Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160\s+M\s+OCF\s+antenna\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160\s+M\s+OCF\s+antenna\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:44:53 -0500; Jon, Two things explain your problem - and they're both "to do" because of "wavelength". First your 160m OCF is very close to ground in terms of wavelenth. 1.8 MHz is 166.67 meters 2.0 MHz is 150 met; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00366.html (11,257 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:14:19 -0500; Wow! Great information from all the responses. I forgot to remark that the "short" leg of my OCF is short because I only have about 89' to that Rohn mast in the Olive tree. That ends at the road and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00367.html (8,454 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:16:26 -0600; "Proximity to ground and other structures will detune your antenna - making a calculated length actually resonant at a higher frequency. ..." For antennas at heights between 1/4 wavelength and 1/2 wa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00368.html (13,802 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:01:57 -0600; Wait a minute! You originally had a 281 ft OCF dipole that resonated at 2.1 MHz. You then shortened it by 10 ft and moved the resonance to 1.95 MHz? Kinda blew my mind there for a second. Assuming yo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00369.html (10,045 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:20:07 -0500; Jerry, It was originally 271' and had a SWR match of 1:1 at 2.1 MHz. I added 25' and that brought the 1:1 match down to 1.950 MHz. Note, I am saying SWR match and not resonance which I used before an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00370.html (9,054 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:29:04 -0800; Using a folded monopole will indeed raise the feedpoint impedance (by a factor of 4, which can make matching easier), but the radiation resistance and ground losses are unchanged, since the net curre; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00371.html (7,975 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:10:37 -0600; "Jerry, It was originally 271' and had a SWR match of 1:1 at 2.1 MHz. I added 25' and that brought the 1:1 match down to 1.950 MHz...." That makes more sense. Originally you said you had 86 + 110 + 8; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00374.html (10,481 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]