain, rejection, or a combination of both. you can do that with a 'laying around,old' maco m103....if you don't mind buying a new boom, etc. any shmo who can read could BUILD one from scratch just by reading a set of maco's directions. and, build one like the proverbial tank. R&D costs $$, but a set of maco instructions is free. and i can purchase EVERYTHING for FAR less then $450 from my local tubing supplier. trust me, while my environment does not receive 100 mph wind gusts with regularity, it is a foreboding environment for anything that spends its life outdoors. and, my 3 element well bent & rebent WILSON 3 element beam keeps on ticking. NOT tank-erized. i don't use 5kw base anymore. while i know conditions did not allow for 5kw into a beam to 'make the contact' more then once in my lifetime, i never remember an incident of a single 3-500zg being unable to contact the same person the 5kw did. that was through a gamma. is there more loss there then through other matching systems? yea, but again obviously not enough to justify the cost of.....anyway, a careful re-read of my previous post admits that steve & dan are not neccessarily the 'claimers' of superhuman antenna performance, but moreso their customers. but then again, if i was them, i'd be reluctant to post a consumers claim of '5 S-unit gain over an....' on MY website. sure, say the consumers 'X' antenna was smoked if you will, but, that is not what those comments infer. don't get me wrong, give me 1 of their beams or 5/8 waves & up it'll go. i never said they don't 'work'. just not $350 worth better.
and, i thank YOU for this lovely opportunity to discuss a subject near & dear to my heart, that, truthfully has no lasting effect whatsoever on my life
. now, bring on the skip 8)I agree that the Maco parts are an excellent platform to build antennas from. I picked up a 6-elelment Maco for this very reason. I also have a number of Mosely, HyGain, and KLM antennas. Roboldo peaked my interest with his conversion of the KT34A for 11-meters. I have a couple of thos here and am going to experiment with it and maybe even write up instructions on how to do it.davegrantsr said:
Not with the stock parts, sorry.davegrantsr said:
Speaking for the I-10K, its worth EVERY PENNY! You get what you pay for! How many people have lost elements off of their Maco V58? They use thin wall aluminum (.049) and water can ingress into the base assembly causing problems. Sure it works, but the I-10K works better......mechanically and electrically, as you admitted to earlier.davegrantsr said:
'M.C.',
So in other words, you're talking about mechanical quality rather than electrical. I can see that. Living in an area that does get high winds (just north of Texas, you know), I certainly understand 'over building' where possible. But also being a cheap person, I have limits on what I'm willing to spend for an antenna ("spend for an antenna", nasty thought!).
You can optimize to your heart's content, but that depends a lot on where that optimized antenna is. Your optimized antenna may not work all that well where I have to put it (same other way around). I also tend to pay more attention to what my ears are capable of hearing, not so much on just 'numbers', sounds reasonable to me.
No reflection on any manufacturer's antennas, but some are just not 'worth it' to me.
- 'Doc
PS - All puns intended.
So in other words, you're talking about mechanical quality rather than electrical. I can see that. Living in an area that does get high winds (just north of Texas, you know), I certainly understand 'over building' where possible. But also being a cheap person, I have limits on what I'm willing to spend for an antenna ("spend for an antenna", nasty thought!).
You can optimize to your heart's content, but that depends a lot on where that optimized antenna is. Your optimized antenna may not work all that well where I have to put it (same other way around). I also tend to pay more attention to what my ears are capable of hearing, not so much on just 'numbers', sounds reasonable to me.
No reflection on any manufacturer's antennas, but some are just not 'worth it' to me.
- 'Doc
PS - All puns intended.
- Status
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
dxBot:63Sprint has left the room.
-
dxBot:kennyjames 0151 has left the room.
-
-