- 1. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: wd0evx@moonworks.com (Alan Bryant)
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:17:10 -0600
- I realize that by posting this, I'm probably going to look like an idiot, but I'm sincere in wanting to know what's going on with something. Hopefully someone smarter than I am can provide an intelli
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00258.html (9,449 bytes)
- 2. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: w5yr@att.net (George, W5YR)
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:33:21 -0500
- Alan, I think that yo have answered your own question. The answer lies not with the condition of the patch cables but with their length and type. You went from two foot RG-58 solid dielectric coax to
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00260.html (11,962 bytes)
- 3. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: rohre@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart Rohre)
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:44:22 -0500
- Alan, The capacitance per foot of the RG 58 is higher than the foam larger coax. This probably made the cables not resonant near 12M, and now you have differing lengths, and differing capacitance rep
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00261.html (8,411 bytes)
- 4. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: tacquire@earthlink.net (Dan)
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:20:28 -0700
- I read a long time ago that the length of the coax to say,, a mobile antenna that is physically grounded to the car has no affect on the resonance and that the fact that so many thought it did was du
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00262.html (8,374 bytes)
- 5. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: dufferjames@hotmail.com (James Duffer)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:03:12 CDT
- My guess is the velocity constant(Vo) for the replacement (RG-8) was not the same as the Vo of the coax replaced (RG-58), if this is indeed the fact, then the physical length of the RG-8 would not be
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00275.html (11,403 bytes)
- 6. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: patents@dx0man.prestel.co.uk (John Crux)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:16:01 +0100
- Your question may be of much greater general relevance than you think. Its a situation which is very easy to get into without really trying too hard. Firstly, you have not done anything dumber than m
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00295.html (15,722 bytes)
- 7. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: tacquire@earthlink.net (Dan)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:33:51 -0700
- I have always wondered if antenna tuners really accomplished anything. Even if the impedance of the rig is now matched to the load does the swr between the tuner and the antenna just eat up all the p
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00299.html (18,173 bytes)
- 8. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: k4wj@bellsouth.net (John K4WJ)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:54:59 -0400
- While we are guessing here, I'm going to take a stab at it. You are using a vertical and feeding it with an unbalanced line. The outer surface of the coax braid has become a part of the antenna. By c
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00301.html (13,339 bytes)
- 9. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: tacquire@earthlink.net (Dan)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:02:11 -0700
- Perhaps you could also try making coil of about 10 turns of your cable about 12 inches across in a loop at the base of the antenna. I know this is effective in keeping the rf where it should be. It's
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00303.html (14,627 bytes)
- 10. [TenTec] Antenna Matching Weirdness (score: 1)
- Author: kh7m@hsa-kauai.net (Jim Reid)
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:13:50 -1000
- Dan wondered, in part: "I have always wondered if antenna tuners really accomplished anything. Even if the impedance of the rig is now matched to the load does the swr between the tuner and the anten
- /archives//html/TenTec/2000-10/msg00305.html (9,402 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu