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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+OCF\s+antennas\s+evolution\s*$/: 78 ]

Total 78 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Robert Mcgraw" <rmcgraw@blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:56:22 -0500 (CDT); Likewise, as stated earler, baluns are rated power for matched conditions. Add a complex Xc or Xl plus R load and they aren't matched. I prefer a 1:1 current balun rated for at least 10 times the exp; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00267.html (11,172 bytes)
42. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Robert Mcgraw" <rmcgraw@blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:59:04 -0500 (CDT); Because your antenna impedance is not 600 ohms but is more lilkely 25 to 75 ohms depending on height above ground. Only the feedline is 600 ohms and that is really not an important issue. 73 Bob, K4T; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00268.html (11,523 bytes)
43. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Mike Bryce <prosolar@sssnet.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:18:09 -0400; Interesting conversation! So what I am reading is this. Use a 1:1 current balun remote to the tuner to use my 600 ohm feedline. Now Somewhere along the way, depending on the length of the coax betwee; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00269.html (10,951 bytes)
44. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Robert Mcgraw" <rmcgraw@blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:42:17 -0500 (CDT); On one of my antennas, being single band, I have a 1:1 current balun at the feed point of the antenna, top of the tower and some 75 ft of LDF 50 ohm coax direct to the tuner. Works great! Very low lo; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00270.html (13,174 bytes)
45. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:06:34 -0700; Let's call a spade a spade. I think we're talking about a common mode choke, right? The differential mode dissipation of a ferrite common mode choke is negligible. Dissipation is due to common mode v; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00271.html (11,035 bytes)
46. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Marshall Stewart" <marsh@ka5m.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:09:27 -0500; Mike, "Somewhere along the way, depending on the length of the coax between the tuner and the balun, wouldn't I be just matching the say 14 foot run of coax from the tuner to the balun? And not neces; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00273.html (12,487 bytes)
47. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:32:54 -0700; Mike, You're matching the antenna system, the antenna and the feed line. You just can't separate the two. When the antenna impedance at a particular frequency is different from the feed line characte; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00274.html (12,656 bytes)
48. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Mike Bryce <prosolar@sssnet.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:50:34 -0400; I quite aware that open line is generally considered lost less feed line. What threw me was the use of a 1:1 balun instead of a 4:1. That's the head scratcher. Mike wb8vge Sent from my iPhone On Jul; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00275.html (11,345 bytes)
49. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:17:25 -0700; Right. I was answering your question, "Why not move the balun 200 feet away, right up to the feed point?" At high SWR coax is lossy compared to OWL. I believe an 80 meter dipole used on 40 has an imp; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00276.html (12,288 bytes)
50. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:28:06 -0500; Then explain why a 4:1 balun is needed. Heck I might learn something. 73 Bob K4tAX I quite aware that open line is generally considered lost less feed line. What threw me was the use of a 1:1 balun i; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00277.html (12,652 bytes)
51. [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Darrel <74010.2230@compuserve.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:30:25 -0700; The article was called "Everything Works", by Tom Schiller, N6BT, and was published in the July 2000 QST. ARRL members can download it via http://www.arrl.org/arrl-periodicals-archive-search . 73, Da; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00278.html (9,800 bytes)
52. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:54:45 +0200; No sir! As a kid, I worked lots of stations on a light bulb. Keep in mind that our radios had Pi networks back then. I would be very reluctant to try that now with a newer radio. Also, don't think a; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00279.html (11,235 bytes)
53. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:26:40 +0200; Mike, I don't think anyone here is going to be able to explain to you in a single email why the 1:1 balun is better. However I can show you how to learn about this in a systematic way, using material; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00280.html (14,248 bytes)
54. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:15:37 -0500; I commented recently where there is indeed a good application for 4:1 balun usage. I think you have also indicated the correct use for 4:1 baluns in some of your OFC antenna discussions. In most othe; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00282.html (16,883 bytes)
55. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Carl Moreschi <n4py3@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:55:38 -0400; Let's say you are running a 80 meter dipole on 40 meters. The impedance will be about 2500 ohms or higher. Let's also say you are using 600 ohm ladder line. Then by placing a 4:1 balun at the antenna; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00283.html (17,284 bytes)
56. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Mike Bryce <prosolar@sssnet.com>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:14:33 -0400; Bob, I can't explain it. What I know is that every antenna tuner I've ever own, every one that is currently in production, has a 4:1 balun inside. if what you, rick, and everyone else is saying is ri; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00284.html (11,114 bytes)
57. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:23:49 +0200; Let's consider that one again, Carl. If we place a 4:1 balun at the feedpoint of the 80m antenna, then we have 625 Ohms "Unbalanced" at the feedpoint on 40m. the math is correct, but normally we woul; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00285.html (21,938 bytes)
58. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Wade Staggs <tvman1954@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:32:13 -0500; Hello to All, "The RF has to go somewhere" is the truest statement, I have heard in a while. In the late 1980's I had a favorite Guard Rail at a Motel in Atlanta. 75,40 and 20 meters were no problem.; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00286.html (12,615 bytes)
59. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:36:20 +0200; Mike, your statement is no longer correct. In the past, the manufacturers apparently all copied each other and used 4:1 baluns. Many used the voltage balun because it was easier, or because they didn; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00287.html (12,635 bytes)
60. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Carl Moreschi <n4py3@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:45:45 -0400; You read too much into what I said. All I was doing was giving a case for where a 4:1 balun was better than a 1:1 balun. I wasn't talking about using coax. I was talking about 600 ohm open wire line; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00288.html (21,618 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]