Sidebar Sidebar
  • 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.

New antenna from Sirio Gain-Master

Shockwave said:
I'm pretty sure me and CDX are not on the same page. Unfortunately I am fairly certain we are talking about the same 1/4 wave 90 degree angled radials on a 5/8 wave. Although we have referred to the Vector and GM at times in this post. He seems to think moving the radial bracket up higher on the radiator will cancel the out of phase radiation in the lower 1/8 wave of the 5/8 wave without an upward flare of the radials. I say the only reason the radials are a little higher on the Penetrator is so the mast and radial bracket can support that weak insulator in the base. It does squat for gain or TOA.
Click to expand...
SW, the first base antenna I ever owned was an old HyGain CLR2, and I think it had the same mounting bracket in question here...with its 3 raised radials. I didn’t have any special interest in antennas at the time, but I did notice over time that the CLR performed quite well for what it was. As I began to use other base antennas in the 80's - 90's the old CLR2 became my standard for performance. I even thought it to be a ½ wave at the time and maybe it was, and maybe in time that idea changed to the promotional idea the CLR was a collinear 5/8 wave. Maybe this is where 007’s gets his idea from.

I can't be sure what or why in this case, but I always thought that HG style mount was very sturdy and I find nothing wrong with the insulators used. I had a couple of them crack over time, but they never failed me in use, and the radiators were always true and strong using the mount. I considered this CLR2 as my standard of comparison, because it was my first.

IMO, 007 may have a point, if we consider what HyGain advertised for this antenna, true or not. How can we prove the truth in this case? Over time I owned two other CLR's and all three had a different matching device inside the bottom hub, but I believe otherwise they were the same. Maybe one of these was a bit shorter when the 40 channels came out…just like we find several different models in their Penetrator 500 models.

I ask what reports do we generally hear about the P500? Usually one of the best, and I always wondered why that was. Without ever owning or working a P500, I took an interest in reports and I never heard anyone give a bad report. In fact this AT seemed to reign superior among the believable type reports.

I always wondered about their raised radials and it seemed to make sense to me, that maybe they worked better for some reason, and I conjured up the idea it may be because they were closer to the current node for the AT, if it was truly a 5/8 wave…and that might make the difference. Without really knowing, I don't think it does exactly what you tell us 007 suggested, but I have a different idea than most…when radials are used and are necessary to make the antenna function. Albeit radials are a necessary element in some verticals, I believe they basically ill-affect other characteristics in the AT's pattern, take off angle, bandwidth, and gain. Sometimes the designs add or diminish such affects. I also think symmetry is important and both factors can be costly to manufacture correctly. This is where IMO compromise in antenna design and manufacturing comes into play.

Maybe I’ll try and model this antenna and see what affect it shows, even though most will quarrel that modeling with Exnec5 is questionable. I will save ya’ll the grief and just do it for myself however, and report my results in words only. You will just have to trust my words, there won’t be any evidence of my work on the CLR2 or P500 which ever has good measurements and I won’t be modeling with matching included either.

I’ll keep you posted.

BTW Bob, that is the way my box looks also. You can see the round FG marks.
 
Last edited:
No, we're not on the same page, I don't care to read fantasy.

I'm sorry Shock, but simply stating something as fact, such as "I say the only reason the radials are a little higher on the Penetrator is so the mast and radial bracket can support that weak insulator in the base. It does squat for gain or TOA" doesn't make it true.

As I stated, you've got your theories and I've got mine, but all that's a moot point if you won't

POST


THE


FULL


VECTOR


CST


MODEL
 
CDX-007 said:
No, we're not on the same page, I don't care to read fantasy.

I'm sorry Shock, but simply stating something as fact, such as "I say the only reason the radials are a little higher on the Penetrator is so the mast and radial bracket can support that weak insulator in the base. It does squat for gain or TOA" doesn't make it true.

As I stated, you've got your theories and I've got mine, but all that's a moot point if you won't

POST


THE


FULL


VECTOR


CST


MODEL
Click to expand...

In 30 years of working with antennas I've never seen one technical reference where it suggests moving the ground plane radials upwards on the main radiator could improve performance. I will be happy to change my point of view just as soon as you can provide any evidence of this idea from a qualified non 11 meter source. Any source I've ever seen clearly indicates proper radial placement is at the base of the radiator. The only variable I've seen on this is with the 2 meter Isopole. Here they add a second cone under the first for additional decoupling but not higher on the active radiator.

I really don't care who is right or wrong on this one. All I ask is that you show some references to where you got this idea like I did with the Vector radiating in phase from it's base. To me it looks to come from the same camp that thinks adding radials on the whip of your mobile antenna helps. You see a simple mechanical change in the bracket and right away start reading magic into it.

Typing in the biggest font you can find will not convince me it's beneficial to share more of the material I have on the "coaxial J-Pole". That information was provided to me and I decided to share it with this forum. The more you demand to see the entire file, the more it proves you did not understand the material I've already shared. Digest the first batch of information before requesting more.
 
Marconi said:
SW, the first base antenna I ever owned was an old HyGain CLR2, and I think it had the same mounting bracket in question here...with its 3 raised radials. I didn’t have any special interest in antennas at the time, but I did notice over time that the CLR performed quite well for what it was. As I began to use other base antennas in the 80's - 90's the old CLR2 became my standard for performance. I even thought it to be a ½ wave at the time and maybe it was, and maybe in time that idea changed to the promotional idea the CLR was a collinear 5/8 wave. Maybe this is where 007’s gets his idea from.

I can't be sure what or why in this case, but I always thought that HG style mount was very sturdy and I find nothing wrong with the insulators used. I had a couple of them crack over time, but they never failed me in use, and the radiators were always true and strong using the mount. I considered this CLR2 as my standard of comparison, because it was my first.

IMO, 007 may have a point, if we consider what HyGain advertised for this antenna, true or not. How can we prove the truth in this case? Over time I owned two other CLR's and all three had a different matching device inside the bottom hub, but I believe otherwise they were the same. Maybe one of these was a bit shorter when the 40 channels came out…just like we find several different models in their Penetrator 500 models.

I ask what reports do we generally hear about the P500? Usually one of the best, and I always wondered why that was. Without ever owning or working a P500, I took an interest in reports and I never heard anyone give a bad report. In fact this AT seemed to reign superior among the believable type reports.

I always wondered about their raised radials and it seemed to make sense to me, that maybe they worked better for some reason, and I conjured up the idea it may be because they were closer to the current node for the AT, if it was truly a 5/8 wave…and that might make the difference. Without really knowing, I don't think it does exactly what you tell us 007 suggested, but I have a different idea than most…when radials are used and are necessary to make the antenna function. Albeit radials are a necessary element in some verticals, I believe they basically ill-affect other characteristics in the AT's pattern, take off angle, bandwidth, and gain. Sometimes the designs add or diminish such affects. I also think symmetry is important and both factors can be costly to manufacture correctly. This is where IMO compromise in antenna design and manufacturing comes into play.

Maybe I’ll try and model this antenna and see what affect it shows, even though most will quarrel that modeling with Exnec5 is questionable. I will save ya’ll the grief and just do it for myself however, and report my results in words only. You will just have to trust my words, there won’t be any evidence of my work on the CLR2 or P500 which ever has good measurements and I won’t be modeling with matching included either.

I’ll keep you posted.

BTW Bob, that is the way my box looks also. You can see the round FG marks.
Click to expand...

Marconi, I appreciate your input on this idea since you have obviously conducted many tests with antennas. I also ask you to take a closer look at this 5/8 wave mounting bracket. Do you see where any attempt was made to elevate the radials to some specific beneficial height in terms of wavelength on the main radiator? Care was taken in it's design to insure the radials were not located below the top of the mast on the mounting bracket. Had they been below the top of the mast, it would have complicated decoupling from the mast. The 1/8 wave of out of phase radiation is still present directly above the radials as with other 5/8 wave ground planes.
 
I remember 007 saying that he thought the radial placement improved the P500 performance. I don't recall him ever claiming that was a school of thought with respect to the P500 other than his own. He has said that he thought Hy-Gain may have viewed it that way, but I don't recall he ever said he knew that to be a fact, merely conjecture on his pert. Every idea begins somewhere, and he has taken the risk of sharing his thoughts here.
Unless I missed something, 007 has already produced the only resource for this thinking - himself. It is ridiculous to require what has clearly been established to not exist.

