Well new coax, more height and a better antenna are all good improvements. I'm just saying to get a half S-Unit over a V-58 would really take adding another in phase radiator equal to the length of the first. Not a foot or two. For a doubling of gain in an omni, you need to double the in phase radiation length of the antenna.
-
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.
Base HY-GAIN PENETRATOR vs Maco V58
- Thread starter 357
- Start date
- Status
Nice try Donald but anyone can see it's the db following me around needing to be right about telling me I'm wrong, mistaken or "It doesn't work like that" and YOU backing him up.
That you would post something so ridiculously wrong as "6dB per S unit" when it's been discussed on this forum for years and numerous times that a 6dB standard MIGHT apply to a Collins S line but is more like 4dB on a Japanese amateur radio and 3dB on a CB - just to try to make your erroneous point - shows me you've no real interest in honesty.
Hey how about I give YOU some helpful advice, why don't YOU start trying not to be "The old Donald".
Alright, enough changing diapers, you two can have your fun at my expense but I'm finished wasting time correcting the BS.
Back to helping the average Joe to better his station.
It's not really possible to provide helpful advice with that attitude. At least you understand the S-Meter has a tendency to be very misleading. I thought you really believed the SP-500 had 16 times more ERP than a V-58 and just wanted to prevent people from being disappointed if they bought one based on that. If you know it doesn't, lets make sure others do too.
JAF0, I see you deleted your last post before I finished responding. But yes, I would say the same thing about the I-10K. The only advantage it has over the other similar 5/8 waves is power handling, not gain.
Being "about ready to post comments I've made in the past that contradict myself now", is more of an indication of a continual learning process than a "I got you" moment for me today. Like many others, I've learned a great deal by spending time here and the embarrassment of being wrong doesn't sting at all anymore. Once we get past that point, learning can be effective.
Being "about ready to post comments I've made in the past that contradict myself now", is more of an indication of a continual learning process than a "I got you" moment for me today. Like many others, I've learned a great deal by spending time here and the embarrassment of being wrong doesn't sting at all anymore. Once we get past that point, learning can be effective.
Hi Marconi, somehow I missed your post.
I'm surprised you measured 13.75", my old CLR-2 was only an 11" bracket and the Penetrator a 12".
I'm referring to the C-shaped piece which the rest of the base, including the coax connector, U-bolts and radial plates, attach to.
Last edited:
I think the reason you need to keep returning to your near-field horse puckey is because the old Donald is still alive & well.
You know we're actually discussing at or beyond the horizon as I've already previously mentioned and not on an antenna testing range.
Keep it up, follow The DB and keep telling people there's no difference in performance between the MacoV58 and a full size 5/8 such as the I-10K or Penetrator, the proof is in the pudding and I'm just going to sit back and let others testify and leave you & The DB to your laughable explanations,
and while you're "loading" your Maco base capacitor to ground, I'll be loading my vertical radiator, lol
I wouldn't bet the horse puckey farm on that statement. Now that I see where you're coming from, it's easy to let this go and to give you a little win while the old Donald (and yourself) would argue the impossible for weeks. Not able to make a comment without turning it into an insult says more about you than I will.
Yeah well maybe I'm just a little PO'd that you & your counterpart are out here misleading people, posting erroneous junk to sound like you're credible, and knowing that you know better or at least SHOULD know better disgusts me for the loss in station performance which following your advice will deliver to the average operator out here on this forum perhaps hoping to up his performance.
Well I guess if you guys convince enough operators to buy Maco or A99s then you won't have any problem talking over them.
Both of these are incorrect. The Maco is not fed at a voltage node, and the Penetrator is not fed at the current node. If they were they would be 1/2 and 3/4 wavelength antennas. Neither of these antennas are either of these lengths. The only other way to achieve being fed at said points is to use a loading method, however, neither of these antennas uses a a simple load, they both use matching circuitry. In the case of the Maco, you have a tapped inductor in parallel with a capacitor, and in the case of the Penetrator you have a beta match. In both cases, they are actually fed somewhere in between the voltage and current nodes.
Let me correct this for you, contrary to working with these antennas, live in the field, and making observations along the way for decades. You know, what people like to call "real world experience".
You claim that I am coming from belief, and if you made that statement seven or eight years ago, you would have been right, although at the time I didn't realize it. Since then I have grown when it comes to antenna knowledge, a lot. Everything I post these days I have evidence backing up my words, generally both real world experience and engineering level texts combined (or in some cases direct discussions with actual broadcast engineers). When I post there is far more depth behind my words than just the words them selves.
It is you that thinks you can say whatever you believe, and people should just fall in line because, I don't know, you said it maybe? Your words have no depth, they are little more than what a parrot would do, saying the same thing over and over, and when someone pushes back with actual knowledge of the topic, you make statements like what you made above.
The reasons you offered? What reasons? All you have said this whole time is length, length, length. You haven't elaborated, or said anything else. You haven't even shown that you have a basic understanding of how length fits into the whole vertical antenna equation. The only thing I have seen aside from length is your lack of understanding of how the matching systems of these antennas actually function.
There is again, that is a claim you really need to back up. When looking at how said antenna works it really is an exceptional claim, which requires exceptional evidence. To much of the Maco's properties are what you would expect with a 5/8 wavelength antenna, not a 1/2 wavelength antenna, for example, its bandwidth. There is one commercial antenna that is an extended 1/2 wavelength on the market, and they had to put a 45 pf cap several feet up on the radiator to achieve that. To their benefit, they were able to take the matching network right off of their half wavelength antenna and attach it directly to their 5/8 wavelength antenna without issue or even any retuning. You can't just take the Maco matching circuit and attach it directly to a half wavelength antenna and have it work like you can with this other antenna. Any guesses as to what antenna I am talking about here? I mentioned it earlier in this thread...
Talking about the Maco with a higher angle of radiation again... You know, Needle Bender once made a specific claim about this, and when asked how he got the angles of radiation for these two antennas he never said. You are making a claim, how much of a difference in the angle of radiation, and how did you measure this? Or perhaps where did you get this information from? I would really like to know.
Actually, I have the equipment to do over the horizon testing of these antennas. And I have the ability to test with something far more accurate than an s-meter as well, taking direct measurements in dBm. It will be a two person job minimum as it will take at least one person at each location, and I would like to do this from multiple locations to get more data from differing distances and testing for repeatability... I already have the antennas so its just a matter of getting the local help and finding the time...
You got this backwards, if anything, I am following Shockwave. I learned a lot from him and five or so others on this forum, and when said people post, I still pay attention to what they have to say because I realize that, when it comes to antennas, I still have a lot more to learn.
Also, I never said that their was no difference in performance between the Maco v5/8 and the so called "full size" antennas, I simply said that you are overstating the difference that is there. This is at least the third time I have told you this, but you keep parroting the BS that I said what I didn't actually say.
There was one other person I know of who has made the claim you are making on this forum, and he made some... interesting... claims about many things that he could not back up and still expected us to accept because, well, honestly I'm not really sure. He never backed any of his claims up, and as far as I can remember never even tried. Aside form him, many more people who have said the exact opposite about this antenna that he said, and you are saying... So yea, lets grab some popcorn and watch the show...
*****
Also, looking at the manuals, the stock Maco at 27 MHz is actually one foot eight inches longer than the stock length for the Penetrator... I know, the Penetrator has a cap hat, which if you remove and lengthen the antenna to compensate will make the antenna longer than the Maco, but isn't it interesting that, by the directions given for the antennas, your "longer" antenna is actually the physically shorter one. Sources, v5/8 user manual page 3, and the Penetrator user manual page 5. I'm not making any claims with this, just throwing an observation out there...
*****
Damn didn't meant to make this post that long. I know I can be wordy but I didn't intend to be this wordy... Perhaps next time I will split up the technical responses, the responses to the claims made about me, and the correcting of others misstating what I actually said into different posts...
The DB
- Status