I think the "elevated radials" on antennas like the Penetrator are being misunderstood as technical advantages rather then the mechanical ones the antennas mounting bracket was designed to address. This has to do with removing mechanical stress on the insulator and does not make any noticeable changes in gain or TOA.
That bracket that holds the radials is made this way to give support to the insulator. It is also grounded and closely spaced in parallel with the first foot or so of the radiator. Sounds like no antenna action is taking place here. That combined with the fact this insulator adds no significant capacitance like overlapping tubes with an insulator between, is why this antenna tunes longer.
This type of mounting bracket was very common on antennas ranging from the high end Penetrator all the way down to the $9.99 1/2 wave Polecat from Copper Electronics back in the day. The manufacturers knew why they did this and never implied the bracket improved performance. Also remember they only market .64 wavelength antennas to CBers for a reason.
Really, is that what you think? Well, I think you like making things up, maybe just to bait me.
There at the end you actually answer yourself and in doing so, contradict yourself.
Of course manufacturers weren't going into deep current node detail in advertising, 'remember they only market to CBers...'.
- Oh but I did get your slam of the .64, as if it doesn't work, or is inferior to the 5/8, or perhaps you meant that over ½ of a foot in length just doesn't matter... Uh huh. Sure. You bet. Yet you stress Sirio having gotten exactly the perfect placement in inches for the utmost in radiating excellence...
Where are my boots@!
Actually I'm a little surprised you don't already have this knowledge of the fact of the elevated radials nullifying some of the highest inverse current bloom through downward redirection, you being an antenna designer and all...
-But in essence you're correct, even if you
don't realize it.
There is, in a sense, "no antenna action taking place here" because Hy-gain designed the
bottom of the
1/8λ inverse current part of the radiator in such a way it doesn't radiate detrimentally to the upper ½
λ of the .64
λ radiator, and it's at the bottom of the radiator where the inverse current is highest.
- And there is no "Rather than" about it, it's
both.
So, once again you
misrepresent my posts to imply that I stated or implied something I have not. Your arguments appear to be continuously based on both conjecture and misinformation via misrepresentation.
Never have I stated that a "MOUNTING BRACKET" could improve performance.
Now your just being silly, Donald.
However, ingeniously mounting radials in such a manner so as to provide an elevated ground plane
above the highest inverse current of the radiator bottom, splitting off the inverse current while
ALSO adding strength to the design, was what put Hy-gain at the
top of the antenna designers.
There is nothing about using this type of construction which precludes the lower part of the radiating radiator from radiating, that's truly one of the silliest things I've read so far. It's simply nullified by the radials.
There is no 'mutual exclusivity' in either utilizing a strong radial bracket
or radiating the entire length of the radiating radiator. The two coexist quite effectively, and evidently without your understanding how.
The Hy-gain
CLR-2 and
Silver Rod radial mounting brackets are also designed in such a manner and happen to sport the same length radiators as all other loaded, shortened
5/8λ, and other ½
λ antennas, respectively.
This new '
non-radiating-radiator' theory of yours is as flawed as is your imagining & proffering such silliness as your '
theory' that
four ½" pieces of Vector basket/cone radial tubing
in an
average circumference of 48"
providing
less than 5% shield coverage
can somehow,
miraculously, mysteriously, amazingly,
provide
100% shielding of the inner radiator while supposedly not utilizing
any radiating current to cancel the inverse current of the bottom inner ¼
λ of the Vector/Sigma/LW-150 design.
Anyone want some new Shockwave brand 5% shield Vector style coax?
- Just kidding of course...
I threw away a like-new 75' length of
90% shield coax years ago because it leaked enough to bother the neighborhood with RFI.
I replaced it with 100% shield LMR400 and problem solved.
- I can imagine how well the coax would radiate, even with it's "
coaxial transmission line function", at a whopping
5% shield coverage...
Thank you for those two real good laughs! - Keep up the fantasizing, it's becoming quite amusing.