CDX007, I have no problem with you thinking out loud here on the forum. It's risky, but apparently you're a big boy. To your credit, no one has yet produced anything but their say-so that it isn't instrumental in the superb performance of the P500. And, just like yourself, the replies that it was done simply to strengthen the radials mounting is itself an assumption on the thinking of the Hy-Gain engineers. I suppose turn about in fair play is okay.
I wouldn't mind seeing something more than arguments on these things, too. Maybe Marconi will at least model it for us.

Come Spring I hope to get my bottom radials mounted 5/8 into the air again (they are well above the top of the mast). Perhaps I can raise the radials up after a while and see if I notice differences. If i do all I will provide is anecdotal results - radials on the bottom i saw this, radials moved up I saw this. How high from the bottom are they? I know the v4k has the cone 13" up.
 
HomerBB said:
I remember 007 saying that he thought the radial placement improved the P500 performance. I don't recall him ever claiming that was a school of thought with respect to the P500 other than his own. He has said that he thought Hy-Gain may have viewed it that way, but I don't recall he ever said he knew that to be a fact, merely conjecture on his pert. Every idea begins somewhere, and he has taken the risk of sharing his thoughts here.
Unless I missed something, 007 has already produced the only resource for this thinking - himself. It is ridiculous to require what has clearly been established to not exist.

CDX007, I have no problem with you thinking out loud here on the forum. It's risky, but apparently you're a big boy. To your credit, no one has yet produced anything but their say-so that it isn't instrumental in the superb performance of the P500. And, just like yourself, the replies that it was done simply to strengthen the radials mounting is itself an assumption on the thinking of the Hy-Gain engineers. I suppose turn about in fair play is okay.
I wouldn't mind seeing something more than arguments on these things, too. Maybe Marconi will at least model it for us.

Come Spring I hope to get my bottom radials mounted 5/8 into the air again (they are well above the top of the mast). Perhaps I can raise the radials up after a while and see if I notice differences. If i do all I will provide is anecdotal results - radials on the bottom i saw this, radials moved up I saw this. How high from the bottom are they? I know the v4k has the cone 13" up.
Click to expand...

If you want to put this idea to the test, it couldn't be any simpler. Just use one of the models that contained the matching network in the base and not the hairpin because that will get in the way of the mod I propose. Then just cut the mounting bracket between the two U-bolt locations. Extend the radials higher on the radiator and connect the two halves of the mounting bracket back together with flat sheet metal. You could even use a mast with no paint on it to make the connection easily variable.

I can give you a whole list of sound technical reasons why this will degrade performance but lets just start with a couple. As you move the radials away from the grounded, unbalanced feed point, you create more inductance between the radials and the feed line they need to decouple. As you move the radials upwards on the vertical radiator, they must be insulated from the radiator and this forms a loading capacitor that is in parallel to all current feeding the main radiator.
 
HomerBB said:
I remember 007 saying that he thought the radial placement improved the P500 performance. I don't recall him ever claiming that was a school of thought with respect to the P500 other than his own. He has said that he thought Hy-Gain may have viewed it that way, but I don't recall he ever said he knew that to be a fact, merely conjecture on his pert. Every idea begins somewhere, and he has taken the risk of sharing his thoughts here.
Unless I missed something, 007 has already produced the only resource for this thinking - himself. It is ridiculous to require what has clearly been established to not exist.

CDX007, I have no problem with you thinking out loud here on the forum. It's risky, but apparently you're a big boy. To your credit, no one has yet produced anything but their say-so that it isn't instrumental in the superb performance of the P500. And, just like yourself, the replies that it was done simply to strengthen the radials mounting is itself an assumption on the thinking of the Hy-Gain engineers. I suppose turn about in fair play is okay.
I wouldn't mind seeing something more than arguments on these things, too. Maybe Marconi will at least model it for us.

Come Spring I hope to get my bottom radials mounted 5/8 into the air again (they are well above the top of the mast). Perhaps I can raise the radials up after a while and see if I notice differences. If i do all I will provide is anecdotal results - radials on the bottom i saw this, radials moved up I saw this. How high from the bottom are they? I know the v4k has the cone 13" up.
Click to expand...

Homer the mounting bracket is 12" - 14" that is typically use to mount most verticals.

HyGain could have just as easily placed the radials at the bottom as the top, as I see it. If so, then there must be a reason, right or wrong. I don't know any more than what I've said so far, but I do think maybe the engineers at HyGain had a particular bent toward symmetry in design. That could be a reason for such a mount, because the feed point is in the bottom of the antenna.

I said earlier, that I don't agree with the idea that the raised radials help to reverse the current phase in the bottom 1/8 wave, and modeling may or maybe not help answer that question if I can see the current phase change in that area after moving the radials. Frankly though, radials in such a setup should not be radiating much due to the RULE. I tend not to see radials do anything positive...much more than provide a suitable current return path for the radiator. This is important, but in the real mix of things I believe we might better desire our radials to be as transparent as possible in order to avoid their ill-affects on the radiated pattern.

That said however, I'm open to other arguments, because I'm here to learn.
 
Last edited:
Shockwave said:
In 30 years of working with antennas I've never seen one technical reference where it suggests moving the ground plane radials upwards on the main radiator could improve performance. I will be happy to change my point of view just as soon as you can provide any evidence of this idea from a qualified non 11 meter source. Any source I've ever seen clearly indicates proper radial placement is at the base of the radiator. The only variable I've seen on this is with the 2 meter Isopole. Here they add a second cone under the first for additional decoupling but not higher on the active radiator.

I really don't care who is right or wrong on this one. All I ask is that you show some references to where you got this idea like I did with the Vector radiating in phase from it's base. To me it looks to come from the same camp that thinks adding radials on the whip of your mobile antenna helps. You see a simple mechanical change in the bracket and right away start reading magic into it.

Typing in the biggest font you can find will not convince me it's beneficial to share more of the material I have on the "coaxial J-Pole". That information was provided to me and I decided to share it with this forum. The more you demand to see the entire file, the more it proves you did not understand the material I've already shared. Digest the first batch of information before requesting more.
Click to expand...

Any excuse you can use, Donald?

POST


THE


FULL


VECTOR


CST


MODEL
 
Hello m8s!

Dont know if i actually understand the subject under debat.

Is it that some 5/8 wave antennas have the radials say 1 foot above the bottum.
And now the discussion is what electrical bennifit this will have?
Is that the question?

Regards, Henry
 
Marconi, I agree that Hy-Gain moved the radials for a reason. They were moved the exact distance required to bolt the mast to the antenna without the mast being above the radials. It's all about proper decoupling and nothing more.

CDX, childishly yelling at me in large capitol font is never going to make me submit to your request. Assume whatever you want about the CST model. You have demonstrated little understanding of the information I've already shared here. I would prefer at this point you just assume it's a 1/2 wave J-Pole and I do not have the model in my possession.
 
Henry HPSD said:
Hello m8s!

Dont know if i actually understand the subject under debat.

Is it that some 5/8 wave antennas have the radials say 1 foot above the bottum.
And now the discussion is what electrical bennifit this will have?
Is that the question?

Regards, Henry
Click to expand...

Henry, you are following the debate correctly. The design of the mounting / radial bracket has made to keep the radials above the mast. Not to reduce the radiation in the lower 1/8 wave of the 5/8 wave main radiator as has been accomplished with the GM.
 
Shockwave said:
Marconi, I agree that Hy-Gain moved the radials for a reason. They were moved the exact distance required to bolt the mast to the antenna without the mast being above the radials. It's all about proper decoupling and nothing more.

CDX, childishly yelling at me in large capitol font is never going to make me submit to your request. Assume whatever you want about the CST model. You have demonstrated little understanding of the information I've already shared here. I would prefer at this point you just assume it's a 1/2 wave J-Pole and I do not have the model in my possession.
Click to expand...

SW, that is very plausible. I just never thought of it that way, and it was probably because for two reasons.

1st, back then I never considered feed line decoupling as a particularly important consideration. I know better now.

2nd, considering #1, I didn't see how the affect of improved decoupling could make a really notable difference like many described.

Of course I never owned, tested, or knowingly ever even seen a P500 except in pictures. With my experience here, I probably would have argued like all the rest, my antennas all perform really well, and DON'T see near the differences that other's claim.

I agree your idea is plausible, because I attribute HyGain with good design principles, due to the ideas I stated earlier.

See guys, I've changed my mind and learned something. This is for the one's that just get angry and fuss, learning nothing in the boot.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ Wildcat27:
    Hello I have a old school 2950 receives great on all modes and transmits great on AM but no transmit on SSB. Does anyone have any idea?
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ ButtFuzz:
    Good evening from Sunny Salem! What’s shaking?
  • dxBot:
    63Sprint has left the room.


      Top Bottom
      Back