Has anybody compared the .64 wave Hustler G2537 ("Super Swamper") to the Super Penetrtator, the IMAX2000 and/or the Maco?
-
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
Has anybody compared the .64 wave Hustler G2537 ("Super Swamper") to the Super Penetrtator, the IMAX2000 and/or the Maco?
no i havent. but if its around 23 feet with 4 horizonal radidals i think it would
be the same as the p500. [or so close you couldnt see a difference]. same if its
around 20 feet should be close to the maco. which is nearly as good as the p500 imho
be the same as the p500. [or so close you couldnt see a difference]. same if its
around 20 feet should be close to the maco. which is nearly as good as the p500 imho
The only time I could imagine a maco outperforming an Imax would be when near a ridge and a higher angle is required to 'up & over' the ridge, then the stretched 1/2 wave maco v58 might keep up or possibly outperform an Imax, but I've been on the installing/swapping end so many times it's LOL to me to read a post that prefers the maco over the Imax.
I call Tatanka feces
I call Tatanka feces
What was the point of that post? You basically said nothing.
You really think the Maco has a noticeably higher angle of radiation than the Imax? So just how much of a difference in radiation angle do you think these antennas actually have?
Are you also saying that my real world experience is BS simply because it doesn't match your real world experience? Are you also saying the same thing about pretty much every other comparison between these antennas you can find online? Feel free to look around, it isn't hard to find comparisons between these two antennas, and guess which one almost universally comes out on top... Or are all of these people spewing BS as well?
I think I'll let you continue to post your drivel, if anyone does any amount of research on these antennas at all they will quickly see how relevant your opinion on these antennas actually is. Or do you actually have something useful to say?
The DB
You really think the Maco has a noticeably higher angle of radiation than the Imax? So just how much of a difference in radiation angle do you think these antennas actually have?
Are you also saying that my real world experience is BS simply because it doesn't match your real world experience? Are you also saying the same thing about pretty much every other comparison between these antennas you can find online? Feel free to look around, it isn't hard to find comparisons between these two antennas, and guess which one almost universally comes out on top... Or are all of these people spewing BS as well?
I think I'll let you continue to post your drivel, if anyone does any amount of research on these antennas at all they will quickly see how relevant your opinion on these antennas actually is. Or do you actually have something useful to say?
The DB
ooh you like dem fightin words don'tcha. Are you saying that just cuz I don't agree with your so-called experience blather, (your imagination's is more like it
) that my post is "drivel"? Well you can have all those elongated 1/2 waves you want, I'll stick to what reality has proved, a 5/8 beats a .5 anyday unless there's a benefit to a higher angle, and that's sayin' plenty nuff.Not a .5? Take off the radials like I did and watch the performance stay just the same.
Just a Ringo + 15 wasted inches, yuck!
I had a Hustler Jam Ram and really appreciated the 6061 T6 construction. I believe they're the same antenna except for the little 3-radial doohickey up the radiator about 4 1/2 feet.
http://www.cbtricks.com/ant_manuals/hustler/27_jr/graphics/hustler_27-jr-jamram.pdf
It performed well until I fried it's low wattage coil, then it became "spares", and is now the top 18 feet of my old-skool Penetrator500, making it quite possibly the only full 6061 T6 P500 radiator element in the entire bloody world.
ooh you like dem fightin words don'tcha. Are you saying that just cuz I don't agree with your so-called experience blather, (your imagination's is more like it
The words weren't meant as fighting words, more an observation of what you actually said, but I guess they could be mistaken that way, especially if you are attached to the mis-information you post as absolute fact. Really, I have nothing against you personally, and if I were intending words to be fighting words, believe me, I wouldn't limit myself to something as small as that. Honestly, this exchange with you is more humorous than anything... If I didn't find what you were saying so humorous I would have stopped at the point of telling everyone to do their own research on the matter, which, for the record, I still say people should do their own research on this matter as I know the conclusions that such actual research will bring about...
But call my experience "so called experience"? OK, lets ignore my experience. Have you looked online at others experiences? There are some right here in this thread that clearly disagrees with yours. If your experience disagrees with not just mine, but pretty much EVERYONE else's as well, who should I believe? For the record, that "EVERYONE" is including several people who have demonstrated a level of knowledge that goes far beyond yours. You haven't said anything that shows I should trust your experience, which I have to take on faith, over anyone (no EVERYONE) else's... Or do you consider everyone else's experience that disagrees with yours "so called experience" as well?
In reality the V5/8 antenna length is pretty close to being right in between a 1/2 wavelength antenna and a full 5/8 wavelength antenna. Its actually closer to a shortened 5/8 wavelength antenna as it is noticeably closer to the 5/8 wavelength length than the 1/2 wavelength length, so in reality it should be called a shortened 5/8 wavelength antenna (and honestly, only slightly shortened at that). Unless of course you are trying to manipulate peoples opinion of the antenna to get them to think a certain way. In the end you can call it what you will, that doesn't make what you choose to call it correct in any sense of the real world.
When it comes to angle of radiation, you still haven't answered my question of how much of a difference this angle makes in your mind? I can tell you that, unless you have the antennas mounted essentially on the ground that the difference is less than a degree, and that is going from an end fed 1/2 wavelength to a 5/8 wavelength antenna. I can also inform you that the antenna's tip height has more to do with this angle than anything else, including the antenna's length (at least until you pass a critical length threshold), assuming you have fully choked off common mode currents. Actually, that is where most of the difference of the 5/8 wavelength design comes from, at the same mounting point you get a higher tip height, and thus a higher current node. It is also the principle that various other antennas, such as the Astroplane, for example, function on. They are intended to have additional mast sections to elevate them to maximum tip height, essentially to match the tip height of other antennas, and there are many fans right here on this forum, including the most prolific antenna builder that posts pictures this forum has ever seen...
When it comes to the need for radials, I have news for ya, a 5/8 wavelength antenna does not have to have radials to work well. It is actually possible to get a 5/8 wavelength antenna to work nearly the same without radials as it does with, to the point that you will never notice the difference. You could just come out with something like "radials are always better", and I don't necessarily disagree with that remark, however, how radials help the antenna is greatly misunderstood, even by many who call themselves experts. Lets see if you know, not that I expect you to answer a simple question when you haven't answered previous simple questions... I wonder why that is...
So tell me this, what is it that radials do specifically for a 5/8 wavelength (and ironically a 1/2 wavelength end fed as well) antenna that makes them a benefit to the antenna? Don't just say performance, you need to explain how the radials benefit the performance of the antenna. Lets see if you can do it, or if you will just ignore another question that you can't answer...
Here is a challenge that I highly doubt you will take up, but I'll throw it out there anyway. Make yourself a center fed half wavelength antenna and mount it at the same tip height of your 5/8 wavelength antenna with no conductive mast next to it. They make fiberglass poles that are long enough and strong enough to support such an antenna. I bet you would be surprised at how well it performs, if you would actually bother to do it...
The DB
Yo Mr. DB, You're LOL
In the Summer of 1990 (almost a 1/4 century ago) I built a 5 el Quad from scratch, invented my own true single wire (x 2) dual polarity matching system, and that monster opened & closed the 10m band like no other directional in the entire area, RSTs of 30-40 over S9 while other local ops were 10-15 over on their various Yagis into VK & ZL land.
...but you want me to cater to your need to test me by explaining the difference between a .05wl decoupling radial system for a 1/2 wave end fed vs a 1/4wl elevated counterpoise for a .625 (Decoupling vs counterpoise)? Uhm, that's OK, first it's obvious you aren't listening, and 2nd, I wouldn't want to burst your maco current bubble.
- However, I particularly enjoyed your 'only 1 degree difference' * comment regarding the TOA difference between 25-30 degree TOA end feeded 1/2wl, and 9-15 degree TOA end feeded .625 wl vertical omnis.
73zzzzz
* "I can tell you that, unless you have the antennas mounted essentially on the ground that the difference is less than a degree, and that is going from an end fed 1/2 wavelength to a 5/8 wavelength antenna."
(color added by me)
Needle, I've decided I'm not going to continue this pointless "discussion" with you. Its not worth my time or the time of those reading this thread. Anyone who does their own research will know where the truth lies...
If you think I wasn't "listening" then you are mistaken. I fully understand everything you typed, and often read it multiple times. I do that with most threads I respond to. Perhaps it isn't me that wasn't "listening". But then this is getting off topic.
So you built an antenna that seemed to work for you, good for you.
In the end, believe what you like, this is still a free country after all, or so they claim...
The DB
If you think I wasn't "listening" then you are mistaken. I fully understand everything you typed, and often read it multiple times. I do that with most threads I respond to. Perhaps it isn't me that wasn't "listening". But then this is getting off topic.
So you built an antenna that seemed to work for you, good for you.
In the end, believe what you like, this is still a free country after all, or so they claim...
The DB
i have tried to tune these new Hygain SPT500's for use on 11 meters with marginal results. The existing matching network used by Hygain on these antennas needs modifications to tune properly for 27Mhz. Just look at a picture of the original Super Penetrator and you'll observe a noticeable difference in the dimensions and mounting.
I modeled several variants made from number 12 solid copper wire until I got the desired resonance and feed point resistance after setting the vertical element for about 22' 3". After getting the copper model correct I then use brass dowel rods for the final marching network. I little bit of fine tuning is required to center it where you operate. This makes it a snap to tune up. I started a thread with this info. Any specifics just let me know. I have made 3 of these new matching units and would be willing to send one to someone to verify my findings with tuning this new SPT500
I modeled several variants made from number 12 solid copper wire until I got the desired resonance and feed point resistance after setting the vertical element for about 22' 3". After getting the copper model correct I then use brass dowel rods for the final marching network. I little bit of fine tuning is required to center it where you operate. This makes it a snap to tune up. I started a thread with this info. Any specifics just let me know. I have made 3 of these new matching units and would be willing to send one to someone to verify my findings with tuning this new SPT500
When I was dinkin with a .64 variant of the P500 I simply duplicated a P500 matching network from 12ga c0pper but extended the two vertical rails up a few inches further and without a top crossbar, then made a top shorting bar from a 1" long piece of 12ga c0pper and once the .64 radiator was carefully measured for VF & K factor, slid the shorting bar up & down to find the sweet X=0 @ 52ohm spot, soldered it there, then made duplicates from aluminum rod which matched that used in the original P500.
Did the same thing with the ground shunt simultaneously, kinda like setting up an I-10K for .64 or a different band.
Of utmost importance is having the correct .625/.64 radiator length first, then match the radiator using the correct...
....MATCH
For 27.275 I use a total of 23' 3" straight vertical radiator and discard the 4 top hat radial rods.
Also, I use an 18" length of UV resistant gray PVC as an insulator which doesn't tend to arc over like the insulator it comes with for the center of the radial plates. The PVC begins at the base of the radiator & extends up 18".
Last edited:
LOL, nice smokescreen and lack of material info. But I had already said my 'No, thank you' first.Needle, I've decided I'm not going to continue this pointless "discussion" with you. Its not worth my time or the time of those reading this thread. Anyone who does their own research will know where the truth lies...
If you think I wasn't "listening" then you are mistaken. I fully understand everything you typed, and often read it multiple times. I do that with most threads I respond to. Perhaps it isn't me that wasn't "listening". But then this is getting off topic.
So you built an antenna that seemed to work for you, good for you.
In the end, believe what you like, this is still a free country after all, or so they claim...
The DB
Smoke Screen? Lack of material info?
Really...
For anyone that believes that just read the pages above, and other reports made by countless people and decide for yourself.
As I have said since Needle Bender and I started this back and forth, do your own research. And no matter what anyone says, use the antenna that works best for you, even if isn't the antenna's mentioned in this forum...
Needle Bender. Why is it that when you started on this thread you had to say everyone else's experience that disagreed with yours was BS? If you said something like "I have done this same change several times in my area and every time I have had this other experience." I would have said nothing, or perhaps asked your opinion on why you had this other experience from a vast majority of other people. Instead what you said was more like "I've seen this happen and everyone who has a different real world experience is full of bs." In doing so, and not leaving room for others real world experiences, it was in fact you that put forth the bs, and that bs is what attracted my attention.
Now I can't decide if you actually think me questioning your absolute claims (which like most absolute claims cannot be true in every possible situation) is directly attacking you, or if your just trolling. At the moment I'm leaning more towards the latter...
There are things that you stated that to me indicates a fixable (and in some cases obvious) problem with an antenna that needs to be addressed, and you have shown no sign of acknowledging that such a problem exists, instead treating the issue like a normal function of said antenna. I'm sorry, but because of this I now think less of your experiences as I did before. Don't get me wrong, I don't think your a complete idiot when it comes to antennas, some of the things you have stated in the past show you clearly are not, but your lack of addressing what I see as obvious problems is concerning to me...
In any case, I hope your future antenna endeavors are successful.
The DB
Really...
For anyone that believes that just read the pages above, and other reports made by countless people and decide for yourself.
As I have said since Needle Bender and I started this back and forth, do your own research. And no matter what anyone says, use the antenna that works best for you, even if isn't the antenna's mentioned in this forum...
Needle Bender. Why is it that when you started on this thread you had to say everyone else's experience that disagreed with yours was BS? If you said something like "I have done this same change several times in my area and every time I have had this other experience." I would have said nothing, or perhaps asked your opinion on why you had this other experience from a vast majority of other people. Instead what you said was more like "I've seen this happen and everyone who has a different real world experience is full of bs." In doing so, and not leaving room for others real world experiences, it was in fact you that put forth the bs, and that bs is what attracted my attention.
Now I can't decide if you actually think me questioning your absolute claims (which like most absolute claims cannot be true in every possible situation) is directly attacking you, or if your just trolling. At the moment I'm leaning more towards the latter...
There are things that you stated that to me indicates a fixable (and in some cases obvious) problem with an antenna that needs to be addressed, and you have shown no sign of acknowledging that such a problem exists, instead treating the issue like a normal function of said antenna. I'm sorry, but because of this I now think less of your experiences as I did before. Don't get me wrong, I don't think your a complete idiot when it comes to antennas, some of the things you have stated in the past show you clearly are not, but your lack of addressing what I see as obvious problems is concerning to me...
In any case, I hope your future antenna endeavors are successful.
The DB