Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+G5RV\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+G5RV\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Douglas G. Bonett" <dgbonett@iastate.edu>; Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:49:16 -0600 (CST); I don't believe this idea will work. The SWR on 15 m will be OK near the feed point but will be really high at the end of the balanced line that connects to the coax. Doug N0HH Something I have sugge; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00475.html (6,810 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:17:33 +0000; Stuart - I thought 15m was one of the better bands for impedance on the G5RV. On my modelling it produces a VSWR of <3:1 on 15m - that's low by G5RV standards! 73, Steve G3TXQ _______________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00476.html (7,707 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Ralph Matheny <mathenyr@marietta.edu>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:46:59 -0500 (EST); The G5RV has been well reviewed by several experts. The best review I know of is by VE2CV and VE3KLO, in the ARRL Antenna Compendium Vol. 4. The long and the short of it is this: A G5RV is a 100 foot; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00479.html (8,280 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:31:39 EST; I don't consider myself an expert, but in my considerable experience with G5RVs and similar antennas, any G5RV can be improved by putting an antenna tuner between the coax and the balanced feedline.; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00480.html (9,031 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:09:29 -0600; Then it's no longer a G5RV. It is then a chunk of wire with a balanced feed attached to a tuner which matches the transmitter to the load. Those work quite well but not as well as a 1/2 wave at the l; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00493.html (11,432 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Jim WA9YSD <wa9ysd@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:16:11 -0800 (PST); Adding the 15M wires was that for the 80M version of the G5RV? I am willing to be if you made up a 40M version of the G5RV there will be no problem on 15M, but maybe a problem on 10M. 80M would be sa; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00494.html (7,587 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Alfred Lorona" <w6wqc@dslextreme.com>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:49:23 -0800; A G5RV fed with open wire feedline and a tuner will work just as well as a regularly configured G5RV. The flat top wire does the radiating and it is the same length in either configuration so the res; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00495.html (7,995 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:00:21 -1000; Sounds like a dipole fed with open wire feed line to me. What makes this a G5RV? Huh? A perfect 1:1 what? Not SWR. A dipole fed with open wire line has a fairly high SWR on most frequencies. The los; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-01/msg00496.html (10,343 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Dave" <dave.gotech@talktalk.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:40:36 -0800; A very wise old ham once said to me that the G5RV was a good doublet Spoilt. My experience since then has done nothing to sugest he was wrong. Dave...G4DAX ___________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00001.html (6,816 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Rsoifer@aol.com; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:09:18 EST; Bob, You're right that it would no longer be a G5RV. As you know, the G5RV was originally designed to present a reasonably low impedance on the 80, 40 and 20 meter bands. That's all. It worked satisf; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00003.html (12,037 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:12 +0000; Interestingly, it isn't always true that running the ladder line all the way is lower loss than using coax for part of the run. Take the G5RV on 80m. At the end of the usual 30 odd feet of ladder lin; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00004.html (7,874 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:05:13 -0600; Someone mentioned it earlier as I recall, but one of the reasons the G5RV appears to have somewhat low SWR is the fact that the coaxial transmission line and the associated balun are actually a "loss; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00005.html (10,342 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Alfred Lorona" <w6wqc@dslextreme.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 08:07:51 -0800; It wasn't clear but I meant a perfect 1:1 swr looking from the transmitter. Not on the line itself. The line has a high swr on some bands but the loss is minimal compared at any other type of feedli; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00006.html (7,798 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Bill Rowlett <kc4atu@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:15:08 +0000; Ray, You are part right, the G5RV was designed because G5RV was looking for a 20m wire antenna which would give him some gain in the directions he wanted and it would work without a tunner and fit in; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00007.html (14,612 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:40:26 -0600; Are you sure? Using data and formulae in the 1994 ARRL Antenna Book, I see 100' of RG213 has 0.6 dB loss at 4 MHz when matched, and 1.066 dB with a 3.6:1 SWR. 1" spaced window line has 0.027 dB (had; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00009.html (10,196 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:44:19 -1000; Hi Al, This may be true for a few particular frequencies, with each dipole length/feed line impedance/feed line length combination you may try. And you could modify the lengths to make it true on som; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00010.html (9,212 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:07:53 -0500; I used to be suspicious of the idea of using say, a 135 ft long doublet, fed with ladder line (or any low loss line really) as compared to various "engineered" antennas. That is, until we changed our; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00011.html (13,182 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:50:19 +0000; Jerry, Yes, I'm sure. According to the VK1OD on-line calculator, at 3.8 MHz 100m of RG213 with 14-j1 as a load has a loss of 1.9dB; 100m of Wireman 551 with 14-j1 as the load has a loss of 3.1dB. I'm; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00019.html (9,117 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Frank Holladay" <holladayfd@multipro.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:23:07 -0600; There is a LOT of difference between 100 feet and 199 metres! Frank, K4VMO _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailma; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00021.html (10,701 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] G5RV (score: 1): Author: "Frank Holladay" <holladayfd@multipro.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:29:30 -0600; Another typo!100 metres K4VMO _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2009-02/msg00022.html (11,578 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]