BBT Delivered Hy-Gain Penetrator 500 Today

[bob85]

we have looked for the source of the .64 rumour to no avail, hygain missed out on some advertising bumfluffery by calling the penetrator a "true full length 5/8wave"
nec models don't indicate thats true, none of the antenna smart folk that i can find mention it, they tell you that extending too far causes pattern break up,

we have no way to determine what is and is not a .64wave when dealing with a tapered tube schedule outside of modeling software unless you make up your own velocity factor based on secret algorithms and precision guesswork,

the only person i heared make the claim is a guy who can't make a vector perform as good as a 5/8wave and he failed to reveal the source of his .64wave info,
i tend to agree with eddie.

 

[Marconi]

i remember reading that a 64 shows a better signal then a 5/8 at 50-60 miles

NB, I've read that Elvis is still alive too. Was the claim you read in some scientific type paper or report, or was it just a comment by some CB'r? Try a Google search for .64 wavelength antenna and see how much info you find on this specific topic.

Do you or anybody else know any manufacture that even makes a .64 wave vertical antenna at any HF frequency? I've heard similar claims for years, but they were just words, with no proof or evidence of work to prove such a claim. We know how manufacturer's claims go as a general rule, but even a .64 claim on packaging, or an ad, or manual might be better than what you read. It could be different however if you had a link.

I don't mean to get down on your case, but what is the truth about the .64 wavelength antenna, and if there is a difference, how much difference is there? One particular radio contact might be an interesting anecdote to consider, but it is not proof. I'll submit you would be hard pressed to prove any claim regarding a .64 being a better performer than a .625, or that there is even a technical or detectable difference.

Here is something to consider based on what my Eznec5 models for a .625 vs. .64 shows. The models are with grounded masts attached, while the overlay represents the same two antennas without the mast attached. You will see a minute difference in the patterns and the gain with the mast attached, but the difference in the overlay for the antennas with no mast attached are virtually the same. This said however, the gist of the difference is that there is no difference.

View attachment Needle Benders project.pdf

Note: in the overlay that the pattern in black (the *Primary) is the antenna noted at the bottom of the image.

 

[Marconi]

Bob, I'm still looking for the pre WWII review of an old Japanese report that made the claim for the superiority of a ground mounted .64 wavelength over a perfect ground, and tried to cast dispersions on the US work for Radio back then. I have found some old stuff that refers to Stuart Brilliantine's work for Broadcast Radio in the early 1920's, but the particular report that is in question with my thinking still alludes me. In looking at this stuff however, it is remarkable what these guys really understood even back then. I would think a lot of it is still widely used in current day technologies.

I'll look it up again and send you a link.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

finding perfect ground for many folks will be harder than finding the Japanese report .

 

[Needle Bender]

im not sure where i read that but maybe it was this forum a while back. i like bob85s new word bumfluffery, it must be european for antron i always thought bigger would be better until it starts going downhill. if the difference is about 6 inches and the both are about the same on your models then i guess i would want another half foot of antenna to collect a little more signal on recieve at least

 

[davev8]

finding perfect ground for many folks will be harder than finding the Japanese report .

i guess a salt mash will be best
I think i have good ground as its flat, it was marsh land before it was all drained maybe 75 to 200 years ago, the 7 acer of land i am on is heavy clay with rich top soil laid to grass and not very well drained (read need Wellington in winter)
But 15 mials away are 500 feet hills which will be light land on chalk,
But who will get out better? me with antenna at 60 feet above see level or the guy at 500 feet???

 

[Marconi]

im not sure where i read that but maybe it was this forum a while back. i like bob85s new word bumfluffery, it must be european for antron i always thought bigger would be better until it starts going downhill. if the difference is about 6 inches and the both are about the same on your models then i guess i would want another half foot of antenna to collect a little more signal on recieve at least

NB, I could be wrong, but I think Bob used this word "bumfluffery," kind of like we might use the word "puffing," as it applies to manufacturer's advertising. If you're saying that Solarcon puffed the results for their Antron, then you might be right.

BM and Dave, for my part in this very narrow portion of the discussion on the possible difference between .625/.64 wave, the use of the word "Perfect Ground" has nothing to do with our need to find a perfect ground to place our antennas. You missed the point. For me, you're misunderstanding my words here, so explaining further would likely be futile.

This issue is just a little History and is probably not a big deal. I've never been satisfied that I made my point with any of my buddies on this count, so I'll stop raising the issue. I can't find the supporting documents anyway.

 

[bob85]

eddie i would like to read the article, i looked several times to no avail when you talked about it in the past, it must be out there somewhere,
id like to know how each party determined what was 5/8 and .64 is it just semantics or is there a real difference in height for a given frequency,
how much of an advantage was realised, is that advantage maintained when less than a perfect groundplane is used,

if .64 is the break point where the pattern starts to develope high angle lobes you clearly can't have a .64 that covers a reasonable bandwidth, the best you could do is set it as long as the highest frequency of interest will allow.

bumfluffery,
Unnecessary nonsense, usually incessant talk or chatter about non-essential details

 

[Marconi]

eddie i would like to read the article, i looked several times to no avail when you talked about it in the past, it must be out there somewhere,
id like to know how each party determined what was 5/8 and .64 is it just semantics or is there a real difference in height for a given frequency,
how much of an advantage was realised, is that advantage maintained when less than a perfect groundplane is used,

if .64 is the break point where the pattern starts to develope high angle lobes you clearly can't have a .64 that covers a reasonable bandwidth, the best you could do is set it as long as the highest frequency of interest will allow.

bumfluffery,
Unnecessary nonsense, usually incessant talk or chatter about non-essential details

Bob, I've posted this before and the trail is convoluted at best. I wish this was not so complicated, but....

The reference to Stuart Ballantine's article, "On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna over Perfect Earth" is listed at the end of Donald K. Reynold's review entitled: "The 5/8-Wavelength Antenna Mystique," that I posted earlier. Ballantine's report was originally published in Proc.I.R.E: "Proceeds of the Institute for Radio Engineers" in 1924, and it may be listed here: IEEE - IEEE Xplore® Digital Library , however these articles listed on the ieee.org Website cost $30.00 each.

Ballantine's article may be listed there, but some Proc.I.R.E. articles are not, so I won't subscribe to the site and spend the money.

There are other locations on the Internet that allow one to view some of Ballantine's work, but I have not found his article noted above. That article could be informative, but I doubt it says one thing about .64 wavelength antennas. So, finding the other review I've read before: on the Japanese report is the real source we might want...as it talks about both the .625/.64 wavelength and claims that .64 is better. And I think this report is the source of a lot of CB misinformation.

Bob your point about the likely bandwidth limit and higher angles with the .64 is well taken, but you might have to explain that to BM much better, else he get it wrong, and......

 

[bob85]

eddie,
i found something from the link you may want to read if you have not seen it already,
Height radius effect on MF AM transmitting monopole antenna

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

BM and Dave, for my part in this very narrow portion of the discussion on the possible difference between .625/.64 wave, the use of the word "Perfect Ground" has nothing to do with our need to find a perfect ground to place our antennas. You missed the point. For me, you're misunderstanding my words here, so explaining further would likely be futile.

my line of thinking was since the perfect ground was used to get the results of the review/simulation , and that ground/dirt conditions vary so much and very few folks have perfect ground that the results would not be what most folks would get .

sorry if i miss-understood your words .

 

[Marconi]

my line of thinking was since the perfect ground was used to get the results of the review/simulation , and that ground/dirt conditions vary so much and very few folks have perfect ground that the results would not be what most folks would get .

sorry if i miss-understood your words .

Sorry BM, you understand. I was wrong.

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

i do that a lot myself

 

[bob85]

edmund laport's "radio antenna engineering" is worth reading,
if you think "vswr meters make you stupid" was long winded don't click

Index of http://www.athm.net/andreas/RadioAntennaEngineering-printer

 

[VA3ES]

edmund laport's "radio antenna engineering" is worth reading, [...]