| Author |
Message |
    
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 598
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 8:05 pm: | 
|
Does anyone have something to add to this claim. What do you think or know about this fine old antenna that almost puts it into a class by itself. Be as specific as you can about what it is that makes this claim true or false.
I never owned one, but it looks a lot like the old HyGain CLR II that I used to own and except for the lack of power handling qualities, it was a very fine 1/2 wave antenna and I wished I still had it. |
26_op_141
Member
Username: 26_op_141
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hey Marconi,
I owned this antenna many years back and I sold it to a friend a few years ago and he is still using it today. The ones we had here in England were called the Hygain Golden Penetrator 5/8 and were gold anodized. Not sure if you got those in the USA but maybe it was done for our rainy English weather?
Performance was excellent, both local and DX with a so, so band width. The only fault I could find with this antenna was every time it rained the SWR went up!! I thought it maybe a blocked hole or water leaking into coax but after several attempts to correct it, it still did it!
I later replaced it with the Avanti Sigma 2, 5/8 wave which I though was just as good and had no SWR flaws with the rain. Unfortunately the Sigma 2 snapped in high winds a few years ago just above the coil.
I consider both these antenna the best 5/8 waves I’ve ever used but I have now resulted to using a Shakespeare NBS2010 just survive the high winds we get here. It’s not quite as good performance wise but I can mount it higher and know it will be there in the morning after the next storm. I guess you have to take into account the Penetrator and Sigma 2 are approx 30 years old and metal fatigue will eventually set in regardless of material used.
If you have a Penetrator 500 or a Avanti Sigma 2 treat it with TLC . Long live the bench mark of all antennas !!
73
Tim
26 Orient Pirate 141 |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 599
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
Great comments Tim, thanks. Being as this antenna is so old, I doubt there will be many to comment here. I did wish to get a thread of interest started however, because I am looking for someone that made a particular comment about this antenna in the past and I do not remember who made the comment. Whoever made the comment knew something about the subject in which I currently have an interest. I would like to ask a specific question.
I have to generalize in my paraphrasing the statement, but it went something like this.
"the Penerator antenna did a better job because of the raised ground plane design in the antenna."
If you have such an idea, or have made a similar statement, or know someone that did, about this antenna, I would like to ask you the following question about this idea.
Do you think this happens because when the GP is raised like this, it becomes more effective as a ground plane because more current is allowed to pass in these elements than would occur if the GP radials were positioned below the feed point?
Marconi |
Wankle
Junior Member
Username: Wankle
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
It would be nice to know the measurements of this antenna so we could try to build one.
The loading coil should not be difficult we know what the one in the Halfwave looks like. |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 3568
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Best 5/8 wave ive even used is a mosley DI-6 ( 6 Meters ) it was very close to the CLR2 for CB except on 6 and lasted almost 30 years ....
Too bad these kind of antennas like Hygain Penetrator and CLR2 are not made any more ....
|
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 7:50 pm: |
|
i had a golden penetrator in 1975.it was a top of the line ground plane,and the only other one that was equal to it was as "tim said"was the avanti sigma 5/8.as tim said the rain on the skin of the antenna made the swr's go up to about 1.5 to 1.7 if you had a 1.1 reading on a clear day.the radiator was 22 ft. and the radials were 9 ft.long(all four of them)which made it sometimes hard to put up by your self,because of the weight of this antenna.the 5/8 penetrator and the "the so called top on" knock offs.are no way as good as these fore runners real thing. they differ in weight(YOU CAN PUT UP A 5/8 THESE DAYS BY YOUR SELF!!)and performace.a real top one talked almost as hard as the penetrator,but without the weight problem.that's one reason why avanti's real top one's sales took off.if you had a penetrator on a cheap telecopic mast,and lived in a windy area,your pole was in trouble!!these days you can put regular ground planes on just about anything.ever tried putting up a real penetrater 5/8 on a push up pole?? in most cases you needed help!!.it would be like putting up a jay's 5/8.antenna specialist top of the line was the mighty magmuim 3.it had 3 radials on it and it was 18 ft tall,plus it had a coil that would burn out.the hygain penetrators(regular and golden)stole the show from them with the loop coil.it ran cooler, as the antenna specialist antenna had a wounded coil that held heat.then avanti beat them out in the 1/4 wave group with the astroplane,which was miles better than there 9 foot 1/4 wave.such was the antenna wars!!if you think your new 5/8 wave and astroplane of today is great.them you would have been extra inpressed by the real performers.THERE'S NO CONTEST!!and i miss them dearly. 505 |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 7:52 pm: |
|
i had a golden penetrator in 1975.it was a top of the line ground plane,and the only other one that was equal to it was as "tim said"was the avanti sigma 5/8.as tim said the rain on the skin of the antenna made the swr's go up to about 1.5 to 1.7 if you had a 1.1 reading on a clear day.the radiator was 22 ft. and the radials were 9 ft.long(all four of them)which made it sometimes hard to put up by your self,because of the weight of this antenna.the 5/8 penetrator and the "the so called top on" knock offs.are no way as good as these fore runners real thing. they differ in weight(YOU CAN PUT UP A 5/8 THESE DAYS BY YOUR SELF!!)and performace.a real top one talked almost as hard as the penetrator,but without the weight problem.that's one reason why avanti's real top one's sales took off.if you had a penetrator on a cheap telecopic mast,and lived in a windy area,your pole was in trouble!!these days you can put regular ground planes on just about anything.ever tried putting up a real penetrater 5/8 on a push up pole?? in most cases you needed help!!.it would be like putting up a jay's 5/8.antenna specialist top of the line was the mighty magmuim 3.it had 3 radials on it and it was 18 ft tall,plus it had a coil that would burn out.the hygain penetrators(regular and golden)stole the show from them with the loop coil.it ran cooler, as the antenna specialist antenna had a wounded coil that held heat.then avanti beat them out in the 1/4 wave group with the astroplane,which was miles better than there 9 foot 1/4 wave.such was the antenna wars!!if you think your new 5/8 wave and astroplane of today is great.them you would have been extra inpressed by the real performers.THERE'S NO CONTEST!!and i miss them dearly. 505 |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 601
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:59 am: |
|
Ok 505, do you recall ever hearing any discussion or personally know about the HyGain Penetrator 500 having the Ground Plane high up on the antenna, and that alone being an advantage over the other ground planes around that had the GP down below or very near the feed point instead?
It is my contention that if this antenna exhibited as much advantage over all the others as most have said over time that maybe this GP being installed well above the feed point high up on the radiator may well allow the ground plane to really act like a real ground plane and allow improved current flow in the four radials. My testing so far on some of the antennas that have the GP elements below the feed point indicate that there is not much current actually flowing in the ground plane so it probably is not working as well as it should to decouple the feed line from the antenna.
Anyone have anything to add to this idea about this great old antenna. I swear that I have heard someone on this forum speak similar words to this issue about this same antenna. But, I do not remember any more details and I would like to know if this idea has any merit in the real world.
Marconi |
Road_warrior
Senior Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 8:21 pm: |
|
I once owned a Penetrator 500 years ago.
After my Starduster fell apart i bought it
from a friend. But, being new to setting SWRS
and putting the dang thing together without
directions i became frustated and sold it to
buy a Super Big Stik... WOW! If i knew what i
knew now! Kick me! LOL |
Capt_hook
Intermediate Member
Username: Capt_hook
Post Number: 249
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 5:39 am: |
|
What do these look like I may have one in my shead not sure Got it in 1972 .??........Capt Hook |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 2:07 am: |
|
sorry it took me so long to get back marconi,but i did a 16 hour day and a 12 hour day,had to get some rest.the only thing that i can recall about the radials were,people some people would take the radials off(by the radials being 9 ft long )and you had 4,it needed space for the antenna that the big stick or the magnum did'nt.so they would take the radials off.then people found out that they would spatter much more than they did with them on.(even on my test)and they also would not talk as far.it seems that the take off angle was very much effected.so once again avanti stepped up too the plate.if people wanted better performance but smaller radials,so be it.the saturn v was born.it was about 26 ft. tall(radator) and had a radial system that looked like a cone.and very,very much effective.in fact it was as good and in some cases slightly better.it was amazing.--------- and CAPT HOOK!! THE PENETRATOR was about 22 ft tall and had four 9 ft(1/4 wave)radials.it had a top hat which was FOUR SHORT RADIALS on the top of the radiator.HEY MARCONI!!IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT!!i just thought about that it did have radials high up!and they did seem to have some kind of power over the antenna.getting old i think a lot slower(ha!ha!) 505 |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 3587
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:41 am: |
|
"so they would take the radials off.then people found out that they would spatter much more than they did with them on"
You lose your counter poise and that would cause all kinds of RF problems back down the coax .... |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:12 pm: |
|
that's right bruce,they did't performed well with that change.i have't found any other ground plane in this day an time,that could compare in performace.it seem to be a full size 5/8.and performed as such.that's why i got excited when i saw jay's 10k.the lenth and size brought back fond memory's.it seems to be the only ground plane that might hold a candle. 505 |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 606
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Yep Bruce that is what I'm getten at here. 505 the Avanti Saturn V was a dual polarity ground plane antenna. |
Mikefromms
Advanced Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 853
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hello Road Warrior, you own a Pentrator groundplane 500 years ago? Wow, I didn't know electricity was around. LOL...
The Penatrator is the benchmark for groundplanes but I have never liked the metal arms sticking out on the sides. They are too easy to break. Give me my Imax 2000 or even the Antron and get it up high, high, high. You won't have any complaints from me.
mikefromms |
Capt_hook
Intermediate Member
Username: Capt_hook
Post Number: 259
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 9:24 pm: |
|
weelco 505 ..how about 21' 10 1/2"long is that long enough /and it does have 4 9' radials .I also have another antenna 11m will have to get a pix of it ........Capt Hook |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:49 am: |
|
sure thing capt.hook,they were 9 ft long all four.and somebody was making a shorter verison of it(the radiator)but i would go with the 22ft if i were you.taller is better in most cases.i'am thinking about making one 22 ft. but one piece(the radiator)insteed of 3 sections.looking to see what effect that will have on the 5/8.my thinking is that the 3 piece thing is just for transport purpose.but that always seeme too be an antennas weak point when it is put together in sections. 505 |
26_op_141
Member
Username: 26_op_141
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 4:10 am: |
|
Mike Fromms,
How many Penertrators do you know have snapped on the radial arms? In all the years I’ve been working radio I don’t know of any on this mentioned antenna. The one I used to own which my friend has now is still up and running after 30 years. The mechanism holding up the Penertrators radials was quite a good system which clamped around the radial rather just hold them in with a nut and bold like must of the later clones have done. The Penertrator also has no coil too burn out and uses a loop matching system and as Marconi points out the radials were above the feed. Not sure what effect this has compared to other antennas but the Penertrator really is the best 5/8 Ive ever used on 27MHz. The Imax 2000 is a good antenna I don’t denigh that but I always thought the TX was better than its RX compared to the Penertrator 500 or Avanti Sigma 2 for that matter. Plus I know of 4 stations that have had Imax 2000’s snapped in high winds!!
Yes a 5/8 wave is a 5/8 but lots of people have favourites makes and have rose tinted glasses of the good ole days but I assure you that these two legends really are the bench marks of 5/8 wave verticals and the performance on TX equals its excellent low noise RX. Thing is like me its getting old and fatigue gets to us all !! Let me know if your “whipper” snapper of an Imax 2000 is around in 30 years+
73
Tim |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
10-4 !! 26 0p 141 well said!!! 10-4!! 505 |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 610
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
I also agree with Tim when he states;
quote:The Imax 2000 is a good antenna I don’t denigh that but I always thought the TX was better than its RX compared to the Penertrator 500 or Avanti Sigma 2 for that matter.
If signal is all that is important to you then the Imax will make a good signal, but I like to hear who's out there as well and most of the time my Imax or A99 is always 3-5 S-units higher on noise level when switching back and forth. |
Mikefromms
Advanced Member
Username: Mikefromms
Post Number: 858
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
In my case, the Imax 2000 is silent. I do have superior coax and use a Magnum Omega Force S-45 with an electrical in-line filter. The Magnum is know for its quite reception. I can talk as far as I can hear. For the record, my antenna also has the groundplane kit. I just don't see how another groundplane could significantly outperform this antenna either on ears or transmit.
So far the Imax has held up solid in the winds. As far as being up 30 years from now, it is highly unlightly I would keep the same antenna that long (if I'm still alive then). Eventually, I grow tired of the same system and trade out. I will say that I have been the most content with the Imax and Magnum radio as my base station. The fact that I have had them both longer than any previous station set up (in recent years) speaks volumes.
Back to ears, it has been my experience with the Antron 99 that it outtalks its ears. The ears don't seem to be as good as other groundplanes. I could be wrong. Imax is pretty even on transmit and receive at 125 ft to the tip.
Happy Cbing from Mikefromms |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
you know mike, you must remember that a lot of things go in to rateing a antenna.where you live,how much traffic is on your favorite channel,how far you are from traffic,etc,etc.i've notice on this forum 95% of the people here live in places where everybody takes turns useing the channel,locals stand by until it's there time to talk,people don't hogg the channel and try to cut you off when you are talking to a friend.then i'am glad for you mike it is as it should be.but i live in a diffent world where all those good cb and fcc rules don't mean a thing.in my nieborhood if you run barefooted(no power)you are a mudduck.if you run 2 pill amps ,you won't be heard unless you are next door or across the street from who you are talking to.in my world if you don't have at least a 5 pill mobile,and at least a 500 watt(dead key)to 1000 watt station your skip will get stolen from you as well as your local conversation.(unless you are next door or across the street.)the average station here in love country(va.) city of norfolk,and portsmouth (base station)is 1000 watts to 2800 watts.the average mobile is 8 pill,most are 16 pills.so stock stations talk to them selves.so your statment of that("i don't see how another antenna groundplane could significantly outperform this antenna either on ears and transmit)may work in your world ,but not always in others.we need every edge we can.if a full .64 or 3/4 wave will give us and edge,we will take it!!some here have started to use beams on double trouble.(vertical and flat at the same time)no imax can mess with that.so the groundplane closest to a full wave is the antenna of choice(and the imax is NOT)but then again that's my nieborhood,welcome to the east coast wAy!!i wished i could be normal like other places,but i have to play the cards that were dealt.welcome to "love country"cut throat cb captial of the world. bobby sixkiller 505 love country |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 622
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 4:58 am: |
|
Hey 505 there is a difference in radio when you are talking and just playing around. Those areas like you describe are not interested in talking and listening to anyone and having an experience, they are only interested in being talked about and that is pathetic. |
Wheelco505
Junior Member
Username: Wheelco505
Post Number: 45
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
that's right marconi and at times it get's sicking!!i live in a tri-city area.it's like a circle off of the atlantic coast.water everywhere.noffolk,portsmouth,va.beach,hampton,and newport news.we are all on the water,and the cities are so close together(5 to 15 min. puts you in anyone of them)when you talk next door,you most of the time put a 9+ to 10 signal to any of thease cities.and my friend!that's starts trouble!everybody want's at times to talk at the same time.and if they feel that they are not being heard.they pump up.and they don't have to because,the tri-cities are so close together,you could just use a walkee talkee.and it's sort of like florida,our interstate 64 runs right through all three cities.so ch.19 is a problem too,you see the truckers are coming in and out of the ports all day.and they are waiting to get loaded and unloaded.(i live a mile from two of them)conversation on the air can be like grand central station.think 100 conversation going on at one time.needless to say i go fishing a lot.ha!ha!ha! 505 |
Woozy
New member
Username: Woozy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 1:57 am: |
|
Well I will Add my 2 cents worth. As a young man I bought a p-500 in about 1975 when the Cb craze was in full swing. I installed it on top of our century old 2 story farm house with a tin roof in the rurals of Oregon and spent many happy evenings shooting skip with an old (then) tube double sidebander. It would talk over the top of many of the beams in my area, but I don't know if that was the antenna, or the tin roof,or the hill I lived on. But I have to rate it as the greatest antenna ever, just for sentimental reasons. Those were good days. Who knows it could still be on top of that old farm house. |
Hotwire
Senior Member
Username: Hotwire
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 8:49 am: |
|
Woozy! Lets go get it! |
Wankle
Junior Member
Username: Wankle
Post Number: 12
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Hey Woozy, tell us more. I love these old stories.
