-
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.
Base HY-GAIN PENETRATOR vs Maco V58
- Thread starter 357
- Start date
- Status
Thanks Ranch55. Im going to apply your upgrade
Only makes sense before i get it up on the tower. Thanks again for blazing the trail
I'm sorry, This is not correct. If you see a 1 s-unit difference between these antennas, then you did something wrong when setting up one of the antennas.
Also, what, according to you, would make the Maco a "short skip" antenna versus another antenna? What do you think actually causes this difference?
The DB
Last edited:
Aside from decades of experience installing literally hundreds of antennas, several additional reasons having to do with the fact 22' 7" is not 19' 10".
But I posted to help the guys struggling with the Penetrator not to debate the finer points of Maxwell vs Rauch.
Maybe bob would.
But to answer your post claiming I must have done something wrong if I obtained an s unit gain over the MacoV58 compared with the Penetrator, how many dB would you claim an s unit measures?
Also, why would you disbelieve the concept that two different antenna designs couldn't have that # of dB difference?
If you are mounting these antenna where the radials are at or near ground level you might see a noticeable difference, but as you elevate the antenna, this difference gets smaller very quickly. At the heights these antennas are typically mounted, that additional length will make very little difference.
If not here, I would be happy to discuss how you think said debate applies to my questions in either pm or a new thread. I have found that typically when people mention names such as these, in my experience, they are more as an attempt to deflect, or gain credibility. I'm not saying that you are doing these things, it is just what generally happens when people drop these names without also speaking to their writings in their own words, they generally don't understand the writings to begin with.
Now that is a hard one to answer, mainly because of the problems with s-meter accuracy. A lot of people like to say that an s-unit shows 6 dB of difference, but in reality, that isn't true for most s-meters, especially if using most CB's s-meters which are even worse than ham radio s-meters in general. A 2 dB difference (or near 58% difference*) for an s-unit isn't unheard of, and it wouldn't surprise me if some meters were as bad as 1 dB (or near 25% difference*). But even factoring this in, the difference in output from these antennas at typical mounting heights won't even be this much.
Well, how about this.
Statements like this are used to persuade people, I just included it here to throw it back at you and see what you take such an pointless statement. However, as I see it as a non-answer I will give you a real answer.
Two different antenna designs? I think you are overestimating the differences between these two antennas, they are more alike than different. They have slightly different lengths for the vertical element and radial elements lengths, but these parts still operate in the same way. Aside from the matching systems I would put the Penetrator as slightly less efficient because of the additional lengths and aluminum being a non-perfect conductor. Both also have different but efficient matching systems as well. I would be very surprised if the these differences combined to become a 3% difference in efficiency overall, and that is far less than what it would take to make a difference on all but the most screwed up s-meters.
I have also swapped many different ground plane antennas with other ground plane antennas in the past, including Macos for Penetrators. The only time I have ever seen a difference, much less the difference you are claiming, is when something else was also replaced or changed, such as coax.
* NOTE, these figures are for dB gain, the figures for dB loss would be different.
The DB
If you removed a MacoV5/8 and replaced it with a Penetrator and saw no difference then you did something wrong!
Last edited:
These two antennas are basically the same 5/8 wavelength as far as RF is concerned. The reason the V-5000 and V-58 tune physically shorter is due to the capacitive loading that takes place at the base where the bottom tubing sections overlap with the insulator in between.
I'll bet the colossal 5/8 wave tunes up with very similar measurements due to its gamma type capacitor placed in the same location. We don't hear comments about this because the length is not published, it looks good and "it costs too much for it not to be good".
I'll bet the colossal 5/8 wave tunes up with very similar measurements due to its gamma type capacitor placed in the same location. We don't hear comments about this because the length is not published, it looks good and "it costs too much for it not to be good".
Last edited:
Too much to go into while camping using a phone.
I just lost several paragraphs I'd thoughtfully written so another time for details, suffice it to say
You're confusing capacitive half wave loading with the Penetrators 3/4 wave linear loading.
22' 4" vs 19' 10" - different antenna designs, different take off angles, different gain factors, different performance - as have found at least 90% of those whom have used both.
In most cases, take an S reading on the Maco and simply add 1-2 S units to approximate the Penetrator.
I'm sorry, you are mistaken here. There is one way to extend an electrical half wavelength antenna to a longer physical length, and the Imax is the only real world example of it that I am aware of. For this to happen you need a capacitor mounted up on the radiator higher than the electrical half wavelength point down from the tip of said radiator, and even then you need a separate matching network to correct the impedance mismatch from the electrical half wavelength antenna. In one way, this design is superior to the standard 5/8 wavelength design because the entire length of the radiator is in phase with itself. The biggest problem with this design is the need for a matching system to cover the very high mismatch that a half wavelength impedance presents.
The Maco design, which is actually a parallel resonant network with a tap on the inductor to adjust antenna impedance, does not electrically lengthen or shorten the antenna, it simply corrects the impedance mismatch of the antenna presented. That is how a matching network actually works.
Also, if the Penetrator actually had a linear loading circuit, you would be accurate with it being a shortened 3/4 wavelength antenna, however, it does not. I can, however, see how someone can make this mistake as the beta match layout on the Penetrator looks very similar to a linear loading circuit. A beta match does not lengthen or shorten the antenna electrically, although like the linear loading circuit mounted at that location it does add some additional out of phase currents to the mix. It, like the tapped parallel resonant network on the Maco, simply corrects the impedance mismatch that a 5/8 wavelength antenna always has.
Yes, that is the difference in length between these antennas, about 2.5 feet. If we were talking shortened 1/4 wavelength antennas mounted near the earth in a mobile setup, I would agree that this could be significant, however, we are not.
Yes, the Penetrator has a longer radiator, which means more of the radiator will be out of phase with the rest of it the antenna as only 1/2 wavelength of the antenna is in phase (unless you have designed a capacitor into the radiator as I explained with the Imax above), so the longer it is beyond that point, the more radiated signal gets transferred to a higher angle lobe. 5/8 wavelength is just near the point for the weakening of the lower angle lobe to become noticeable.
Yes, the Penetrator with its longer elements made out of imperfect material will have slightly more loss from the signal traveling through this structure, resulting in less signal actually being radiated from the antenna itself. On the plus side (for the Penetrator), the current node is a few feet further away from the earth, which will result in fewer ground losses, however, at the heights this antenna is mounted this change can best be described with the word "slightly" that I used above when I referred to this antenna being slightly more lossy in another area.
Again, if we were talking, say, a full 1/4 wavelength antenna vs one that is two and a half feed shorter, I would agree with you. I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, but that difference gets smaller and smaller as the antenna gets longer and longer, and this changes on a logarithmic scale. At the lengths we are referring to, all the additional length gets you is effectively a higher current node above the earth, which has its own set of effects.
I have had exactly the opposite experience many many times. When I have the experience you are referring to it is because something else also changed, such as the coax was also replaced, or the mast was made longer, etc. If just the antenna was changed, this did not happen.
The DB
All this arguing over an omni antenna is crazy and pointless.. If yall want better performance put up a beam!
So I am a bit confused. Which antenna turned out to be better The Penetrator or the V58. Seems to me the penetrator really needs to have a lot of modifications done to it to be a good antenna. It is looking like the V58 is winning.
- Status