-
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.
HY-GAIN SPT-500 or Tornado 27?
- Thread starter T23
- Start date
I think you'll find line of sight or direct wave can be applied to any RF frequency. Anytime you are communicating with another station within range of the horizon, it's considered line of sight. It's the other types of propagation that fall into the skywave category that are frequency dependant and more favorable on HF then higher frequencies. Medium wave that extends just past the horizon is considered groundwave only because the wave front bows down to curve with the earth beyond the horizon.
I see where you are trying to go here... Be careful how you word that. It could easily be read as it only applies to the visual spectrum of light, which the definition clearly does not indicate.
So, which specific frequency does line of sight no longer apply? Thus everything below is automatically under some other form of propagation? What exactly is this propagation you are referring to called?
I'm thinking you are referring to ground wave propagation here but not entirely sure as you have given so few details. However, ground wave propagation tends to be much more stable than sky wave propagation, therefore with you saying it depends on propagation may very well refer to something else. Outside sources of noise will usually have more of an effect on who you can and can't hear than changes in ground wave propagation.
The DB
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
:tongue::tongue::tongue::tongue:
seeing as you like quotes so much, why not use this most appropriate one as your signature:
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BULLSHIT "
You know jazz, since I have been on this forum doc has shown his knowledge time and time again. He is one of the more knowledgeable people here. Is he right on everything? No. This is the first time I have even seen him say something that would insult someone, and do you know what that was in response to? If you didn't directly insult him I doubt he would have returned the favor. Now your throwing another insult?
If this is what it takes for you to win a discussion I am not impressed, even if I agree with your argument.
Just because someone disagrees with you on something does not make them a fool.
The DB
If this is what it takes for you to win a discussion I am not impressed, even if I agree with your argument.
Just because someone disagrees with you on something does not make them a fool.
The DB
you are entitled to your opinion and welcome to interperet anything you read in any way you choose but bare in mind you can only judge someone's knowledge level if yours is greater.
Has the comedy channel run out of vacancies?
i agree
what goes around comes around, maybe you should read further back.
i never set out to impress you, i don't even know who you are, but i did set out to stop more myth being propagated from a very efficient source of myth propagation, if only class AB amps or cb antennas were as efficient.{Cry_river}{Cry_river}
i totally agree,
but i also think you completely missed my point, which others haven't that have been around longer than you and most likely have more RF knowledge than you (going by your earlier most knowledgeable people on the forum statement), which isn't intended as an insult to you but merely my respect for others who have liked what i said and my knowing how sound their rf theory is over prolonged time periods and subjects raised on this and other forums i know them from
but like everything that is also open to interpretation and you may not agree with my point of view
Not necessarily true. You don't have to have greater knowledge on a subject to know if someone is throwing out total bs. You can often tell by what you know, and what the person says over time.
What a wast of my time.
I haven't read everything but I have read quite a bit from before I started posting here. That being said, most of my reading on this forum and posting for that matter tends to be in the antenna sections, that is where my interests are and there are many great discussions here.
Stopping myths is one thing, how you do it is another.
Perhaps I did miss your point, but to throw an insult, you snatched defeat from the clutched of victory as far as I'm concerned. Once you throw that insult it becomes less about the facts and reality and more about who is better at throwing insults. I read this forum because I am interested in the discussions here, and I like how they don't often degrade to insults.
I know as little about you as you do about me. I don't know what you know, I have seen few posts from you, or perhaps the posts I have read didn't strike me as being important enough to remember who posted them (not meant as an insult). I cold list off a bunch of names on this forum that if they say something I take what they say at face value. It is not easy to get to that point with me. I have my own opinion on who knows how much, and who to trust. I have been reading the antenna sections here for much longer then I have been a member and this forum is not anywhere close to my only knowledge when it comes to antenna theory. I personally frequent this forum because the discussions don't tend to devolve into a pissing match where insults seem to be tool used to win.
Hey, something else we agree on.
The DB
That doesn't make sense.... there are many who would attest that the Imax 2000 is just as good as the maco 5/8 or just barely down, at distances of 20-50 miles away. If the elevation angle of the radiation is so much higher on the Imax, shouldn't the imax not have anywhere near the local/regional range as the maco 5/8?
I'm very late to this thread, but here goes my observations of the Hy-gain Penetrator 500 (of which I've had several over the years, compared to the Maco V58, and other antennas).
The stated gain by Hy gain is "5.3dB". Whenever a gain figure is quoted as dB only, you should assume that it is dBi. The difference between dBi and dBd is 2.15 dB, thus the true dBd gain (dBd is that gain referenced to a 1/2 wave dipole) is approximately 3.15 dBd (over a dipole).
How does the Hy gain perform? Brilliantly! I have compared it to the Imax, Maco V58, and others, and it consistent out performs the other antennas. It is more than a 5/8ths, it is virtually a .64 with a capacity hat. The hat shortens and matches the antenna better. Mine is tuned to 28.8 Mhz, but it can easily tune to 11M by simply re-adjusting the main element to resonance. The antenna works, and works well. I can hear and work stations that the Imax can't. The Maco is close, but I prefer the Hy gain.
The radiation angle is also lower than the Imax, due to the radials. Lower radiation angle means more signal directed at the horizon, and not the sky. More signal to the horizon means better range.
I have used the Hy gain Penetrator 500 since 1975 and love it.
The stated gain by Hy gain is "5.3dB". Whenever a gain figure is quoted as dB only, you should assume that it is dBi. The difference between dBi and dBd is 2.15 dB, thus the true dBd gain (dBd is that gain referenced to a 1/2 wave dipole) is approximately 3.15 dBd (over a dipole).
How does the Hy gain perform? Brilliantly! I have compared it to the Imax, Maco V58, and others, and it consistent out performs the other antennas. It is more than a 5/8ths, it is virtually a .64 with a capacity hat. The hat shortens and matches the antenna better. Mine is tuned to 28.8 Mhz, but it can easily tune to 11M by simply re-adjusting the main element to resonance. The antenna works, and works well. I can hear and work stations that the Imax can't. The Maco is close, but I prefer the Hy gain.
The radiation angle is also lower than the Imax, due to the radials. Lower radiation angle means more signal directed at the horizon, and not the sky. More signal to the horizon means better range.
I have used the Hy gain Penetrator 500 since 1975 and love it.
I can't speak for others, but at my home location my Maco v5000 (almost just like the Maco 5/8) seriously outperforms my old Imax 2000 at range.
The thing about the real world is there are situations where an antenna that doesn't usually do well can perform near equal to an antenna that will typically outperform it. But there are also situations where the exact opposite is true, and the lesser antenna, in this case the Imax, doesn't perform worth crap.
Every installation is different and affected by different variables. Height, conductivity of the ground (as well as lakes streams ponds and oceans) in the general area, ect. Different conditions can make the ground plane on the antennas that come with one more or less effective, and can affect an antenna in far more drastic ways than weather or not there is a ground plane.
Just because you have had equal success and/or you have heard other reports to that effect does not mean that will always be the case. The same also goes for those who have not had as good success with one antenna over another.
That being said, if I were to choose between the two even if given conditions I somehow knew they would be pretty much the same I would personally still choose the Maco, or Penetrator, over the Imax. The Imax I had was barely built well enough to be considered cheap piece of crap. I am not sure what is below a cheap piece of crap but the Imax I used to own nearly achieved it. This to can vary widely from individual product to product, even if they were built from the same people.
The DB