Hello CDX007:
The Penetrator 500 made by Hy-Gain is a great antenna, who can argue that. The penetartor 500 was the result of years of testing and experience at Hy-Gain.
Now be advised I have to fill in here as I never worked for HY-Gain or got to talk to any of their design engineers.
The P500 came after The CLR-II and a few like it. Hy-Gain came out with a Golden Colinear in the early 1960's and even got a whopping $92.oo dollars for it at first.
The Golden Colinear had the vertical element supported by a large plastic insulator which broke making the antenna useless. Just try to support a 21 foot length of aluminum at the bottom with your hands, its not do-able.
Then they went to the CLR-II which had a "Two Point Mount" that was a vast improvement in mechanical support of the vertical element. But the CLR-II and few other of the same types of ground plane antennas had a circuit board matching inductor in the base insulator of the antenna, that didn't a take lot of power. As the traces of the circuit board would fry seeing too much power feed to it.
So Hy-Gain comes out with the Penetrator 500, and is advertised as a "Two Point Mount" and will take 1500 watts of power. And it takes even more power that advertised. But Arcs over at the 3 to 4 KW levels.
Ok I have never meet Uncle Jim, or saw his antenna installations. So I can't say as I didn't measure anything at his location. So I can't say anything about it. But you normally would not see a 2 S-Unit increase from a Penetartor 500 to a I-10K Antenna. Unless there was something wrong with the Penetartor 500, coax or was mounted too low. This is why its important to do side by side testing of the two antennas, and using a reference antenna for antenna comparison.
We know from our own measurements that the I-10K will nose ahead of the P500 as it has a less lossy matching system. As the P500 Arcs over at 3 to 4 KW Levels, this is a indication of RF Energy loss, and we designed the I-10K to not have such losses.
We offer a "No Questions Asked" Money back 30 day Guarantee of the Interceptor 10K Antenna. Just return the antenna in the original box and in good shape.
Since 2002 when we started we have never had to refund any ones money.
Also note that in many antenna installations were a older antenna is replaced by a newer antenna the coax is most often changed with newer coax that has less loss. And this is good practice. No sense in having a Dime hold up a Dollar, with cheap old water logged lossy coax. Many customers have reported back fantastic broad banded performance of the I-10K Antenna to find out the old coax has way too much loss, causing the I-10K to have several MHz in under a 2.0 to 1 SWR, which is a false measurement as the excessive loss in the coax causes this.
Any antenna will have a lower SWR and wider Bandwidth when loss or attenuation is in the transmission line. Thats why its always a good call in install new coax.
The I-10K was designed to handle sever weather, take the power that some use, and have good TVI rejection, by pointing the RF Energy away from the neighbors direction. The assembly instructions cover Pre Assembly and Saftey, Assembly Instructions, and Tuning Instructions. Steve and I are avialable to assist in any questions you may have.
Hope this is a help.
Jay in the Mojave
Hello Jay,
Good to see you out here posting.
As you're one of decidedly the foremost authorities on Penetrators (based upon your experience) and a fellow lover of the antenna, can you offer to me (a multiple Penetrator owner) the reason your style of shunt match should excel in performance over that of the Hy-gain P500?
I'm looking for solid theory and reason supporting the many claims I've read on several forums, such as the argument against the P500's elevated radials, the bend, position, or lay-out of the I-10K's Trombone match versus that of the P500s Beta, etc.
I expect you've done your homework or you wouldn't be offering so excellent an antenna, I'm just not yet convinced it would net an improved signal over my P500.
Can you convince me utilizing measurements, theory, etc.?
Uncle Jim's "Not your daddy's Penetrator" comment has me wondering if he didn't have issues with oxide build-up or some other problem.
His claim of 2 S-units improvement from one shunt matched .64 to another, based on the style and shape/location of basically the same type of matching system, makes me wary of believing his review, and then spending $400 (incl ship) just to find there might be no improvement.
Faith in a quality product is a good thing, but I need something to base it upon before I take a $400 leap of faith, expecting this 2 S-units or so of improved performance.
Thank you & 73