Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+New\s+Cushcraft\s+XM240\s+Trouble\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Pack (NX5M)" <nx5m@txcyber.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:42:02 -0500
I am out of ideas so let me probe the minds here. I have already been in touch with CC on this issue. Bought a new XM240 a couple of months ago. Built it to specs for the center of the band. The ante
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00212.html (8,486 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: k2qmf@juno.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:30:57 -0400
Try grounding the center of the reflector as is done in the 40-2CD... 73, Ted K2QMF _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing l
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00213.html (9,579 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Pack (NX5M)" <nx5m@txcyber.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:24:34 -0500
IF the reflector is grounded to the boom would the actual length of the reflector have to be changed a little? I have never understood why the 40-2CD reflector is grounded and the XM240 is not.......
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00214.html (11,175 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Chuck O'Neal" <cdoneal@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:27:39 -0400
While it was up in the air, did you run any F/B tests with a local station to see if it was working? You should get an honest 12 to 15 dB. If you did, it is working fine and I wouldn't worry about th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00215.html (10,964 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:40:10 -0500
How high is this antenna when you are measuring the SWR? Sounds about right for an XM240 at about 15 to 20 ft high, or maybe at 30 ft high if it's over a set of radials. Your analyzer could also be l
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00216.html (10,580 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Blake M." <n4gi@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:57:38 -0400
Be sure to check the innards of the cheezy balun that CC provides.... I had one that had a cold solder joint at the center connection of the SO239. Luckily I had decided not to use it, as it's "drain
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00217.html (8,091 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:42:49 -0500
"I have never understood why the 40-2CD reflector is grounded and the XM240 is not........basically they are the same antenna...." I'm not really sure either, but I'm willing to take a guess. When th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00218.html (14,123 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:24:20 -0500
"EZNEC analysis of the antennas shows no difference with the reflector grounded or not." I should have added some details to that statement, so that I don't mislead anyone. It's true that the XM240 s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00220.html (17,060 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:37:33 EDT
After working on over 200 ham tower/antenna installations, the only thing that matters to me is how the antenna looks in the shack at the end of the feedline. That's my bottom line. Sometimes an ant
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00221.html (8,230 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:03:29 -0400
Sure add more feed line to any poor antenna and it will "look better at the other end". But that doesn't mean the antenna is working properly. The proper place to measure is at the antenna. 73 Gary K
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00223.html (9,823 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Pack, NX5M" <nx5m@txcyber.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:03:13 -0500 (CDT)
It does not look good at the antenna, at the base of the tower where the coax drops into a phasing switch nor does it look good in the shack. It is pretty ugly everywhere except cosmetically. -- Orig
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00224.html (8,987 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Hammill" <kb5my@starband.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:31:31 -0700
Given a long enough feedline, one can make anything at the antenna end look like a perfectly matched load in the shack...even an open- or short-circuited coax. That's why we can use 100 feet of open-
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00227.html (10,319 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "Rex Lint" <rex@lint.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:52:24 -0400
The higher loss in the 213 will hide the mis-match more than in the hardline. K1HI - Rex Given a long enough feedline, one can make anything at the antenna end look like a perfectly matched load in t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00228.html (11,043 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] New Cushcraft XM240 Trouble (score: 1)
Author: "peter.voelpel" <peter.voelpel@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:40:07 +0200
With me it is the other way round. I am not interested what I find at the coax end in the shack, that usually fits the output network of the transmitter. What counts is the behaviour at the feed poin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-04/msg00230.html (9,041 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu