Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Was\s+\"43ft\s+Vertical\s+Feeding\s+Question\s+and\s+Balun\s+Type\"\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Baker" <k7ddmjb@qwest.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:40:44 -0700
Thanks to all for your input and to Alex F. Dolgosh K8EUR at DX Engineering Customer Support for his follow up from the reflector. Lots of information to absorb and I have still been modeling my butt
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00577.html (8,927 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:46:54 -0500
Yes - I would buy one immediately and install it on my vertical. (Marketing gurus pay attention!) == Richards - K8JHR == powered, == _______________________________________________ __________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00587.html (8,046 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: "Gary K9GS" <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:50:54 -0600
Like this one? http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Product.php?productid=MFJ-998 73, Gary ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ K9GS Gary Schwartz email: k9gs@arrl.net Check out K9NS on the web:
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00588.html (9,655 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Tim N9PUZ <tim.n9puz@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:55:57 -0600
I don't believe the MFJ-998 is remote thus it doesn't eliminate the problems with high SWR on the feedline between antenna and tuner. Tim, N9PUZ _______________________________________________ ______
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00589.html (10,273 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:01:35 -0600
At that point a rigid vertical dipole, perhaps 80' high, also might make a lot of sense to build. There's a Chinese unit rated at 400w continuous, but that's as much as I've seen in a SMALL weatheriz
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00590.html (10,260 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: "Gary K9GS" <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:08:16 -0600
Yes, you are correct that the 998 wasn't designed to be remote operated but I just skimmed the operating manual and I don't see any reason why you couldn't put the tuner at the base of the antenna **
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00591.html (12,690 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:13:45 -0800
How much would you be willing to pay for this? The SGC 500W tuner is, as I recall, about $1500.. the Palstar 1500W autotuner is $1200, but not exactly designed for driving a vertical, nor is it in a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00592.html (10,284 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:16:25 -0800
That's probably a L network tuner (just like the LDG, etc.). I'm not sure it would be appropriate for tuning a vertical over all frequencies. I would imagine, though, that with a relatively few passi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00593.html (9,330 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:17:49 -0800
A few hundred bucks in rain tight enclosures and installation labor *could* solve that problem, but there are some other integration issues one would need to deal with. There's no nice "turnkey" solu
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00595.html (8,953 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:08:58 -0500
-- 1 -- Good question. My target price would be around $1 G. That is my current threshold for economic pain on this item. If costing more, I would probably think about it awhile, or just stick to wha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00599.html (10,689 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:17:57 -0500
Hi Gary -- YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT ABOUT WEATHER PROOFING. i have one of these verticals - just put it up - and I live in Michigan and we get nearly the amount of snow you get in Wisc. Unless a better
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00600.html (11,143 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:32:06 -0500
Hey -- I just say an ad in QST for an Array Solutions 800 WATT REMOTE TUNER = CG-5000 Automatic Antenna Tuner // Cost = $980. // http://www.arraysolutions.com/Products/cg_5000.htm Hmmm.... maybe this
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00601.html (10,098 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: "Gary K9GS" <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:32:10 -0600
I would look into putting a 100W light bulb inside the enclosure to help drive out moisture. 73, Gary K9GS ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ K9GS Gary Schwartz email: k9gs@arrl.net Che
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00602.html (12,663 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richard Thorne <rmthorne@suddenlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:38:32 -0600
The only problem I can see with this tuner is not having the ability to break the PTT line between the rig and amplifier (confirmed by Array Solutions). A high power tuner should operate like the SGC
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00603.html (11,068 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:02:21 -0500
Hmnmmm... I think it would pop of it got wet or if condensation or water dripped on it. I discovered that as a kid... dropping water on a hot bulb to hear it sizzle... you know... a 5th grader stunt.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00604.html (10,776 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:05:14 -0500
I am a rookie at all this... so please be patient. I thought the instructions to the tuner said you have to reduce power to the antenna-tuner and tune with like only 5-10 watts of power, and then put
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00605.html (10,449 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: Richard Thorne <rmthorne@suddenlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:48:06 -0600
With the CG tuner you would have to take the amp off line manually, then key your rig so a tune cycle would take place. I'm sure the tuner instructions state to do this at low power 10-20 watts. Most
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00606.html (11,110 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: "Greg" <ab7r@cablespeed.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:57:44 -0800
Wouldn't the relay in a meter like the LP-00 or Powermaster work for this by cutting the keying line to the amp when the SWR is too high? Greg AB7R -- _______________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00607.html (13,949 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:59:49 -0500
This might work http://www.arraysolutions.com/Products/heinz_bolli_sams.htm#top%20of%20page John KK9A Yes - I would buy one immediately and install it on my vertical. (Marketing gurus pay attention!)
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00609.html (9,988 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun Type" (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:05:56 -0500
Unfortunately, after spending all of that money the antenna will still work like a base loaded 43 foot vertical on 80m and 160m. The antenna would work better on those bands if it were top loaded. Th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00610.html (11,183 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu