Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Temporary\s+160\s+meter\s+antenna\s+question\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: RLVZ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:43:32 EDT
Hi Guys, For a temporary, 1-night, 160-meter antenna... please advise if there would be much difference in performance between the following 2 options: 1) Load up a 80-m dipole on 160-m by running th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00123.html (6,909 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: Red <RedHaines@centurytel.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:49:08 -0500
Hi, Dick; In option 2, only the feedline radiates. The dipole acts as a capacity hat. This is called a TEE antenna; it is usually implemented with open wire feedline. It needs several, like more than
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00125.html (8,796 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:29:41 -0700
I tried it in Chicago when I lived there, it worked VERY badly. I did this for a weekend contest, with a balun at the antenna. With 100W, I burned up the so-called KW-rated balun at the antenna (it t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00129.html (8,850 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:01:46 -0500
For your 1 day option of running an 80 meter dipole on 160, here is a piece of data for you. Assuming an antenna height of 50 ft, if you are feeding the dipole with 100 ft of RG8X, loss in the coax o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00145.html (9,044 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:11:08 -0700
Running CW isn't without pitfalls either, Jerry. Last time I ran portable on 160 meters at El Mirage dry lake bed, I kept getting RF burns from the rivets that hold the plexiglass finger paddles to t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00148.html (8,703 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:00:25 -0700
Again, the word "ground" is poorly chosen and confusing. Earth, indeed, is not a necessary element of the antenna. A far better word is "counterpoise" -- that is, some conductive wire/plane/body that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00149.html (8,481 bytes)

7. [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: "Larry Schimelpfenig" <k7sv@adelphia.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:07:01 -0400
When we first moved to this qth I had a 40M extended double zepp up about 50 ft. I twisted the feeders together and fed as a T through an L network. Lot's of rf in the shack. I ran a quarterwave coun
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00150.html (6,951 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Temporary 160 meter antenna question (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 06:52:53 -0700
I dunno, Mike, at El Mirage I had 30 one-hundred foot long radials tied to the base of the vertical, a pair of common-mode chokes on the feedline, and I was still getting RF into the cab of the truck
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00152.html (8,655 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu