Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+inverted\s+vee\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+inverted\s+vee\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] inverted vee (score: 1): Author: w7why@mail.coos.or.us (Tom Osborne); Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 01:18:54 +0800; Usually the pattern becomes more broadside and the impedance goes up. The impedance of a dipole is around 72 ohms and as you drop the ends, it goes down closer to 50 ohms. With the inverted "V", the; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-11/msg00321.html (7,101 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:03:41 -0700 (PDT); I propose to tie an inverted vee dipole pretty close to the top of a quite tall tower. I am convinced of the need for a good balun. Is there any advantage to electrically connecting the outer of the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-07/msg00382.html (7,486 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: "John F." <fraz1@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:50:35 -0500; Roger..... As you know, an inverted vee for a given freq is a balanced antenna with essentially equal current and voltage on both legs. Grounding one leg at or near the feedpoint will destroy that ba; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00011.html (6,950 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:34:47 -0700; Roger asked about grounding the coax on the >transmitter< side of the balun. That will NOT destroy the balance of the antenna if the balun does it's job. Dave AB7E ___________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00012.html (6,992 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: K8RI on TT <k8ri-on-towertalk@tm.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:44:17 -0400; I run current baluns on almost everything now days and the feedlines have their shields grounded to the tower top and bottom. With an inverted V the ground is quite close to the choke and the antenna; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00013.html (8,511 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:18:05 -0700; An underappreciated advantage of using a balun with an inverted vee is that it suppresses vertically polarized noise pickup from the coax. This can help a lot on receive. Rick N6RK __________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00014.html (7,172 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: "larryjspammenot@teleport.com" <larryj@teleport.com>; Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 10:58:41 -0700 (GMT-07:00); Does anyone actually offer these baluns for sale as already-built units, or as a complete kit, without having to go to each individual manufacturer and order just the pieces? --Original Message-- ___; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00015.html (9,846 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:11:38 -0700; what kit? You buy a batch of 2.4" toroids in Fair-Rite #31 mix. Wind your coax through it 4 or 5 times. Done.. If you want more choking effectiveness, use multiple toroids. Either stack them or do it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00016.html (8,192 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: Dan Hearn <n5ardxcc@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:47:19 -0700; The baluns(line chokes) are available from DX Engineering or BalunDesigns mounted in weatherproof boxes. I have measured both and they are very good. They are very easy to build if you want to go tha; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00017.html (9,042 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: GALE STEWARD <k3nd@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:03:08 -0700 (PDT); http://www.dxengineering.com/Sections.asp?ID=10&DeptID=9#Top Does anyone actually offer these baluns for sale as already-built units, or as a complete kit, without having to go to each individual man; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00018.html (10,815 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vee (score: 1): Author: K8RI on TT <k8ri-on-towertalk@tm.net>; Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:42:30 -0400; There are price breaks though. At a 100 they are quite a bit less, but at $6 or $7 each it can be difficult to afford to save that much. Last time this came up some on had a much better price than Mo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-08/msg00024.html (10,763 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] Inverted vee (score: 1): Author: "Carol Richards" <n2mm@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:21:33 -0400; Hello, I have an inverted vee up about 100 feet. It resonates at 3615. From past experience, how much should I add to each leg to get it down to 3515? Thanks, Carol __________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00184.html (6,785 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Don <k9muf@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:46:25 +0000 (UTC); Carol, By using the standard formula for a dipole of 468 divided by the freq in mhz, and using the difference between the 2 frequencies will get you very close. This is not the correct formula for an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00187.html (8,220 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Thomas Noel <tnoel@mac.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:56:16 -0700; Carol, Since you didnt give us the current length, I can only give you an estimate in percent. Add 2.84% divided equally to each side. Example: If current total wire is 129.5 feet long, multiply by 0; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00188.html (7,657 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Bryan Swadener via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:47:44 +0000 (UTC); I used the free calculator for a cage dipole on smeter.net to design my 80m inv vee. I added 5 feet for tuning purposes, and the VSWR low spot moved down to about 3625 KHz from 3750 KHz. The 2:1 VSWR; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00195.html (8,336 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:01:03 -0700; I have an inverted vee up about 100 feet. It resonates at 3615. From past experience, how much should I add to each leg to get it down to 3515? The length ratio is 3515/3615. Measure what you have an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00203.html (8,151 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Donald Chester <k4kyv@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:06:29 +0000; Hams are WAY too obsessed with SWR. If it's a full size half wave, the difference between an antenna resonant at 3615 and 3515 wouldn't make a bit of difference in performance. VSWR at 2:1 or less i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-11/msg00065.html (8,059 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Jim Hoge <knowkode@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:27:54 +0000 (UTC); The theory says.... f(mHz)/234=length in feet of each dipole leg so 234/3.615=66.57 and 234/3.515=64.73 the difference is 66.57-64.73=1.84 feet or 22 inches Start a bit longer and trim as needed. __; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-11/msg00066.html (7,499 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbert.schoenbohm@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:56:10 -0400; Actually if you are going lower in frequency you add wire not reduce wire....so the formula results appear transposed. Herb, KV4FZ <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=232; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-11/msg00067.html (9,145 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] inverted vee (score: 1): Author: Jim Hoge <knowkode@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:10:48 +0000 (UTC); Herb, Maybe not transposed but not clear. I was showing the difference and assumed that it was understood that the difference is what was needed to be added to the antenna to lower its resonant frequ; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-11/msg00068.html (10,441 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]