ad: M2Ant-1

New Super Penetrator Antenna by Hy-Gain MFJ, ILLEGAL?

Discussion in 'Antennas, Feedlines, Towers & Rotors' started by W6GQ, Dec 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: L-rfparts
ad: l-innov
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-sarc
ad: l-rl
ad: L-Geochron
ad: l-Waters
  1. W6GQ

    W6GQ Swap Meet Moderator QRZ Page

    I see Hy-Gain re-released the Super Penetrator.

    http://www.hy-gain.com/Product.php?productid=SPT-500

    In the 70's this was a CB antenna,

    Now Hy-Gain / MFJ says
    How can an antenna be illegal for 11 meter use?
     
  2. NA0AA

    NA0AA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Think we had a thread on this. Due to a large number of CB radio ops electrocuting themselves putting up antennas,mthey now require CB antennas be made so that they can fall on a power line and not conduct. I.e. fiberglass.
     
  3. W6GQ

    W6GQ Swap Meet Moderator QRZ Page

    Where is that rule located?
     
  4. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    There is no such requirement... I call your statement horse hockey nonsense!

    Challenge: ...Prove me wrong!
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
  5. W6GQ

    W6GQ Swap Meet Moderator QRZ Page

  6. W6RZ

    W6RZ Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. KD8DEY

    KD8DEY Subscriber QRZ Page

    The CB'ers swear by the Maco 5/8wave antenna and they are 40 bucks cheaper with the same power handling capability & similar length......
     
  8. W6GQ

    W6GQ Swap Meet Moderator QRZ Page

    OK, after reading the standard,

    http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...rgn=div5&view=text&node=16:2.0.1.2.43&idno=16


    it can be aluminum, it just needs certain areas to have non insulating qualities?

    Only omnidirectional antennas are part of this standard

    After reading the Maco website and the Mosley website here is what I found

    Maco calls their vertical a "commercial" antenna, so the CB antenna standard does not apply?

    Mosley states

    So, I guess that is what brings the Mosley into compliance?
     
  9. W8JI

    W8JI Ham Member QRZ Page

    This law has been around since the 1980's.

    In short, if a company or individual wants to market an omni-directional CB antenna, the antenna has to physically tested in a defined test situation when the antenna is intentionally brought in contact with an equivalent of a standard residential distribution primary line, and withstand that contact (with coax and mast connected) with less than 5 mA current flow.

    Anyone selling a CB antenna that cannot, with feedline and metal mast attached, directly contact a 14.5 kV RMS line is subject to huge penalties, and must even recall the products.

    This is not a simple matter of throwing some insulation on an antenna, or using an insulated mount. It takes a great deal of insulation, and it is very unlikely any mount-insulating system would ever work because the coax and mast would not be allowed to conduct harmful currents. The only legal solution practical is a well-insulated antenna element. Whatever the method, the antenna area would have to withstand physical contact directly to a 14.5 kV RMS power line in the condition the antenna would be in as erected with no leakage above 5 mA. That means feedline and mast in place.

    We can pretty well bet anyone selling an aluminum omni-directional vertical for CB use is breaking a law that has some pretty stiff penalties, unless they have found a way to have 21 kV of peak voltage isolation between the antenna and the mast and coax.

    73 Tom
     
  10. AF6LJ

    AF6LJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Your tax dollars at work.
    One of the very few times your tax dollars are not used to kill someone in a country half way around the world.
     
  11. K8MCN

    K8MCN XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    we are lucky dinner forks have not been regulated--ya know you can stick them in an outlet---guess they should all come with insulated handles ;.)
     
  12. AD5MB

    AD5MB Ham Member QRZ Page

    consider the apparent fact that when told something is illegal, a CBer will buy 3.
     
  13. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page


    darn,....... ya beat me to it:eek:
     
  14. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Of if he has a lot of money, maybe six.

    I know about the law and thought it was silly the first time I read it. It's still silly.

    Insurance companies must have pushed this legislation through. You lobbyist dollars in action...
     
  15. W6GQ

    W6GQ Swap Meet Moderator QRZ Page

  16. G0GQK

    G0GQK Ham Member QRZ Page

    I never knew horses played hockey. Ours in the UK don't, they play cricket !
     
  17. W6OGC

    W6OGC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Many of us thought the founders were onto something when they wrote, "Congress shall make no law" and wish they had stopped right there. Think of all the trouble that would have saved!
     
  18. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Where did you ever get the idea that an ANTENNA was "illegal?" Some transceivers without FCC certification were and are indeed illegal if they can operate on, or be modified to operate on, CB frequencies, but there was never an FCC ruling or other that made antennas "illegal," whether by frequency coverage or construction method.
     
  19. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Actually, there is such a law: In 16 CFR Part 22...

    It's Federally codified.

    And nutty.
     
  20. KA7NIQ

    KA7NIQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Looks like Hy Gain copied Mosley
    to me ? Notice how similar the matching system looks ? The OLD Hy Gain CLR 2, later called the Super Penetrator looks ?
    Even Mosley got a little carried away when the state the top hat lowers radiation angle.
    I think someone, maybe W8JI, modeled these 5/8 wave elevated radial antennas, and found a 1/4 wave ground plane with 45 degree drooping radials put more gain at lower angles ?
    I can't see Hy Gain MFJ selling a ton of these antennas.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: Amateuramateur-1