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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+swr\s*$/: 44 ]

Total 44 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:19:34 -0700 (PDT); There are tons of "loss vs swr" programs for different types of coax, just search the net. I have a Zerofive 43 foot antenna. On 75 the SWR is <3.0:1. On 160 it is <4.5:1. Check the programs usi; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00227.html (10,319 bytes)
22. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:18:44 -0500; A 43' vertical is a serious mismatch on 160 and 80, its too short, has a low radiation resistance and lots of reactance. That makes a tuner run a high loaded Q and have lots of circulating current in; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00234.html (10,312 bytes)
23. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:22:10 -0500; The SWR is high, the resistive part of the impedance is very low and the reactive part is very high. The high SWR makes the losses in the coax higher, but at 160m the losses are very low to begin wit; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00235.html (9,630 bytes)
24. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:14:21 -0400; Yes, this comports with conclusions stated in the much of the literature on the matter. Oddly enough, this big stick vertical monopole has proven itself a very quiet, solid RECEIVING antenna for bot; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00237.html (10,420 bytes)
25. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:16:36 -0400; Agreed. That kinda sums it up nicely. I could not find any details, either. I am thinking I favor Mr. Salas's design - it is open, and apparently has the imprimatur of the QST Editorial Board. It loo; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00238.html (9,227 bytes)
26. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:31:46 -0500; On HF the atmospheric noise is so high that 99% loss in the tuner with most receivers (other than a very simple direct conversion radio or a crystal set) are limited by atmospheric noise, not receive; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00241.html (15,716 bytes)
27. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:41:18 -0500; At the moment, I have a disagreement with the QST technical editor. In the April QST he wrote that you can't make a parallel transmission line with impedance lower than 87 ohms. That shows he's using; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00243.html (10,998 bytes)
28. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:46:00 -0700 (PDT); You are just moving the match losses out to the $250.00 box at the antenna. You are reducing the SWR losses in the coax. So for maybe 1/2 DB coax loss you can spend the $250.00. It does not make t; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00246.html (11,758 bytes)
29. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:38:36 -0500; A box possibly built to have much lower losses and far better survivability than the $400 auto tuner since the box is made specifically for that antenna. Changing the losses from 90% or more in the a; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00248.html (10,252 bytes)
30. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:29:09 -0500; Just a coil in a plastic box solves most of the problem for an awful lot less money. If you can get by with manually switching the coil in and out, rather than using expensive relays, you really can; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00253.html (12,310 bytes)
31. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:16:42 -0500; My point entirely. I suggested the AV-6110 in jest (where I should have marked it with ;<)_)but its a real solution for those long in pocket and short on building. 73, Jerry, K0CQ ___________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00254.html (8,656 bytes)
32. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:28:21 -0700 (PDT); This discussion needs to be in a venue where people understand antennas. George, W6GF My point entirely. I suggested the AV-6110 in jest (where I should have marked it with ;<)_)but its a real soluti; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00255.html (9,415 bytes)
33. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:38:18 -0500; All hams need to learn about antennas and that makes this as appropriate a forum as any. No ham station makes contacts without any antenna. 73, Jerry, K0CQ ___________________________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00256.html (8,350 bytes)
34. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:24:11 -0500; George, If someone is not at all interested, that's ok. They can delete without reading. If someone is interested but doesn't understand all of this, Phil, AD5X has a PowerPoint presentation on his w; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00257.html (10,301 bytes)
35. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: John - K4WJ <k4wjfoc1749@wildblue.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:57:23 -0400; Jerry, I subscribe to the TenTec forum to learn about TenTec products, not to learn about antennas. If I wanted to learn about antennas, I would subscribe to an antenna forum. All hams need electrici; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00260.html (10,351 bytes)
36. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: Steve Berg <wa9jml@tbc.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:15:24 -0500; I was contemplating buying one of these 43 foot antennas to hook up to my stable of Ten Tec radios. It is almost impossible to find out the true performance of antennas from advertising copy. I am gl; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00261.html (9,076 bytes)
37. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:21:27 -0700 (PDT); You took my response wrong. I am very interested. I have an ORION ll driving a Ten Tec amp into a 43 foot Zerofive vertical. But beyond that, antennas are very complex to analyze, model and, in fa; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00262.html (11,742 bytes)
38. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: george fritkin <georgefritkin@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT); The key is "learned member" George, W6GF I was contemplating buying one of these 43 foot antennas to hook up to my stable of Ten Tec radios. It is almost impossible to find out the true performance; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00263.html (9,557 bytes)
39. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: jack <jfriend31@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:51:19 -0600; AMEN! i know where to find the delete key! jack ak7o _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00265.html (11,625 bytes)
40. Re: [TenTec] swr (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:56:06 -0500; Steve, don't give up on the 43 foot antenna until you read the web site of the author of the two papers in QST. Here is author Phil Salas's presentation which includes what he wrote in QST: Either ma; /archives//html/TenTec/2010-08/msg00266.html (8,964 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]