Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+MFJ\s+259\s+accuracy\?\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+MFJ\s+259\s+accuracy\?\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: AA4NC@aol.com (AA4NC@aol.com); Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:46:26 EST; I have a question about the low frequency accuracy of the MFJ 259 antenna analyzer. I spent CQWW weekend doing some antenna work while KS4XG did a 15m SOSB effort from here. Since the station was in; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00872.html (8,906 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: force12@interserv.com (force12@interserv.com); Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:27:25 -0800 (PST); Good morning. A common problem with all of these meters is their sensivity to RF from other sources. The most common are AM and FM broadcast. If there is a broadcast within several miles, the meters; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00873.html (8,885 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: mbrown@shine1.com (Michael Brown); Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:35:58 -0500; Hi Will I've used a MFJ 259 on our club's 160/80/40 inverted vee and seemed like it was fairly accurate on 160. 73, Mike K9MI -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: t; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00874.html (10,478 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: w3svj@juno.com (N. S. FIRESTONE); Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:43:37 -0500; Will; I have an AutecRF1 that goes real squirrely on frequencies much below 9 mhz. This only occurs on longer wires, 40 foot vertical and a one hundred foot long wire. As others have mentioned before; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00878.html (8,743 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: broz@csn.net (John Brosnahan); Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:49:45 -0700 (MST); 15m reasonable fine as A common problem with all of the various analyzers out there. Most likely overload of the detector from a nearby AM station. The AM RF just biases the diodes causing a higher r; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00879.html (10,103 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: w7why@mail.coos.or.us (Tom Osborne); Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:37:47 -0800; Hi Will I have used one on my 160 inverted "L" and never could get a true reading with it. Swr was never below 3-1 anywhere on 160. A check with the SWR meter in the shack showed the same as yours, e; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00884.html (8,240 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: calav@flash.net (Ken Hirschberg); Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:15:29 -0700; Hi Will - The MFJ 259 suffers from RFI (BCI). Most likely the squirly behavior would have been different at another time of the day. I have heard, but don't know for sure, that the newer 259B model i; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00885.html (10,285 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:21:18 -0500; Hi Will, You probably experienced the effects of RF getting into the 259. MFJ is releasing a "transparent filter" I designed that will cure virtually all of these problems. Tests at some "unusable lo; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00889.html (8,959 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] MFJ 259 accuracy?? (score: 1): Author: elliottr@hurontel.on.ca (Rod Elliott); Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 01:59:57 +0000; [snip] It's just this 160 inv. vee >that it can't deal with. For what it's worth, I've had my MFJ259 for 2-3 years and it's never given me any such problems. I've just checked it (again) on a 50-ohm; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-10/msg00921.html (8,879 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]