Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Carolina\s+Windom\,\s+etc\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Carolina\s+Windom\,\s+etc\.\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:25:14 -0400; Reid, You asked about the CW80 and your 737, as well as your ic2kl/at500. responses in digest issue 27 were all over the lot. (AB7E's were spot-on, however.) First hand experience: I've had CW160's @; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00208.html (9,272 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:47:52 -0500; I think Jim's answer, and others, are certainly correct in many respects and provide good information about antennas and feedlines. However, the original post had to do simply with whether or not the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00210.html (10,116 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 22:00:27 -0500; Seeing 1:1 swr at the shack means that the swr at the antenna is also 1:1 (provided you don't have excessive feedline loss). Swr will be the same anywhere on the line. 73 Gary K4FMX ________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00258.html (8,164 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:09:34 -0400; Well, yes, Gary, that's true. But suppose it's 1.2:1? is that because it's 1.2:1 at the antenna, or because whatever wierd impedance is presented at the feedpoint is transformed to something close to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00259.html (8,555 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 22:13:55 -0500; If it is 1.2:1 at the shack it is also 1.2:1 at the antenna. The impedance may be transformed but the swr will not be. 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ __________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00260.html (9,229 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 09:50:58 -0700; WRONG! The loss in ANY transmission line will cause the SWR to be reduced as you travel along the line AWAY from a mismatched load. The loss can be predicted by Smith Chart calculations, by some equa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00264.html (9,200 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:34:07 -0400; This is only true if you have a feedline without loss. If it is 1.2:1 at the shack it is also 1.2:1 at the antenna. The impedance may be transformed but the swr will not be. 73 Gary K4FMX ___________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00266.html (7,917 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: Randy <randy@gte.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:13:11 -0500; Yep. The ARRL Handbook used to show a dummy load, made up of a roll of lossy, unterminated coax immersed in a bucket of water. I suppose you *could* terminate it, with something, anything, or short i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00269.html (8,023 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 19:15:37 -0500; Nice try Jim. Let's get the facts straight though. You were trying to tell us that the SWR on a transmission line would be different at one end of the line verses the other end because of the transfo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00273.html (13,076 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 19:37:42 -0500; My apologies to Jim Jarvis! Sorry for the rant Jim. I just realized after posting that it was Jim Brown that made all the comments on line loss and swr. 73 Gary K4FMX ________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00274.html (7,949 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 21:06:16 -0700; NO. I didn't say that. Gary, instead of arguing, I suggest that you study the ARRL Antenna Book or any textbook on transmission lines. I'm quite sure of what I wrote in my previous post. It was true; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00278.html (8,428 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:56:45 -0400; Thanks for the appology, Gary, but it was unnecessary. Maybe even premature. I read it before the TT digest arrived, so it made me curious. Some of what you were reacting to WAS my comment. We seem t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00284.html (10,573 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "David Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>; Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 16:41:36 -0400; I use the Short Carolina 80 version of the carolina windom. This is a better version for DX (broadside) and within 1200 miles omni. This antenna was originally called the Carolina beam and Radio Work; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00293.html (9,442 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 18:11:18 -0500; Sorry Jim, but I am not arguing. I fully agree with what you said and I understand about cable loss. I had unintentionally thought that the other Jim had posted what you had and mixed the two in my l; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00294.html (10,401 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Windom, etc. (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 18:48:56 -0500; Hi Jim Jarvis, I need to keep the two Jim's identified in the post. I agree with you about the line loss and what it does to swr readings. I didn't think that was what you were saying originally. I h; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00295.html (10,281 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]