Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160M\s+Antenna\s+\-\s+Ideas\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:47:07 -0500
I have a small yard - a very small yard. I use an 80M loop and it takes up 3/4 of my yard. Needless to say, I do not have space for 120 radials 100 feet long. I have height - a lot of tall trees. My
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00117.html (6,779 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Gene Smar" <ersmar@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:05:37 -0500
Scott: Tying the feedline leads from your loop together is supposed to work. But keep in mind that it is this parallel pair of wires that does most of the radiating - they form a vertical antenna, so
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00118.html (9,663 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:13:21 -0500
I will try that...tying the ends together. As it stands now, connecting the loop to the tuner in normal fashion, I am able to get a 3:1 match. So there is hope. I also use a 80M vertical with a capac
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00119.html (10,783 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Gene Smar" <ersmar@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:26:02 -0500
Scott: Yes, you can use magnet wire if it's available to you. But its insulation layer will probably scuff away after a year or two and the underlying wire will begin to corrode and open up on you. I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00120.html (12,632 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:15:19 -0500
I guess I disagree and feel magnet wire is too fine to work as ground radials. I also recommend the THHN for the same reasons Gene does but do not feel the magnet wire is strong enough. People and la
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00124.html (8,176 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:18:23 -0500
Scott, I have a small yard too and I do fine on 160/80 with 100W. My radials are #18 stranded bare wire and are laid out like this: http://n3ox.net/projects/flag/layout_lg.jpg _______________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00142.html (7,989 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: HansLG@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:33:38 EST
Magnetic wire is available in all sized. If you try to put down a #30 you might not find it after some time but #18 and up should stay for some time. (I have some #8 and that will last for a long tim
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00145.html (9,391 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:36:53 -0500
Dan: Do you have any issues with interaction or funky pattern distortion that close to your flag? Scott Scott, I have a small yard too and I do fine on 160/80 with 100W. My radials are #18 stranded b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00148.html (8,349 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:58:20 -0800
Just an academic question.. how would one know if the pattern is distorted? I've given quite a lot of thought and experimentation to figuring a good way to measure HF antenna patterns as installed (f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00149.html (8,696 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Rob Atkinson" <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 20:54:35 -0600
I am also on a small lot in a city with a 1 wavelength 80 m. horizontal loop. Actually mine is 1 w/l at around 4 mhz so where I operate it's really more like .8 or .9 w/l. my lot is 50 x 100 feet. I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00152.html (9,961 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:21:49 -0500
I like that idea. I was concerned that I would have issues with changing the loop. I really like the loop, especially for working local contacts. It works very well for 80M and 40M on Sweepstakes. Th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00154.html (11,789 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:28:17 -0500
How would I know if it's distorted? Easy in azimuth with a rotatable antenna. 1843.2 kHz TTL can oscillator driving a six foot whip against a short ground spike stuck out along a riverbank about a w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00155.html (10,489 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Rob Atkinson" <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:43:34 -0600
If you have a support for the loop that is 560 feet tall then you don't need an inverted L; you can at the least put up a 1/4 w. vertical with no horizontal part at all. I am not sure what is limitin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00161.html (13,627 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:58:30 -0500
Really interesting radial layout, Dan. I have a similar situation, and wonder whether you did any before-after testing - measurements regarding adding the longer radials that extend along the side ya
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00162.html (9,425 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:32:30 -0800
very cool.. But that's only one bearing relative to the antenna site. If you had, for instance, a huge mile high metal wall on one side of the property (opposite the direction to your pinger), your p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00165.html (11,721 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:29:08 -0500
The location of my tallest tree is "just on" my property line. The property slopes strongly front to back. Because of the location of the antenna, to obtain a symmetrical field, I would have to go in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00172.html (14,680 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:49:44 -0500
I think so. Fellers with multiple verticals, and/or nearby towers, often see such interaction between same. How much... and whether it would be all bad... I don't know. I suppose it would be a mixed
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00209.html (8,490 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: "Wilson A. Caselli" <wcaselli@webkorner.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:22:33 -0500
Maybe you could use your 80 meter vertical as part of a 160 meter inverted L. Some folks use a coaxial trap about 50 ft. up the antenna to block 80 meters, then feed a long line out from there. I hav
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00212.html (10,500 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna - Ideas (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:39:46 -0500
Wilson.... did you try a "preselector" with the antenna analyzer like we SWL do with our lower end receivers? Why not try it? If you don't have one, maybe I can loan you one of mine for the test. Wor
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00219.html (9,075 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu