Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Field\s+day\s+antennas\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Field\s+day\s+antennas\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Paul DeWitte <k9ot@yousq.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:08:08 -0500; Not sure what is the correct forum to ask this on, but since at least one of the radios will be a TT here goes. To make things simpler for us guys that set things up, we want to minimize the number o; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00135.html (7,237 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Ralph Matheny K8RYU <mathenyr@marietta.edu>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:07:44 -0400 (EDT); In my experience the 80M antenna on the higher bands will be a dud. If you must, use a loop rather than an dipole, and feed the loop with 300 (NOT 450) line via a true balanced link-coupled tuner, li; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00136.html (8,285 bytes)
3. [TenTec] field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Paul DeWitte <k9ot@yousq.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:08:13 -0500; In my first post I asked if the 80m antenna was 60 ft instead of 66 ft would it tune easier on 40m. It should have read 60 ft on a side for an overall length of 120 ft, instead of an overall length o; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00137.html (7,612 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Jim Allen <jim.allen@longhornband.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:52:20 -0500; The 130' dipole I have at the moment has been a decent performer on all bands, better on 40 then 80, better on 20 than 40, etc. It is only 32' high at the center and slopes to ~15' at each end. It is; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00138.html (8,365 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:08:26 -0400; Not a big deal, but I'd consider bringing that doublet down to 88ft and it would probably be easier to match and have a better broadside pattern on 20M. Barry N1EU ___________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00139.html (10,115 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Jim Allen <jim.allen@longhornband.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:18:42 -0500; As I get the other two up and running, the dipole is coming down anyway, assuming the replacements described above are an improvement. The AH-4 has no issues with matching this at all, even on 6M. Th; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00140.html (11,332 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:33:40 +0200; Ralph, I really liked your post. I don't quite follow your bit about being against 450 Ohm feedline but the rest of your post was indeed impressive. Maybe you know something I don't know.. Long low b; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00141.html (11,263 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] field day antennas (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:44:32 +0200; Paul, The antenna you are looking at building is a complex antenna consisting of two parts that contribute to defining how easy/difficult it is to match: the dipole itself, and the length of the feed; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00142.html (9,253 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:53:45 -0700; FD antennas depend a lot on where you live. From Chicago, I used a pair of 20/15/10 fan dipoles -- one broadside E/W, the other N/S. They don't need to be very high -- 25-30 ft is good, and a bit low; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00143.html (9,519 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: John Bescher via TenTec <tentec@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:36:49 -0400; Adding another consideration for your Field Day antennas.....our club used a dipole on 40 m SSB last year and Yagi's on 20, 15, and 10. The 40 m station clobbered the other stations. One leg of the 4; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00144.html (9,940 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:30:17 -0700; Off-center fed antennas put lots of common mode RF on the feedline, which is bad news for interaction between stations. Yes, stubs and bandpass filters can help reduce interference between stations.; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00145.html (9,114 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: John Bescher via TenTec <tentec@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:50:50 -0400; My club of 150 members, a lot of 2 m repeater hams, seem to have a lot of older rigs, which, of course they want to use for Field Day. The opposite seems also to be true: the hams who have the newest; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00146.html (10,823 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:48:20 -0700; Yes. Study my summary of ARRL Lab Tests of the TX cleanliness of a dozen or so medium to high priced modern rigs. k9yc.com/TXNoise.pdf Look for rigs with very low TX phase noise in the wide plots. I; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00147.html (9,573 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: "lciotti@lrlc.us" <lciotti@lrlc.us>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:41:41 -0400; All this field day antenna talk has me wondering... In multi setups, I know distance helps, but is it true that keeping the antenna parallel also helps? We are considering going from three stations t; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00148.html (13,589 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:08:19 -0700; In line is good, but still separate as much as possible. Distance is the biggest help. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://li; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00149.html (9,187 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:45:52 +0200; Jim, your comment is both accurate and inaccurate. In general it is accurate but does not have to be like that. Things have changed. The amount of common mode current on the feedline of an OCFD is de; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00150.html (12,143 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:41:34 +0200; Jim has given some good advice. Another thing that helps when running 2 transmitters on the same band (i.e. 40m or 20m) is to use different polarities of antennas; one horizontally polarized and one; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00151.html (15,264 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:49:08 -0500; You can put outboard band pass filters to limit some of the problems of being close to other rigs. However, if you have two stations the need to be close, let one run vertical polarization and one ho; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00155.html (9,567 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:04:42 -0500; Ralph, Here in CenTEX we did a several year evaluation of loops for FD, using the 75 m loop on up at 20 meters and up. The nulls seem to fill in sufficiently to make it a good gain omni antenna, whic; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00156.html (9,994 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas (score: 1): Author: Don Jones <ko7i@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 23:32:18 -0700; BINGO!!! YOU GET THE PRIZE!!! Common mode RF is a huge intra-station killer at a Multi-Multi field site. Last year at W7PIG 6A WWA we used resonant antenna's fed with RG-213. We used 2 tri-band yagi'; /archives//html/TenTec/2015-04/msg00159.html (11,807 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]