Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Re\:\s+coax\s+as\s+balanced\s+line\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Re\:\s+coax\s+as\s+balanced\s+line\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: stunroe@orion.branch-co.lib.mi.us (stu); Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 14:36:00 -0500; I was wondering about the possibility or practicality of doing this where a long run would exist from the shack to the antenna. Cost wise it would be cheaper than hardline and should avoid some of th; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00015.html (8,742 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 09:09:06 -1000; Yes, it works fine; and is described in both the 16th and 17th editions of the ARRL Antenna Book, Chap 24. In the 16th edition see page 24-21 and Fig. 27 of that chapter; in the 17th edition the same; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00017.html (9,267 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: broz@csn.net (John Brosnahan); Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:32:49 -0600 (MDT); Steve, this issue was brought up earlier this year and here is my offline response to the following comment that was made during the previous discussion: This is BS (Bogus Speculation)! I have used a; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00018.html (11,854 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 10:08:46 -1000; Depends upon how you connent the parallel runs of coax: to quote from the ARRL Antenna Book, 17th ed, pg. 24-18: " Shieled balanced lines have several advantages over openwire lines. Since there is n; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00019.html (9,657 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:41:15 -1000; double. In at round impedance. But Ronald, the R in R+/-jX in the coax cable's characteristic impedance is what is 50 ohms, not the loss resistance of the wire! The R which is 50 ohms in the characte; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00020.html (11,144 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: broz@csn.net (John Brosnahan); Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:01:43 -0600 (MDT); Jim, I really wanted to believe that it was this simple, but it isn't. It doesn't matter how many lines you series or parallel--the signal gets divided between the lines, the lines each do their los; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00022.html (9,068 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid); Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 14:17:25 -1000; Hi Pete, Well if the two transmission lines are identical and everything is matched, then one half of the RF current is going to flow in each line. Note that to be matched the source and load impedan; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00023.html (9,450 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: k1ttt@berkshire.net (David Robbins); Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 11:55:15 +0000; no, power is i-squared*Z0 so 1/2 the power is .707 times the current. again, .707 of the original current .707 squared is .5 add the two .5's and you have the same loss. look at a simpler case: 1. yo; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00033.html (10,465 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: wb4mnf@atl.org (Bob Duckworth); Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 11:34:45 +0100; What makes things work? VooDoo! What keeps them from working? Bugs! What makes them break? Gremlins! Who is the Chief Gremlin? Murphy! Assumptions: Matched line (no radiation) Pysics is a constant :-; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00036.html (9,343 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: psoper@donedeal.encore.com (Pete Soper); Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 12:03:25 -0400; The inner surface of the shield is on the job for the single unbalanced coax run, replaced by the second center conductor for the balanced case. So there is some difference in ohmic loss but wouldn't; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00038.html (9,637 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: broz@csn.net (John Brosnahan); Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 10:29:33 -0600 (MDT); Bob, the original discussion was about using the two CENTER conductors of coaxial cable as a balanced and SHIELDED transmission line. In that case you gain nothing as far as reducing the losses over; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00039.html (10,869 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] Re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: rrossi@btv.ibm.com (Ronald D Rossi); Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 14:34:07 -0400; Jim, PLEASE read this not in the tone of a friendly discussion on theory. There is NO repreat NO meaness in this response. I enjoy a good argument (logical definition of argument). I can be swayed wi; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-08/msg00189.html (12,341 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com (TexasRF@aol.com); Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:41:44 -0400 (EDT); Pete Soper asks about using a pair of coax cables as a balanced line. The signals inside these two lines don't know the difference from normal use. Any moisture will disturb the loss and will affect; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-07/msg00832.html (8,042 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] re: coax as balanced line (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com (TexasRF@aol.com); Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:31:58 -0400 (EDT); FB Pete! It is great to see some new thinking on quad matching. You are absolutely correct about the impedance issue as the coax center conductor/shield spacing is fixed. It is my understanding that; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-07/msg00882.html (7,967 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]