Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Shunt\s+fed\s+tower\s+verticals\-\s+risks\s+in\s+SO2R\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Shunt fed tower verticals- risks in SO2R? (score: 1)
Author: Clive Whelan <clive.whelan@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:26:19 +0000
Well actually let's say any kind of tower vertical . I'm conscious of the fact that when feeding a tower as a vertical in SO2R configuration, that the Yagi atop the tower looks very much like a high
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-12/msg00335.html (7,506 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Shunt fed tower verticals- risks in SO2R? (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:26:45 -0500
In practice, I have not experienced this problem. A few caveats, though: -- my shunt feed is on 160, and my top-most yagi is for 40 meters. That combination is fairly rare but not unheard of here. --
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-12/msg00340.html (8,964 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Shunt fed tower verticals- risks in SO2R? (score: 1)
Author: BobK8IA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:16:02 EST
However, I am not aware that this is a problem in practice, and indeed two UK users report no problems when running a shunt fed tower on 160m, whilst simultaneously listening on HF on another receive
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-12/msg00346.html (8,127 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Shunt fed tower verticals- risks in SO2R? (score: 1)
Author: Clive Whelan <clive.whelan@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:31:17 +0000
Thanks Pete and Bob. This confirms the other reports I have, so the 160m vertical variant at least is clear. Thanks again. 73 Clive GW3NJW _______________________________________________ ____________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-12/msg00351.html (10,110 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu