Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160m\s+inverted\s+l\s*$/: 56 ]

Total 56 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: knason@emeraldis.com (Kevan Nason)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:17:23 -0000
After a couple years of 'listening' I've finally joined. Thank you all for your help -- even if you didn't know you were giving it. I'm still learning some of the basics and thought y'all might help
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00336.html (8,087 bytes)

2. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: knason@emeraldis.com (Kevan Nason)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:47:41 -0000
Thanks to those who responded. Suggestions were to increase the top length until Rradiation is 50 ohms or to leave it as is. In both these cases it of course is necessary to add a series capacitor to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00340.html (8,669 bytes)

3. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:58:54 -0600
There are an infinite number of solutions. The most popular are to tune the length for resonance where the is ZERO reactance and then match the (low) real impedance to 50 ohms, OR, to adjust the leng
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00341.html (9,809 bytes)

4. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:31:18 +0200
Rr has NOT to be confused with the resistive part of the complex impedance, in the series form, that one you're actually reading. In other words, if the resistive part of the complex impedance would
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00342.html (11,052 bytes)

5. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:37:13 -0400
You will get somewhat broader range of low SWR by having the antenna present zero reactance and using a flat matching device like an autotransformer to get 50 ohms. The reason is that the change in r
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00347.html (12,207 bytes)

6. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: ve7hcb@rac.ca (Chris BONDE)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:53:51 -0700
No low angle clutter, I assume that this is referring to objects on the ground or near to the ground sothat it is in the path of the outmoving wave. Does what is considered a clutter change with the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00351.html (7,794 bytes)

7. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:42:00 -0400
Hills, particularly large buildings, sometimes above ground power/telephone/cable distribution (more an issue on 160 than 10, certainly). The closer the building, the smaller it can be and obstruct o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00352.html (8,717 bytes)

8. [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: ve7hcb@rac.ca (Chris BONDE)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:57:24 -0700
TANX, that was what I figured. I live in a residential area 116ft by 56ft lot, house and car port, power pole and in NW to NE mig rocks about 7ooft high. That is why I was looking at an elevated vert
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00353.html (10,155 bytes)

9. [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Jerry Connelly" <jerryc@clinchrivercorp.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:13:58 -0500
Hello all I'm trying to get something up for 160m. I've been using my 80m loop and a tuner but its real hard to tune and not very effecient. Maby when I get my balanced tuner project done that won't
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00007.html (8,190 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: kb9cry@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:23:34 +0000
All that dipoles do on 160M is to warm the clouds above your house. I'd shunt feed the tower. That's what I do and it's a killer. Just remember that whatever you do, you'll want to investigate low ba
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00008.html (9,254 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: ersmar@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:19:43 +0000
Jerry: Forget about loading that last leg of your L. Just string up the required 133 feet and let the last leg bend however necessary to get it into the space available. I did that with a 3/8 WL L a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00014.html (9,640 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Lee Buller <k0wa@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:36:20 -0800 (PST)
Jerry, I am not an expert, but I have been working on my 160 Inverted-L all weekend. I have a space problem also, but not as severe as yours. Here is what I would do and the books and experts say it
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00017.html (11,190 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: K4IA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:21:07 EST
Jerry Feed the L at the top center and forget about radials. See Cebik's article about top fed Ls at http://www.cebik.com/ltv.html Run as much wire as you can and then bend it back -- linear loading.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00020.html (7,983 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "RICHARD BOYD" <ke3q@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:41:02 -0500
At WP3R we have found that even a 200' beverage is very useful, definitely on 80 but also on 160. Without it there would be lots of stations we couldn't copy; with it we can. And despite the theory,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00039.html (12,583 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: kb9cry@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:08:27 +0000
I new to 160M and am always learning but I'd like to reiterate a main point in your msg Rich and that is hearing is usually more important than transmitting. If you can't hear 'em you can't work 'em.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00040.html (8,634 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:27:08 -0800
In this situation, what is your opinion of a sloper using a SGC tuner at the top of the tower attached to the sloper wire with the tower acting as the counterpoise for the sloper. I plan to do this a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00045.html (11,690 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: ersmar@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:11:16 +0000
Alan: An easier solution might be to install three sloper wires, one for each band. The issue then would be where to tap the tower for optimum performance (insert your own definition of optimum here)
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00048.html (13,882 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:47:21 -0800
_________________________________________________________ I've never understood the logic behind this because the reverse is equally true. If they can't hear you, they can't work you. How about: You
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00063.html (8,629 bytes)

19. [TowerTalk] 160M Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: dan bookwalter <n8dcj@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:49:12 -0800 (PST)
Well as luck would have it i cant find my antenna books after i have cleaned this basement up getting ready to build my shack... anyway i seem to remember the starting point for a 160m Inv-L is 138 f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00027.html (6,984 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Dinsterdog@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:25:24 EST
My Inv L was 124 feet and resonant at 1.825MHz going 70 feet up the Rohn 25 tower and pulled out over 250 feet using nylon rope.......................Good idea to start longer! I used the UNUN to mat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00028.html (6,824 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu