Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+OT\:\s+coax\s+versus\s+parallel\s+wire\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: Jim WA9YSD <wa9ysd@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Doc, what do you consider close space open line? 6 inches? Keep The Faith, Jim K9TF/WA9YSD _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.conte
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00189.html (6,572 bytes)

2. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:56:48 -0600
6" at 160 meters, 1/8" at 2m. E.g. less than 0.001 wave length. Might accept 0.01 wavelength. 73, Jerry, K0CQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00193.html (7,674 bytes)

3. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: Jim WA9YSD <wa9ysd@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
doc, I am missing something here you said for 160M .001 - .01 Wave length right? For 80M I come up with 3.4 to 24 inches spaceing. That does not sound right, or is it? Keep The Faith, Jim K9TF/WA9YSD
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00211.html (7,415 bytes)

4. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:43:36 -0600
Well, I figure I couldn't say 6" was too wide on 160m while I allowed 1/4" on 1296 or even 1/2" on 2m, though I know 3/4" is probably actually too wide at 6m. The closer the spacing, the better. And
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00213.html (9,365 bytes)

5. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Denton" <denton@oregontrail.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:12:37 -0700
I am using homebrew ladderline with 4 1/2 inch spacing to feed a 230 ft horizontal loop. Would you consider that to be excessive for use on 10 meters I am using the loop on 80 thru 10 meters. Can red
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00217.html (10,778 bytes)

6. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: Marinus Loewensteijn <zl2ml@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:29:00 +0800
Jerry & Jim Although it is not as loss free as pure open wire I am fond of the 250 Ohm TwinCom. It can be laid like coax and gets little (if any) interference from its surroundings. http://www.titane
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00219.html (8,427 bytes)

7. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:21:27 -0600
Its probably on the wide side, just means the feedline gets to help with the radiation more than if it was closer spaced. If you aren't annoyed by computer hash from appliances or 10m TVI, I'd keep o
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00221.html (9,166 bytes)

8. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:32:21 -0600
Nice sturdy stuff. Loss should be reasonable up through UHF anyway, better than coax, though 250 ohms isn't quite a handy value for a simple coaxial balun to match to a 50 ohm transmitter... but its
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00222.html (9,329 bytes)

9. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: Jim WA9YSD <wa9ysd@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Spacing for power handling right. I believe 6 inch was used because of long distant runs say 300 feet or more. To the antennas back in the horse and buggy days, I mean Model T days. They used High im
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00233.html (8,613 bytes)

10. [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: Jim WA9YSD <wa9ysd@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Years ago I use to use that Rubber twin lead that was used on telephone drop lines. I was only running 90 watts with a HeathKit DX-60A I heard but never done it but electrical Zip cord for lamps, I b
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00234.html (6,834 bytes)

11. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:01:13 -0600
Until the spacing gets to radiating, a wider spacing for a particular conductor size has less loss because the higher impedance leads to lower current, providing the line is matched. I've heard (once
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00240.html (10,254 bytes)

12. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@storm.weather.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:13:43 -0600
I used to have an 80 meter double extend Zepp in the air. It was made of telephone company spiral bronze strip wrapped direct burial cable, and 1" spaced #18 copperweld (a commercial line). The flat
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00241.html (9,740 bytes)

13. Re: [TenTec] OT: coax versus parallel wire (score: 1)
Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:35:32 -0700
Remember that the amount of insulation to wire ratio increases the loss of a transmission line. Thus, coax being dense insulation has higher loss than ladder line, with sparse plastic. The loss tange
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-06/msg00251.html (8,461 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu