Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+KT34XA\s+or\s+KT36XA\s+WITH\s+LADDER\s+LINE\s+\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] KT34XA or KT36XA WITH LADDER LINE ? (score: 1)
Author: "Fabio Grisafi - IT9GSF" <fabio.grisafi@libero.it>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:49:55 +0100
Hello Guys ! I have to refurbish my KT34XA antenna with the M2 kit to have a KT36XA antenna but I have an idea ! What about using a ladder line (300 Ohm or 400 Ohm) and use a tuner at the station lev
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00290.html (7,172 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] KT34XA or KT36XA WITH LADDER LINE ? (score: 1)
Author: "David Hachadorian" <k6ll@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:56:35 -0000
Don't worry about high swr causing line loss at the band edges with a KT-34XA. Don't worry about burning up the balun. I run 1500W RTTY all the time. Coax cost is minimal, compared to the cost of tha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00292.html (8,359 bytes)

3. [TowerTalk] KT34XA or KT36XA WITH LADDER LINE ? (score: 1)
Author: "Larry Schimelpfenig" <k7sv@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:15:33 -0500
In addition to the comments already made by Dave K6LL, I have several comments. First, if your experience withte the KT34XA to KT36XA upgrade goes anything like mine did, you're not going to see high
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00328.html (7,386 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] KT34XA or KT36XA WITH LADDER LINE ? (score: 1)
Author: "Larry G" <larry@k7mi.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:26:40 -0800
I agree with adding the drain holes. I use a triple stack of KT36XAs here and although the end caps fit tightly I still had problems with water getting into the tubes. I suggested this to M2 but the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00330.html (9,209 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu