BBT Delivered Hy-Gain Penetrator 500 Today

[Marconi]

Hey Ed, you must be a life long disciple of Evelyn Wood's, if you can give a high sign for having read this book already.

I have read about 25 pages to date and find no arguments to be made. Fortunately, it has a nice reference index and that may be the only way to read it.

 

[VA3ES]

Hey Ed, you must be a life long disciple of Evelyn Wood's, if you can give a high sign for having read this book already.

I have read about 25 pages to date and find no arguments to be made. Fortunately, it has a nice reference index and that may be the only way to read it.

I collect classic engineering texts, and read that one about 15 years ago. A superb text. I would also recommend John Kraus' "Antennas", a classic.

 

[Marconi]

I collect classic engineering texts, and read that one about 15 years ago. A superb text. I would also recommend John Kraus' "Antennas", a classic.

Would you check your classics and see if maybe you have a reference, or recall something related to some of the stuff I referred to earlier in this thread? For some time now I've been looking for a pre-WWII Japanese report, or a review of that report, that refutes what Stuart Ballantine claimed in his report to Broadcast Engineers, 1924, entitled, "On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth."

Thanks if you can help.

 

[Needle Bender]

hey marconi, if you have a i10k why not put it up for a week or two then drop it to lengthen to 64 and retune then try it for a week or two and keep records

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth

it seems to be available on line .

IEEE Xplore - Sign In

and the other google results .

On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth - Google Search

 

[Needle Bender]

On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth

it seems to be available on line .

IEEE Xplore - Sign In

and the other google results .

On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth - Google Search

.39 wave lenght?
that would be 14 feet tall for cb. not even a half wavre. but isnt that for an antenna over perfect ground on the ground? a ground plane has the ground raised with it in the radials

 

[Marconi]

On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth

it seems to be available on line .

IEEE Xplore - Sign In

and the other google results .

On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth - Google Search

BM, I've already posted why www.IEEE.org is not suitable for my purpose. To join the site might be free, but they charge $30.00 for each article searched for. IEEE - IEEE Xplore® Digital Library

We have two well respected individuals that have published reviews on this work where my claims are similar to both of their conclusions...regarding vertical antenna gain, and where the report in question applied to ground mounted verticals for Broadcast Radio over a perfect and infinite ground plane.

I would like however, to be able to read the article. I'm really looking for the Japanese disclaimer report.

This is why I asked VA3ES for his help, but no response as yet.

 

[VA3ES]

[...] I would like however, to be able to read the article. I'm really looking for the Japanese disclaimer report.

This is why I asked VA3ES for his help, but no response as yet.

I haven't yet come across any Japanese disclaimer report in my research. Still reviewing Kraus. Will be reviewing the NAB Handbooks in my possession.

 

[Needle Bender]

marconi have you tried the i10k extended out to 64 to see how it performs? seems like that match would let you tune it to the longer 64 length

 

[Marconi]

marconi have you tried the i10k extended out to 64 to see how it performs? seems like that match would let you tune it to the longer 64 length

NB, I commented about this in my PM to you earlier.

I don't think there is enough difference in performance between these two to really tell...just using your radio. That's all that I would be able to do as well.

I don't consider the Imax to be a true .64 wavelength as claimed by many, so the only antenna I have that is claimed by the manufacture as being a .64, is the Wolf .64.

IMO, the Wolf is more likely to be true collinear simply base on its design. So the difference I've been able to see with it in real world comparisons, which is still small, may be due to that feature and the advantage it offers.

Your PM mentioned that you isolated the bottom of your mast for your rear bumper setup. I did not consider isolation in these models that I just posted. It may make a difference, but I would think isolating at the antenna would be better than at the base. If I do you project as requested, I will include isolation as well. If I do, it will not include the feed line in the model, so that alone, in the real world, would still be an issue to consider and a choke may be necessary.

 

[Needle Bender]

oh it just has a piece of fiberglass about a foot long on the hitch mount so the 18 feet of mast under the a99 isnt connected to the metal of the truck. i wonder what a 1/2 wave of metal mast under thew a99 will do for the pattern

 

[gamegetter]

NB, I commented about this in my PM to you earlier.

I don't think there is enough difference in performance between these two to really tell...just using your radio. That's all that I would be able to do as well.

I don't consider the Imax to be a true .64 wavelength as claimed by many, so the only antenna I have that is claimed by the manufacture as being a .64, is the Wolf .64.

IMO, the Wolf is more likely to be true collinear simply base on its design. So the difference I've been able to see with it in real world comparisons, which is still small, may be due to that feature and the advantage it offers.

Your PM mentioned that you isolated the bottom of your mast for your rear bumper setup. I did not consider isolation in these models that I just posted. It may make a difference, but I would think isolating at the antenna would be better than at the base. If I do you project as requested, I will include isolation as well. If I do, it will not include the feed line in the model, so that alone, in the real world, would still be an issue to consider and a choke may be necessary.

ran across this today and thought you might be interested in it. i have never run one so I don't know about it. just putting it out fyi.

 

[Needle Bender]

ran across this today and thought you might be interested in it. i have never run one so I don't know about it. just putting it out fyi.

thanks gamegeter

i just got off the phone with cheryl at hustler newtronics and we can add another 64 to the list. it measures 276 inches for 27.2 according to the tuning lenght chart she emailed to me in the owners manual file

64s:
1 old penetrater
2 radio shack 64
3 wolf 64
4 hustler 64
5 mr coily 64
6 imax? i dont think the imax is really a 64 because its 24 feet but the bottom mount is a foot and the match inside takes around 6 inches leaving about 22 1/2 feet which is only 5/8

&​

 

[Marconi]

thanks gamegeter

i just got off the phone with cheryl at hustler newtronics and we can add another 64 to the list. it measures 276 inches for 27.2 according to the tuning lenght chart she emailed to me in the owners manual file

64s:
1 old penetrater
2 radio shack 64
3 wolf 64
4 hustler 64
5 mr coily 64
6 imax? i dont think the imax is really a 64 because its 24 feet but the bottom mount is a foot and the match inside takes around 6 inches leaving about 22 1/2 feet which is only 5/8

NB, is there any real verifiable evidence or links stating that the Old 23 channel Penetrator and its Radio Shack .625 counterpart, also made by Hy-gain, are vertical .64 wavelength antennas? All the evidence that I can find for both, indicates that they are 5/8 wavelength. Or, are you just saying they can be made longer, and thus they are capable of being .64's?

I can't prove it, but I think maybe there might be somewhat of an advantage in these Hy-gain antennas, with their raised radial setup. That is just a guess however. I say this in consideration that this might justify the many reports of superior performance. I hope one day to be able to model the phase inductor idea for my Wolf and the raised radials for the Hy-gain idea, and maybe that'll suggest something, one way or another. Nothing wrong with opinions, I have mine too.

I think you favor the .64, because you have asked me to compare my I-10K at .625 and then do the same at .64 wl...with about 6.5" added to the length. Like I've told you, right now I'm just not up to it. I haven't forgotten the idea however.

I know very little about the performance of the Coily antenna, so I can't make a claim about that one. It may be longer, but I'm not sure. My modeling of the a .64 vs. a .625 shows a very slight advantage for the .625. Here is an overlay and the antennas reports of my .625 vs. .64 using a 5/8 wave model presented in a Cebik report...where I duplicated his efforts to produce the exact same results for his 5/8 wave radiator in the report. I think this can be checked and verified in the thread for the link below.

http://www.worldwidedx.com/attachme...nald-k-reynolds-bobs-question-.64-vs-.625.pdf

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

well , if you add velocity factor of copper wire or various diameters of tubing aren't these physically 5/8 WL antennas already electrically .64 WL or even slightly longer ?