-
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.
BBT Delivered Hy-Gain Penetrator 500 Today
- Thread starter Eastside
- Start date
According to the original, 1975 instruction sheet, 1500W. (Considering that in 1975, most CB'ers ran AM, I'm going with 1500W AM (or 6000W PEP.)
Subsequent instructions omit any power ratings, as does the current, 2011 version.
My current, 2011 version (SPT-500) can easily handle 250W of AM. Since there are no substantial changes to the hairpin match, that 1500W rating seems reasonable.
Performance observations: Very pleased with it. Great-ground wave range, and superb DX results. Now, I have some noise issues at my QTH, so I can't fully compare it, and I have some kind of geographical obstruction to the east which hampers my range in that direction. There is a station to the east of me who I would like to hear and compare, but for whatever reason he is weak to me. Ground-wave range in all other directions is excellent.
Last edited:
I still have my original Penetrator 500, which is resting in my back yard; it needs some repairs - the internal wire from the SO239 to the feed-point has become intermittent. I need to take the entire antenna apart to fix that, which I will do in the spring, when the weather warms up. (I really don't like working in 20F degree weather!) Once repaired, I may put it up in place of the new Penetrator, and put the new perpetrator back "in stock". I keep reading observations about the new Penetrator being only a 5/8ths as opposed to a .64. Though the difference in performance is virtually unmeasurable, I seem to prefer to old one. I have a vague recollection (an uneasy feeling?) that it simply performed better? Why take chances? 
where ive seen them arc is across the upper insulator when a bunch of junk and rain make a nice path for a carbon trail to build up and arc.
if you spray or paint rubber like plastydip or liquid electrical tape at the upper insulator i bet it would handle alot more
curious how many miles away is that station to the east that you have a hard time hearing? did a different antenna do better to him in the past?
I still have my original Penetrator 500, which is resting in my back yard; it needs some repairs - the internal wire from the SO239 to the feed-point has become intermittent. I need to take the entire antenna apart to fix that, which I will do in the spring, when the weather warms up. (I really don't like working in 20F degree weather!) Once repaired, I may put it up in place of the new Penetrator, and put the new perpetrator back "in stock". I keep reading observations about the new Penetrator being only a 5/8ths as opposed to a .64. Though the difference in performance is virtually unmeasurable, I seem to prefer to old one. I have a vague recollection (an uneasy feeling?) that it simply performed better? Why take chances?
Ed, I have heard reports that on the older model or at least one of the models, the tuner wire setup is a differnt size from the newer model.
I know the older model went thru a couple of changes over time, but I thought it was just the length, which is obvious in looking at the different manuals, but I never heard anything about the wire tuner size changing until the new one came out.
One story came from an owner of an old Penetrator that ordered the two piece wire tuner for his antenna an on arrival discovered they were different.
What do you know, if anything about this issue?
i used a taylors cloth tape measure when I measured my old match at 40". id like someone with a new penetrater to measure the new match
NB, this is just an observational comment. The same part on my I-10K measures about 49" inches. I measured it from the connection at the bottom of radiator all the way back to the feed point. So, it's pretty close to what you see on your SP500. If you step back and look close, you might see the similarities in these two matchers, except for the material diameters, and of course their difference in position relative to the bottom of the antenna. This difference in position may also account for the difference in lenght I reported above. They both remind me of an 1/8 wave inductive beta matcher in between the ground and the radiator. So, IMO along with the raised radiator vs raised radials these two matchers do pretty much the same thing.
It is noted in the I-10K manual that T2, the ground side of the tuner, is used to tune the antenna match, but in my real world experience I find both T1 & T2 affect the antenna the same way, they both make the antenna longer or shorter, and I find the feed point resistant part of the match changes very little in the process, at least over the CB range when tuning for the middle of the band.
When the elements are set close to 27.205 in resonance, and I change T2 (supposed to be the matching adjustment), over a range from 8" - 10', I see very little resistive change in the feed point impedance...accross the entire CB band. As I said above, this resistance stays pretty close to 50 ohms at all of the settings I made within that 2" inch range. I don't consider this bad, it is just what I see. On the other hand, I do see a noticeable change in the reactive part of the match. Is that strange?
Maybe that is what allows the SP500 to tune over a range of frequencies without changing the matcher. The change in length is all the really happens, without ill-affecting the resistive part of the match too much. Again, that is good.
Sorry to get off the topic, the devil made me do it.
Last edited:
marconi did you ever try testing the performance of the i10k to more distant stations by lengthening the radiator 6 1/2 inches and shortening the match for tuning?
No, I never thought about it. I did model such an antenna however, but the results won't make you happy.
.625wl at 40' 1.89dbi @ 15 degrees
.64wl at 40' 1.91dbi @ 20 degrees
I'll post the images later.
you have alot of test results to certain local ops. maybe if you get a run of good weather and the energy you could try the i10k plus 6.5 inches and use your mfj to dial in zero reactence?
id like to see those test resuls to your local ops and the others farther away, along with swr bandwidth readings.
nothing like empirical test results to prove or disprove the models
NB thanks, but I doubt that will happen. I think modeling is as close as I'll ever get to working with antennas again. I'm 73 now, and you young guys will have to do the real world testing from now on, and try somehow to show us some results we can really consider...when you finish. Words are fine, but some signs of real effort is better.
In my real world test in the fall of 2010, the recap results showed the Wolf .64 produced the best by a very small margin, but to be honest I didn't test it as long as I should have. I also left out the I-10K and my Imax, because they only had one or two reports. Neither were in the top rankings anyway. See below:
Ever-time I put my I-10K up, I attempted to tune it at the feed point, and here is the best feed point results I ever got. The bandwidth was the widest also, sort of like Jay suggest in his manual. The SWR bandwidth curve was read thru my whole system, but I did not note the feed line length or description. It was probably a 50' foot piece of RG8/u. The SWR meter reading note on the report is 1.10 and that is the lowest value indicated on the meter. That said however, when I raised the antenna up to about 35'-40' feet the tune when off according to the analyzer, but still good enough to work the radio. See below:
I guess I'm just unlucky, because from what I've heard everyone else in the world, that owns an I-10K, was able to get the tune perfect 50/0 ohms where ever they mounted it and regardless of how high.
NB thanks, but I doubt that will happen. I think modeling is as close as I'll ever get to working with antennas again. I'm 73 now, and you young guys will have to do the real world testing from now on, and try somehow to show us some results we can really consider...when you finish. Words are fine, but some signs of real effort is better.
In my real world test in the fall of 2010, the recap results showed the Wolf .64 produced the best by a very small margin, but to be honest I didn't test it as long as I should have. I also left out the I-10K and my Imax, because they only had one or two reports. Neither were in the top rankings anyway. See below:
Ever-time I put my I-10K up, I attempted to tune it at the feed point, and here is the best feed point results I ever got. The bandwidth was the widest also, sort of like Jay suggest in his manual. The SWR bandwidth curve was read thru my whole system, but I did not note the feed line length or description. It was probably a 50' foot piece of RG8/u. The SWR meter reading note on the report is 1.10 and that is the lowest value indicated on the meter. That said however, when I raised the antenna up to about 35'-40' feet the tune when off according to the analyzer, but still good enough to work the radio. See below:
I guess I'm just unlucky, because from what I've heard everyone else in the world, that owns an I-10K, was able to get the tune perfect 50/0 ohms where ever they mounted it and regardless of how high.
View attachment 6381
View attachment 6382
well marconi you enjoy antenna stuff so much cant you set up a pushup mast with a layover base so you can make it easy on yourself? im gonna hate not reading more of your fun comparisons and seeing them on youtube!:sad: