Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+G5RV\s+vs\s+40M\s+dipole\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+G5RV\s+vs\s+40M\s+dipole\s*$/: 46 ]

Total 46 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:58:16 +0100; If you use a G5RV, the simplest way to get improved signal strength reports is to announce that you are using something else ;) This from W8JI: -- On The Air Testing One of the only ways to reliably; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00597.html (10,629 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:56:39 -0700; I don't understand. Why would you expect them to? If you're trying to have a general purpose type of antenna I would think that pseudo-omnidirectionality would be a good thing. Dave AB7E Best regards; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00598.html (11,315 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:17:23 -0400; The nulls might. John KK9A Best regards - Brian Carling AF4K Crystals Co. 117 Sterling Pine St. Sanford, FL 32773 Tel: +USA 321-262-5471 _______________________________________________ ______________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00599.html (8,310 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Bry Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:12:55 -0400; Exactly, and that was my point. Best regards - Brian Carling AF4K Crystals Co. 117 Sterling Pine St. Sanford, FL 32773 Tel: +USA 321-262-5471 _______________________________________________ _________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00606.html (13,216 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:52:51 -0400; W8JI's on the air tests were done on 80m where I believe the G5RV is basically omnidirectional. On higher frequencies the antenna has some deep nulls which could greatly affect the signal strength. J; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00607.html (10,184 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Larry Loen <lwloen@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:22:26 -0700; As far as testing goes, one way of getting real world answers is to use ReverseBeacon.net and see what you get from various stations as far as dB ratings go. Maybe over several days if you can. I've; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00609.html (12,143 bytes)
27. [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:53:17 -0700; If you use a G5RV, the simplest way to get improved signal strength reports is to announce that you are using something else ;) This from W8JI: involved with the west coast rag chew groups, but just; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00611.html (9,185 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 04:23:45 +0000; Not everyone knows that a tuner only protects the rig. That is the job of a dummy load. In fact the tuner matches the impedance of the antenna system to the rig and not only that, by doing so providi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00616.html (9,562 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:36:53 -0700; One thing I have noticed with the built-in tuner on my radio is that all it does is make the radio happy. The radio shows a 1:1 SWR, but the meter past the radio still shows a high SWR, so if there i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00621.html (10,389 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:42:26 +0000; SWR is determined by the feed point impedance of the antenna and the characteristic impedance of the transmission line. The tuner can't do anything about SWR on that line, only match (hopefully) the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00623.html (11,417 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Bry Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:50:33 -0400; As he stated though, the loss is often minimal. Best regards - Brian Carling AF4K Crystals Co. 117 Sterling Pine St. Sanford, FL 32773 Tel: +USA 321-262-5471 _________________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00625.html (12,288 bytes)
32. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:54:06 -0500; A 5:1 SWR on 10m fed with 100 feet of RG-213 will add an extra 1.2 dB of coax loss. John KK9A As he stated though, the loss is often minimal. Best regards - Brian Carling AF4K Crystals Co. 117 Sterli; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00629.html (8,833 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:30:03 -0700; Certainly the SWR on the line adds loss to the system, which is why it can be desirable to do the matching at the antenna to avoid it. But doing it at the rig is typically much more flexible, is typi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00633.html (12,244 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Russ Dearmore via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:48:16 +0000 (UTC); I use my external tuner (Palstar AT2K) at the output of my linear. Internal tuners are fine but why make them work to the extreme? My Heroes Wear Combat Boots! One thing I have notice; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00636.html (11,579 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:30:50 +0200; The AT2K is a Transmatch (t-tuner) which gives you possibly higher losses then the pi net of the linear. You can simulate the losses of a Transmatch: http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/tuner/tuner.html 73; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00639.html (12,022 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Bry Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:56:08 -0400; Can you hear a difference of 1.2 dB on the other end? That's about one fifth of an S unit. Best regards - Brian Carling AF4K Crystals Co. 117 Sterling Pine St. Sanford, FL 32773 Tel: +USA 321-262-547; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00641.html (10,002 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:49:19 -0400; Absolutely! If the signal is at the noise level, 1.2 dB can make the difference between no QSO and easy copy. 73, ... Joe, W4TV Best regards - Brian Carling AF4K Crystals Co. 117 Sterling Pine St. Sa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00642.html (10,693 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:51:09 -0500; My neighbor, a fairly new ham and the only other ham in this zipcode uses two G5RV at right angles to each other in inverted V configurations with centers about a foot apart. He uses a coax switch in; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00643.html (14,321 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:11:35 -0700; It depends upon the conditions and the absolute strength of the desired signal. http://www.ab7e.com/weak_signal/mdd.html By the way, the headphones you're using and the settings on your sound card ha; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00644.html (9,111 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] G5RV vs 40M dipole (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:46:50 -0700; If the signal is very weak, or at the edge of the noise, the answer is YES. It can be the difference between no copy and rough copy that's enough to make the QSO. AND -- there are many changes we can; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-04/msg00648.html (9,785 bytes)

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