Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160M\s+Inverted\s+L\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160M\s+Inverted\s+L\s*$/: 56 ]

Total 56 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Inverted L (score: 1): Author: RWMaylott@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:11:57 EST; 138 feet is a good length if you use a large series capacitor to tune out the inductive reactance. I've used one for years, and the capacitor makes tuning adjustments easy. Also, it raises the high c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00029.html (7,099 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Pat Chiles" <chilesp@adelphia.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:19:21 -0500; I put one up yesterday. 165 feet (70 feet vertical). I was able to get 25 random length radials down. Several of those are 132 feet. I used a variable capacitor from a broadcast radio to tune out the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00030.html (8,669 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:22:20 -0500; If you can get 160 to 170 feet instead of 135 feet (3/8 wave rather than 1/4 wave) you get a much closer match to 50 ohms plus move the radiation point up the L instead of being at ground level. If y; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00041.html (7,912 bytes)
24. [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: ny6dx@aim.com; Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:27:28 -0500; I am trying to figure the length of inverted l using #12 insulated wire. I come up with 120 ft is this right? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the ne; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00173.html (6,621 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: <ersmar@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:04:14 -0500; John: Start out with about 130 feet of wire and trim about six inches at a time until you get the min SWR where you want it in the band, usually around 1830 kHz or so. You should end up with somethin; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00178.html (8,228 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Keller" <k3bz@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:28:54 -0500; When I'm trimming wire antennas I don't start longer and cut off a little at a time. It's too easy to cut too much off. I start longer and roll up the wire on a dowel or even my finger until it's too; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00181.html (9,268 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:05:09 -0800; That seems pretty short. Even using the standard formula for a quarter-wave vertical, 234/f, you would get about 128 feet at 1.83 MHz. Generally, inverted L's require a bit more wire than a straight; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00192.html (8,669 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: k2qmf@juno.com; Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:17:10 -0500; Try 468/f in Mhz. comes to about 128 feet for 160 meter 1/4 wave. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ ____________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00202.html (7,876 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Mike Fatchett" <mike@mallardcove.com>; Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 09:36:34 -0700; You might also check out the topband reflector. There has been a lot of discussion on inverted L's recently. Depending upon how you intend to match the L you might want to make the antenna around 135; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00216.html (8,417 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Dale Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>; Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 14:05:08 -0600; If you've got an antenna analyzer like the MFJ-359, you can see where the SWR is minimum. Cut off a few inches of antenna. See where the new minimum SWR point is. Then you can figure how many kHz per; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00230.html (11,141 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "D. Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:42:18 -0500; I keep cutting and cutting - and it is still too short If you've got an antenna analyzer like the MFJ-359, you can see where the SWR is minimum. Cut off a few inches of antenna. See where the new min; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00231.html (12,040 bytes)
32. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Chet Moore" <chetmoore@cox.net>; Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:57:27 -0500; If it really is too short, stop cutting !!! _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://list; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00240.html (13,568 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:54:10 -0700; Where are you measuring the SWR? If you are measuring it at the end of an arbitrary length of coax you will get all sorts of bad results, including the possibility of seeing an inductive reactance fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00242.html (9,633 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:03:33 -0500; Or you can calculate it and only trim your wire only once 234 / resonate frequency - 234 / desired frequency = amount to trim (or add if negative) This will also work with a dipole if you trim off th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00247.html (9,056 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:10:13 -0600; much Seems to me - This "folded back" discussion needs to specify BARE wire wrapped. If you are not using bare wire and wrap the folded back section, things will change (I suspect the change would b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00255.html (8,727 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Chet Moore" <chetmoore@cox.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:43:30 -0500; Jim, Its pretty clear the way it is. 99% of the time I use insulated wire and fold it back with out stripping it bare. It has worked 100% of the time. 73 _____________________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00257.html (9,598 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: TNeill1648@aol.com; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:01:34 EST; It does not have to be bare copper wire. For many years I have been folding back 300 & 450 ohm wire along with coax and regular insulated wire without making electrical contact. Works just fine. Tom; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00260.html (8,058 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Dale Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:45:20 -0600; owerTalk] 160m inverted l Bare wire, of course, Jim. Since it is temporary (I prefer to leave the antenna in the CW band, i.e., fully extended), I do lightly wrap it back on itself for cosmetic purpo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00266.html (9,863 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:47:59 -0600; You are correct Jim, there is a difference between using bare wire and insulated wire when folding it back. Either technique will "work" but they work differently. If you use bare wire, and determine; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00267.html (9,220 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:52:11 -0500; Folding back works with both bare and insulated wire. You do not need to strip the insulation or solder anything. The antenna will think it's shorter and your radio will be happy with the lower SWR.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00268.html (8,874 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]