-
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.
New Super Penetrator 500
- Thread starter basstracker1970
- Start date
Thanks guys for all the input. So I can take off the black rubber tips on the radiator tubes and it won't hurt anything. I just want to make sure no water gets trapped inside the tubes.
If the aluminum antenna required sealing, that would be mentioned in the instructions. Anytime you apply an insulating material such as silicone to metal joints carrying an RF connection, you're asking for problems. Most attempts at sealing end up trapping more water in than keeping it out. I think I'd rather have an insect nest inside the element than to have water freeze inside it and split the elements.
Here is my effort to model the SP500 with the matching device, and it is not easy to figure all those little angles and small wire lengths in that simple looking wire matching device.
The angles might NOT be right on the money, but this was as close as I could get with the info I had. If you see something that does not look right, help me out and let me know, OK?
This antenna has a very bad match without the matching device, something over 100:1 SWR. With my matcher attached it shows a match of 7.0:1 SWR with stock lengths, and I think it is close to 27.205 mhz...but I can't be sure. I'm just going by dimensions I've gotten from a couple of members that responded to my request for measurements. I had to modify the overall length that I used, 266.5" inches for the stock at 27.205 mhz, out to 285.6" to find resonance and a low SWR however, and that too was based on reports about possible resonance from others.
This is not what I expected and it not right...so the model still needs some work IMO.
With my first attempt at this antenna it really does not look like it is anything special. I have to make the radiator longer than specs called for, and that appears to lower the gain. It wasn't even close, and I was really surprised. I may find some little fix that will make it better, but I've spent about 5 hours on this one, and here is why this one is so difficult.
The following is the wires data entry report:
View attachment SP500 Wires Data.pdf
Like I noted earlier...this one is not easy.
1. I post a model without any matcher and it is nothing to get excited about either. This is in spite of the fact that I've never found much improvement with any other model I've done that required a matcher...one that I could duplicate as being in series with the radiator.
2. I also made another model with my idea for the physical matching device as best I could...using dimensions given me by others. I did not make the matcher curved around the radial bracket at the top like the SP500 does, but I don't it having square corners would make a big difference.
3. I tuned #2 model by making the antenna longer, just as noted by the instructions given, being the only modification to tune the SP500. I also did not use tapper in the elements, so I averaged the elements diameters between .50" and .75" with the top hat set at #12 gauge wire. These iterations did made a little difference, but they were only proportional to the differences we might expect, and that ain't much.
None of these three Eznec SP500 models even showed an advantage over a simple 1/4 wave ground plane Eznec model. This pretty much blew my mind. Typically, I don't see my models produce much advantage over the other CB models I've made, but they don't look much worse either...even though I suspect there is a very large group out there that will disagree bitterly with me on that idea.
Many years ago I had a new HyGain CLR2, that I thought was a great antenna. It did so much better that the mobiles that I had been running. I was impressed that I could talk for 30 miles and more in all directions around the local area with a stock CB radio and using AM only. But, after I got my first Starduster antenna up to 60' feet to the hub...that old CLR2 went into the materials stack to be used later to build my 4 element yagi beam. I couldn't put my finger on why that big old 5/8 wave with its radials 1" foot up the radiator didn't come up to par to my SD'r, but I had the thought it had something to do with the radials arangement...which I didn't believe looked right.
I often see in my modeling that radials tend to push RF up when added to my antennas...even when radials are absolutely necessary...as with some 5/8 wave models. So, in a bit I'll remove the radials on this HyGain and place them down where I think they belong, and we'll see what Eznec suggest on this topic.
I also added a closeup of the Penetrator's matching device so some that care and will check it out, might see it you can help me realize a possible mistake. Something is causing this antenna to require me to make it so much longer than it should be at 27.205 mhz or close. I also added a few notes for the dimensions that I used, and I added a take-off on dimensions I used for the matcher I see in the manual as well. I anybody knows some better dimensions for these two matching wires...let me know.
The angles might NOT be right on the money, but this was as close as I could get with the info I had. If you see something that does not look right, help me out and let me know, OK?
This antenna has a very bad match without the matching device, something over 100:1 SWR. With my matcher attached it shows a match of 7.0:1 SWR with stock lengths, and I think it is close to 27.205 mhz...but I can't be sure. I'm just going by dimensions I've gotten from a couple of members that responded to my request for measurements. I had to modify the overall length that I used, 266.5" inches for the stock at 27.205 mhz, out to 285.6" to find resonance and a low SWR however, and that too was based on reports about possible resonance from others.
This is not what I expected and it not right...so the model still needs some work IMO.
With my first attempt at this antenna it really does not look like it is anything special. I have to make the radiator longer than specs called for, and that appears to lower the gain. It wasn't even close, and I was really surprised. I may find some little fix that will make it better, but I've spent about 5 hours on this one, and here is why this one is so difficult.
The following is the wires data entry report:
View attachment SP500 Wires Data.pdf
Like I noted earlier...this one is not easy.
1. I post a model without any matcher and it is nothing to get excited about either. This is in spite of the fact that I've never found much improvement with any other model I've done that required a matcher...one that I could duplicate as being in series with the radiator.
2. I also made another model with my idea for the physical matching device as best I could...using dimensions given me by others. I did not make the matcher curved around the radial bracket at the top like the SP500 does, but I don't it having square corners would make a big difference.
3. I tuned #2 model by making the antenna longer, just as noted by the instructions given, being the only modification to tune the SP500. I also did not use tapper in the elements, so I averaged the elements diameters between .50" and .75" with the top hat set at #12 gauge wire. These iterations did made a little difference, but they were only proportional to the differences we might expect, and that ain't much.
None of these three Eznec SP500 models even showed an advantage over a simple 1/4 wave ground plane Eznec model. This pretty much blew my mind. Typically, I don't see my models produce much advantage over the other CB models I've made, but they don't look much worse either...even though I suspect there is a very large group out there that will disagree bitterly with me on that idea.
Many years ago I had a new HyGain CLR2, that I thought was a great antenna. It did so much better that the mobiles that I had been running. I was impressed that I could talk for 30 miles and more in all directions around the local area with a stock CB radio and using AM only. But, after I got my first Starduster antenna up to 60' feet to the hub...that old CLR2 went into the materials stack to be used later to build my 4 element yagi beam. I couldn't put my finger on why that big old 5/8 wave with its radials 1" foot up the radiator didn't come up to par to my SD'r, but I had the thought it had something to do with the radials arangement...which I didn't believe looked right.
I often see in my modeling that radials tend to push RF up when added to my antennas...even when radials are absolutely necessary...as with some 5/8 wave models. So, in a bit I'll remove the radials on this HyGain and place them down where I think they belong, and we'll see what Eznec suggest on this topic.
I also added a closeup of the Penetrator's matching device so some that care and will check it out, might see it you can help me realize a possible mistake. Something is causing this antenna to require me to make it so much longer than it should be at 27.205 mhz or close. I also added a few notes for the dimensions that I used, and I added a take-off on dimensions I used for the matcher I see in the manual as well. I anybody knows some better dimensions for these two matching wires...let me know.
Last edited:
RR, I agree what you're suggesting here is what I would expect too, but many other's here and on the Internet would bitterly disagree.
The Eznec models I just posted here for the SP500, that includes the physical matching device is not showing much of an advantage over any similar 5/8 models I already have. In fact if I take the matcher off the model, and just use the radiator fed at the base...it too is not up to par with other models I have done. It can't even compare favorably with my Starduster type 1/4 wave ground plane model.
I can see that the mounting bracket HyGain uses in this and other designs produces some detectable skewing of the pattern, and placing the radials up high on the radiator may also have some effects one way or another. But, I'm just not sure what all this means, because I don't see this one showing any advantage like we've heard touted for years about the Super Penetrator, and I was expecting a model done close to specs would show the advantages touted by many.
Right now something seems wrong with my SP500 model and that might include the physical matching device I added. The matcher will produce a near perfect match at some frequency for this antenna, while it has a terrible natural mismatch at the feed point without a matcher, but the radiator length always looks to need to be longer than I think is necessary. That does not seem right to me, so I question my own results.
So, I am only speculating right now, because I can't be sure.
Last edited:
I was given a 5/8 wave High gain. Measured at 19 feet with 105" radials and the SWR was too high. Spoke to a work colleague last night who is a dedicated HAM and he did a quick calculation and came up with 22 and half feet for 27 meg. He calculated the radials should be a little over 108 "
I followed the specs from the previous owner and I think he had the overlap at 4 inches, but I didn't measure when assembling just followed the permanent marker lines he made on the tubes. Will extend the end element and hopefully there is enough meat left to gain that extra 3 and half feet. If not will reduce the overlap to say 3" if I pull up too short.
Will advise how it works out. Cold and raining outside at the moment so may leave for 'ron'.
Bruce
I was given a 5/8 wave High gain. Measured at 19 feet with 105" radials and the SWR was too high. Spoke to a work colleague last night who is a dedicated HAM and he did a quick calculation and came up with 22 and half feet for 27 meg. He calculated the radials should be a little over 108 "
I followed the specs from the previous owner and I think he had the overlap at 4 inches, but I didn't measure when assembling just followed the permanent marker lines he made on the tubes. Will extend the end element and hopefully there is enough meat left to gain that extra 3 and half feet. If not will reduce the overlap to say 3" if I pull up too short.
Will advise how it works out. Cold and raining outside at the moment so may leave for 'ron'.
Bruce
Thanks for the images BJB. The image above does seem to show the tip element is very short compared to the element below, and that is what I would expect if one tried to make the overall length of 19' feet for the SP500.
Maybe you will find this tip section is actually 52" long...with most of it down inside the next section below. The manual suggest an overlap of 2"- 3", but 4" might still let you get you close to 22' feet from tip to the feed point backet at the bottom. I figure 27.205 mhz is close to 266.5" overall for the radiator.
I also did not use tapper in this model. Eznec is known not to deal with some serious tapper issues when used. However, I'm not sure the slight tapper I would have used here would be the type of issue to present such problems with Eznec. I didn't use tapper out of convenience when tuning the model.
Here is a model of the New SP500 set at 19' feet overall length. I did this one to see if the guy's are right about this 19' foot dimension being for 10 meters. I set the frequency for the model at 28.405 mhz, and you will see in the source data report attached, with the physical matcher I designed for this model with an overall length of 19' feet...did not show us a good tune at 28.405, producing an SWR close to 18.0:1. It sure won't be good in 11 meters either. I suggest that if HyGain can't get their instructions closer than this, to the desired frequencies, then what's next? BJB, I'm not surprised at all that your match showed a very high SWR.
I still take exception to this 19' foot idea in the manual, and note that in another location in the same manual the overall length is suggest to be 22' feet. Even if HG intended this for 10 meters, it still looks wrong to me. However, other's have and will disagree, saying there is no error. They get irritated and argue the 19' foot dimension is a starting point for 10 meters. I might consider an inch or so as a tuning range, but a misque of 3' feet is an error, and I don't need to consider what my models show at all.
My models just don't support that idea at this point, and this is why I think this length was an error. In fact with this model set at 19' feet overall length...I had to go all the way up in frequency to 32.5 mhz to see a good tune with the radiator set a 19' feet.
I also posted the source report (feed point condition and frequency) for this model, and it clearly shows this bad result.
I hope you understand the nuances of Eznec modeling, what it shows us, and the point I'm trying to make in this regard considering the 19' foot overall length shown in the manual.
View attachment SP 500 28.405 mhz 19'..pdf
Last edited:
Posted my Starduster model to compare.
Check this out as a comparison for my Starduster to this model of the SP500 I posted earlier. <gotproof><gotproof><gotproof> and I don't think many of you get it. I agree we each see what we see, but that just confirms how different locations can produce different results. Do you think this is confirmed by all the different reports we have read over the years on these more popular CB antennas? I still give high marks to the AstroPlane and the New Top One, but hardly anyone ever reports owning one...and that amazes me.
View attachment StarDuster to specs at 42' feet..pdf
Even if I removed the physical matcher I attached to my SP500 model, set the radiator to 22.5' feet, and left the HyGain mounting brackets and the radials like they are attached...a foot high up on the radiator, I'm showing the performance results are still not good.
The antenna model does work, and it might perform fair to middlen' in the real world, but it just don't look as good as all the reports have reported for years. I wish I had better results to report.
I've heard many of them on the air over the years too, but I never noticed anything special about them either. I had a neighbor with one up, back in the good old days, and he could not talk anywhere that I could not. In fact at times we noted and talked about my old Starduster, even with a water logged feed line, which I didn't realize at the time, was hearing better than all of my neighbors within a mile or two of me.
Today, my Starduster sets with the tip at 55' feet and I can hear better at times than my GainMaster set with the tip at 61' feet high. Of course my TX reports tend to vary a little bit at times, but both antennas perform about the same at my location. I can state that I never miss a contact with one that I can't make with the other...so what is all the beef about which is best in my case.
I know this will hack some of you guys out there off big time, but believe me...all of my shorter antenna work just as good as my longer ones do...and when conditions are really quiet, the shorter antennas always hear noticeably better. It ain't much, but it is a difference I can see and hear sometimes.
For years my experiences showed me similar results, and now my modeling tends to agree...there just ain't that much difference to be noted between all of these CB antennas that I have, have tested in the real world, and have modeled.
So, three out of three ain't bad.
Check this out as a comparison for my Starduster to this model of the SP500 I posted earlier. <gotproof><gotproof><gotproof> and I don't think many of you get it. I agree we each see what we see, but that just confirms how different locations can produce different results. Do you think this is confirmed by all the different reports we have read over the years on these more popular CB antennas? I still give high marks to the AstroPlane and the New Top One, but hardly anyone ever reports owning one...and that amazes me.
View attachment StarDuster to specs at 42' feet..pdf
Even if I removed the physical matcher I attached to my SP500 model, set the radiator to 22.5' feet, and left the HyGain mounting brackets and the radials like they are attached...a foot high up on the radiator, I'm showing the performance results are still not good.
The antenna model does work, and it might perform fair to middlen' in the real world, but it just don't look as good as all the reports have reported for years. I wish I had better results to report.
I've heard many of them on the air over the years too, but I never noticed anything special about them either. I had a neighbor with one up, back in the good old days, and he could not talk anywhere that I could not. In fact at times we noted and talked about my old Starduster, even with a water logged feed line, which I didn't realize at the time, was hearing better than all of my neighbors within a mile or two of me.
Today, my Starduster sets with the tip at 55' feet and I can hear better at times than my GainMaster set with the tip at 61' feet high. Of course my TX reports tend to vary a little bit at times, but both antennas perform about the same at my location. I can state that I never miss a contact with one that I can't make with the other...so what is all the beef about which is best in my case.
I know this will hack some of you guys out there off big time, but believe me...all of my shorter antenna work just as good as my longer ones do...and when conditions are really quiet, the shorter antennas always hear noticeably better. It ain't much, but it is a difference I can see and hear sometimes.
For years my experiences showed me similar results, and now my modeling tends to agree...there just ain't that much difference to be noted between all of these CB antennas that I have, have tested in the real world, and have modeled.
So, three out of three ain't bad.
Last edited:
When the model of the SP500 above real ground shows significantly less than unity gain in free space, you can be sure there is a problem with the model. The peak gain of -0.68 dbd including gain from ground reflections is way off. I know you would like to have more specifics about where the error is but because you say it's not much better without the matching network, I'm not sure.
Donald, I'm not sure why this model looks so poor either. I'll do a free space model and post it, and provide the AVG results.
I tweaked the matching device and made it a little wider. Nobody as yet has provided me with how wide it is supposed to be, and I'm thinking the matching device can be loaded with losses if it is not right. I only added a 1/4" to the width and that did tend to make the antenna shorter...which needs to happen in order to get this one closer to being right.
I think I've also posted the model without the matcher attached while keeping the classic HG mounting bracket in place. I recall I also kept the radials raised up 1' up the radiator as well as lowering them to the bottom of the bracket, but after all of that...the antenna did not look to improve like I was hoping it would.
Maybe BJB can get me some real accurate dimensions using a good tape measure for all the little dimensions in this two wire matching device and I'll find I did something wrong. This model should show us at least as much gain at a good angle and match as the Imax, V-58, and the I-10K...I would think.
I measured the antenna to 22 feet 6 inches from base to tip, all I did was to lengthen the last thin length. I did measure the overlap at the first main join and it was 5.5 inches. ( previous owner had set it at this distance and marked it on the tube with black permanent marker)
I ran out of time to do all the others but after reassembly I placed it on a 10 foot aluminium tube and connected it all up.
SWR checked and although not consistent across the channels it was down to 1.2 at channel 35 where I tend to stalk, with the highest being 1.5. I do need better coax and will explore less over laps, with the end section having the final measure. Must say that the transmit / receive has improved, with clear reports.
Best antenna I have owned.
Bruce
Thanks BJB.
My model has 26 individual wires that make up the matching device on the SP500. I need as accurate dimensions as I can get, and that may not be easy to determine.
I will post a picture of the matcher and it has the wire numbers noted. I will also send a list where I try to identify each of these wires. They are close together in this antenna and the model makes them look even closer. I blew up this image a large as I could.
1=Radiator
2=wire end that connects to the bottom of the radiator
3=Matcher wire
4=Matcher wire
5=Matcher wire all of these wires are on the left hand side in the image
6=Matcher wire
7=Matcher wire
8=Matcher wire
9=Top bracket wire
10=Top bracket wire
11=Top bracket wire
12=Top bracket wire 12-13 are 1/2 length sides to connect ground wire
13=Top bracket wire
14=Left side wire for the mount that connects top and bottom brackets
15=Bottom bracket wire
16=Bottom bracket wire
17=Bottom bracket wire
18=Bottom bracket wire
19=Right side wire end connects to the feed point & insulator with ground
20=Right side wire for the mount that connects top and bottom brackets
21=Wire to ground plane bracket on top with radials
22=Matcher wire
23=Matcher wire
24=Matcher wire all of these wire are on the right side of the image
25=Matcher wire
26=Matcher wire
Spacing that are important dimensions
1. How far from wire #1, the radiator, are wires #7, 8, and 26?
2. How far from wire #11, the top radial bracket, are wires #5, and 24?
3. How far above the bottom bracket are wires #2, and 19?
This is a lot of detail BJB, but thanks if you can help me out.
Here is a blow-up of the matcher.
