The Colossal's vertical element is 21.5 feet, this is not including the base tube and insulator height.
The spec's are right on their website
-
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
The spec's are right on their website
I modeled the Maco once, tuning ring, hidden cap, and all, and peak low angle gain length of the antenna was less than an inch off the length of my Maco v5000 (installed as per instructions). This is not likely a coincidence. I have modeled other 5/8 wavelength antennas that include matching networks as well, and for all of them their peak gain also happens at less than 5/8 wavelength, and different matching network designs have different optimal antenna lengths. Essentially, according to the models, the matching networks themselves are affecting the physical length of the antenna, specifically the length where the low angle lobe stops growing and begins to shrink in favor of a higher angle lobe.
When it comes to the Collossal antenna itself, in spite of its layout, electrically it is essentially the same as the Maco design with a tapped inductor parallel to a capacitor.
Can anyone give me a reason why one antenna would see a benefit to the low angle lobe from being shortened to a given length, while another with a very similar setup electrically would not?
And the Penetrator that is also in the title of this thread, that type of match on driven elements of yagi's is known to require shortening the length of said driven element to compensate for the effects of the match. Why would you not need to do the same when it comes to a 5/8 vertical antenna using the same type of match? Is their something different in play that I am missing?
The DB
When it comes to the Collossal antenna itself, in spite of its layout, electrically it is essentially the same as the Maco design with a tapped inductor parallel to a capacitor.
Can anyone give me a reason why one antenna would see a benefit to the low angle lobe from being shortened to a given length, while another with a very similar setup electrically would not?
And the Penetrator that is also in the title of this thread, that type of match on driven elements of yagi's is known to require shortening the length of said driven element to compensate for the effects of the match. Why would you not need to do the same when it comes to a 5/8 vertical antenna using the same type of match? Is their something different in play that I am missing?
The DB
So to sum it up, buy either an Antron99 because so many A99 users are so happy with theirs, or follow the db down the garden path and buy a Maco.
- but avoid the inferior performance of the full 22' long 5/8 such as the I-10K, Penetrator, Shockwave 5/8, Mr. Coily .64, Zero5 Colossal, etc.
Ok got it, thanks guys, shockwave & db
I guess I've been doing it wrong all these years.
...now where did I put my hacksaw
- but avoid the inferior performance of the full 22' long 5/8 such as the I-10K, Penetrator, Shockwave 5/8, Mr. Coily .64, Zero5 Colossal, etc.
Ok got it, thanks guys, shockwave & db
I guess I've been doing it wrong all these years.
...now where did I put my hacksaw
Im waiting for the ground to thaw so my tower and SPT 500 Penetrator get into and on the air. Im going to assemble according to JAFO's recommendations . Just got 6 more inches of snow this morning . Maybe in April i can dig the foundation. Winter is trying to hold on. Oh boy!
I simply pointed out the fact that you aren't going to see nearly as much of a difference as you claim. I'm sorry that you don't agree with this fact.
If that is what you got out of this, then you clearly missed the point, and by how you worded your response I would almost say you intentionally missed said point.
Its not your experience that is being questioned, what is being questioned is the assumptions that you made along the way and for some reason treat as absolute fact.
I'm not saying length isn't important, I am simply taking into account other real world factors that you seem determined to ignore, some of which, in the real world, have as much if not more of an effect on the antenna than length. From his replies I can tell you that Shockwave is also taking into account other factors than just length.
Your not even putting into proper context the actual effects of said additional length on its own, instead giving it far more benefit than it is actually capable of giving. I guess that makes sense if that is all you can see, like someone who only has an SWR meter tuning for SWR and focuses so much on it and the so called "perfect match", to the point that getting a lower SWR won't actually benefit them at all, and in the end may in fact be hurting their transmitted signal.
The DB
The lowest swr often is not the resonant freq. of an antenna.
That is why it is best to use an analyzer that will show you the reactance which will be
the antennas resonant freq. at the lowest amount.
If the shorter antenna has better numbers the extra length of the other one is a mute point.
That is why it is best to use an analyzer that will show you the reactance which will be
the antennas resonant freq. at the lowest amount.
If the shorter antenna has better numbers the extra length of the other one is a mute point.
It's not that I can't post hundreds of paragraphs of technobabble, I choose not to.
I just say it like it is and try to 'keep it simple stupid'.
You see I'm not trying to deceive anyone into believing wrong is right so I don't need paragraph after paragraph after paragraph...
Total length should be around 22' 6" to 22' 8" depending on what part of the band you're tuning for lowest SWR - PLUS the top hat.
And make sure you bend the top hat rods down at 45 degrees.
I'm curious, does the new SPT-500 use the old 12" base bracket or an 11"?
Much of what is spread under "keep it simple" isn't as accurate as people want to think. Most if not all of the myths CB radio is known for come from that concept. That, along with claiming those with more knowledge are using "technobabble" is nothing more than a cop out on your part.
Seriously though? Technobabble meant to deceive? Just because I disagree with you and point out the flaws in what you believe to be a fact does not mean I am using technobabble, or being deceptive. If you read what I typed, they may be wordy by your standards, but they are clear.
The DB
If I'm reading your post correctly, quoting my post and using the word "You" as referring to me, well I apologize but you seem to have taken my previous post personally.
I only quoted your post as an example of a forum user who tends to have looong long posts containing many paragraphs, and as an example of what my posts might look like if I were to attempt to both deceive and spend considerable efforts to very wordily appear to know what I was talking about by utilizing various argument techniques and incorporating perhaps several typical fallacious reasoning techniques in an attempt to justify why up is actually down, and black is white.
I'm sorry you're mistaking my post as if it was about you, oddly, since only a couple posts back I'd thanked you and shockwave for helping us wayward fools to realize how wrong we were to ever even imagine a lowly 'too-long' Penetrator could keep up with the antenna YOU use, the ever impressive & perfected Maco V-series.
How I could ever have imagined a full 5/8 would perform with the ever popular MacoV or even the more popular Antron99 is obviously a foolish error on my part, probably getting caught up in all the bigger is better hoopla, but it's good to know I can always come to someone like you for the correction in all my wayward erring in matters obviously far beyond my mere neophyte level of knowledge and experience and defer to so superior a mind as so graceful a person willing to attend to those well beneath your plethora of incredible expertise.
I'm sorry, I seem to be going a bit long.
JAFO, in my efforts to get good dimensions for the NSP-500...I don't recall ever getting the length of the mounting bracket. I never owned a SP, new or old. I did have a CLR2 and used those bracket dimensions 13.75" x 3.875" x 3.25" inches for my models of the NSP-500. I don't know if the company made the brackets different for the SP over time or compared to the CLR2.
I would be interested to know these dimensions too.
Last edited:
- Status