did you move away? sell the house? |
Twowatt
Member
Username: Twowatt
Post Number: 71
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 2:55 am: |
|
some old 5/8 wave antenna lengths from ads in S9 magazine, CB magazine, Echo catalog, Henshaws catalog, & from CB Radio Operators Guide 2nd Edition by Tab Books; all from the 70's
Avanti Saturn (22' 6")
Avanti Sigma 5/8 (22')
Hygain CLR2 (19' 10")
Hygain Super CLR Penetrator (22' 9 1/2")
Kris GLR-2 (19' 10")
Mark Products MK-V (20')
Mosley Electronics Devant (20' 5")
New-Tronics PRO-27-JR (19" 10 3/4")
R. Shack Archer Deluxe Colinear (19' 10")
Wilson Alpha V 5/8 (21')
(and one .64 wavelength)
Taylor Grand Slammer 6400 (23' 3 1/2") |
Marconi
Advanced Member
Username: Marconi
Post Number: 642
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 9:00 am: |
|
Well guys, after posting this thread I read some more and discovered in a Hygain ad where they discuss the CLR2 as being a 5/8 wave antenna. Not that I put all my confidence in this or any other ad, but I once felt the CLR2 was a 1/2 antenna wave even while knowing that it was longer than necessary and capacitance loaded, as I discovered much later. At the time back in the 70's I did not even know about 5/8 wave or any other than 1/4 and 1/2 wavelength antennas as I recall. Even quads back then were of little notice in the CB world. I think the PDL 2 came out in the 80's and really set the CB world on fire for beam type antennas.
To a point, all longer than a 1/2 wave radiators produce a bit lower angle of departure and a bit of gain over their shorter competitors. The differences between them are truly arguable however. The ad suggested this 5/8's description was due to the design and how the longer radiator exhibited .625 characteristics associated with that design idea. It is argued that this can only happen if the radiator is longer than a resonant 1/2 wave and where the required matching device and the ground plane element(s) are such as to bring this non-resonant length back into resonance.
So my conclusion is that all of these longer than 1/2 wave antennas are very much alike and should produce about the same results give all other factors are the same. It is also to be noted elsewhere, that when the radiator approaches 3/4 wavelength the capacitive loading benefits begin to decrease rapidly and the radiated angle pattern tends to begin producing a higher power lobe, a pattern similar to a long wire and in 11 meters this is considered as non productive.
The descriptions of these antennas are not just a simple measurement of length converted to a fraction of a wavelength in order to determine what they are. In fact, in order for these antennas to become resonant they must become, electrically, 3/4 wavelength long or they cannot be resonant at all.
The reason all these longer than physical 1/2 wave antennas noted in Twowatt's nice list of information is because they all basically respond the same or very similar in on air test if all other things are equal. They produce a bit lower angle of departure than a 1/2 wave or 1/4 wave antenna and a bit of gain as a result of simply being longer. The matching devices used to bring any of these particular lengths, tubing diameter, and taper, into a match condition at resonance are all unique simply due to the particular matcher used and how the counterpoise is effected. All of these matchers add inductive reactance in a little different way in order to make the antenna resonant, and thus the lengths can and are different from antenna to antenna as noted. As also noted, this also depends to some degree on how the GPK is installed and how many elevated ground plane element(s) are added to the antenna and maybe even where the GPK is located on the antenna.
In my study of whatever modeling examples of these types of antennas I could find, suggest to me that these ground plane designs, or whether a GPK is present or not, has little to do with the real angle of departure in the radiotor itself. I know the addition of a GPK is often indicated in the antenna advertising as the big factor to consider with adding the ground plane kit on an otherwise no-ground plane antenna. For me, I find no evidence to support this idea relating to angle of departure, at least from modeling examples. It appears that the earth itself has more to do with the angle than does the GPK.
The GP kit for me is more of a matching device and if suitable, it will decouple the feed line from the antenna nicely, and possibly produce a bit stronger signal at the horizon where we want the signal. I will also concede that feed line radiation is not all bad as it to can radiate to some area, but it likely depends on how long the feed line is in the vertical field as to how well it works and at what angle it radiates. So in this regard if you ad a GPK to a no-ground plane antenna then you might just effectively lower the angle by somewhat eliminating some of the high angle radiation from the feedline/mast which may look like a long wire or a 1/4 or 1/2 wave radiator when compared to the actual antenna radiated pattern.
Probably a lot of the actual performance results seen from all of these and others similar antennas are based on how effective this ground plan is working as a counterpoise for the radiator. And, to a larger degree just how much current is able to flow in these GP elements when compared to the feedline/mast that are often directly or inductively coupled to the radiator.
So my money is on the ability for the design to decouple the feed line from the antenna as being of significance. I also believe that those antennas with a somewhat narrower tuned bandwidth tend to produce better gains.
This is just my opinion and for information to consider in your thinking. I have been wrong in the past and I could be wrong now, so I would like to hear some good arguments with different opinions, not just stories about how good this one was compared to that one I used 5 years ago or even last week for that matter. With current conditions as they are it is really hard to tell anything in comparison.
Also if you have opinions as to how important perfect tuning (SWR = 1.0:1) is to actual antenna performance I would also like to hear about that as well.
Marconi |
Tankan
New member
Username: Tankan
Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 6:24 pm: |
|
I used the Golden Penetrator many years ago, it was advertised as a 5/8 wl length but was actually like the iMax-2000 a .64 wl, which gave it a small advantage over the true 5/8 wl. As I recall it was a rugged and heavy antenna but boy did it perform, closely matching the Avanti Sigma 4 and the Ham International Big Mac. It was a real pain when it rained, the VSWR went crazy, this was pre coax seal days, tape sealant sucked big time. Nevertheless, I have great memories of this antenna, I talked the world over with my 148-GTL DX and 21 watts, a real classic in my humble opinion. |
Sniper1
New member
Username: Sniper1
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 7:55 pm: |
|
I am presently using the very same Penetrator that I purchased new in 1976. It has no bends or flaws after 31 yrs in the air.it has been on my roof with a chimney mount (actually 2 sets of straps) on a 10' heavy walled steel pipe.The height of the vertical is 22'9 1/2" with the radial lengths being 8'9" and it will handle as advertised 1500 watts of input. The radial mounting plate is exactly 12" above the coax input, and as someone else stated is a heavy duty unit. I've run my Phantom on it since 1978 with no adverse effects. I personaly have seen no appreciable climb in swr readings in the rain. Ice and snow build-up...yes ! It has never gone over 1.5 so it never was a concern of mine. The only thing I have replaced over the years with regularity is the coax. If anyone would like a scanned copy of my original instructions I would gladly send them to you as you can click on my profile and pm me. |
Walterb
Junior Member
Username: Walterb
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Lot of great info here, Back in the 70s when I was getting into CB, I lived on a hill that was around 800 feet above the LA basin and could hear for miles and miles on my cobra 2000 GTL and a Big Stick with a ground plate with 32 1/4 wave radials under it and belonged to a CB club that had over 1000 members, So over the years I learned where all the powerful were located and found out what kind of radios antennas and if they were running power and also what kind of coax they ran and how long it was, My finding were as such, the loudest stations were always had something in common, first most all of them used the same CB teak, 2 the antennas they used with out exception were ether Penetrators, Sigma 4s or R/S Archer .64 and most all ran 100ft or coax to there antennas. I found out myself that R/S coax that was only 66% shielded under direct testing would give a louder signal that Belden RG8 and 213 that were both 95 percent shielded in direct replacement test, so as Marconi stated its the sum of all the components that make station excel. I myself have had good luck having my ground plane antennas mounded at low levels, but can't confirm anything at this time yet................walterb |
Mrclean
Member
Username: Mrclean
Post Number: 94
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2008 - 12:00 pm: |
|
A friend of mine just found one still in the box for 75 bucks. I wanted to cry. He lives about 25 miles from me and the difference between it and his 6 element vertical yagi both about 40 ft at the feedline is 2 s-units. About what should be expected. |
Port_richey_kidd
New member
Username: Port_richey_kidd
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2008
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2008 - 9:32 pm: |
|
Walterb i agree with you on low levels i run mine at 30 feet high and have great ears and talk now i use a new antenna out but i love the way it works i just need to get it back up now that my new roof is done enforcer is the name of it. It is a 5/8 ground plane |
Tech833
Moderator
Username: Tech833
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 9:22 am: |
|
I couldn't let this go-
Quote by Walterb: "I found out myself that R/S coax that was only 66% shielded under direct testing would give a louder signal that Belden RG8 and 213 that were both 95 percent shielded in direct replacement test"
The only time this would be true is if the antenna was not tuned properly for lowest SWR. The more lossy coax (66% shield) would return less power back to the radio than the 95% shield cable, therefore allowing the obviously mis-tuned transmitter to put out higher PEP.
That's it, folks. Saying that this was done and proven is an admission of guilt for having a poorly tuned radio tank circuit (or an amp without a tank circuit) and not spending the time to get the antenna SWR down.
The TRUTH is, lower loss cable gets more power from your radio to the antenna, and returns more signal from your antenna to your receiver. Facts are facts. |
