Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160\s+m\s+inverted\s+L\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160\s+m\s+inverted\s+L\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Art Heft <artandkaren@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:05:47 -0500; I finally got the inverted L up this afternoon. Vertical dimension is 65' and the almost horizontal dimension is 95'. I am using a very carefully built FCP and the commercial transformer. My SARK 110; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00025.html (7,735 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:43:37 -0500; Hi Art, Don't know whether you are measuring L to FCP with nothing else connected or measuring shack side of isolation transformer. You should be measuring on shack side of transformer, with L and FC; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00030.html (10,235 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Wes Attaway $N5WA$" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 21:23:28 -0600; I haven't run any numbers but it seems like you should just shorten the horizontal wire (resonance freq is too low). I would go back to about 65' horizontal. Somewhere in the range of 60' to 70' you; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00031.html (8,734 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:20:55 -0500; Hi Wes, The issue here is that he is not over resonant radials and a balun which would likely call for what you suggest. He's over an FCP roughly 130 ohms capacitive reactance and a true transformer; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00032.html (10,279 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: John Farrer via Topband <topband@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:43:08 +0000; FWIW mine is cut by trial and error to 1825 and is approximately 65 feet vertical and 80 feet horizontal. I have moved it around to three different locations over the last 2 years. The dimensions cha; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00033.html (10,111 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:23:29 -0600; I have no idea what a "FCP" is, but it doesn't matter. 1. An inverted L is an _unbalanced_ antenna. Therefore you don't need a balun. 2. This means you can feed it with unbalanced line, i.e. coax. 3.; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00036.html (7,990 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:58:25 -0600; An FCP is a Folded Counterpoise. Basically, it's an elevated radial for 160m ops without room for a proper radial system. http://lists.contesting.com/_topband/2012-07/msg00413.html And we can use FAR; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00037.html (8,383 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:55:11 -0600; A vacuum variable for L impedance matching is unnecessary. Vacuum variable capacitors leak eventually. It take a long time for them to go through their ranges and you have to have the mechanics outsi; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00041.html (8,351 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:12:02 -0400; Bread slicers have their issues and are not really the best solution. Using a fixed high current mica G2 broadcast capacitor of a higher value than you need, and making it variable with a series indu; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00042.html (10,033 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: HAROLD SMITH JR <w0rihps@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 23:30:23 +0000 (UTC); Herb, I must agree with you. Over 25 years ago, I tried to shunt feed my tower. I had a very heavy duty "bread-slicer".It tuned fine. But when I put power, 1500 watts, to it the plates warped. I chan; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00043.html (9,340 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Mike Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:52:34 -0400; I?ve never owned a vacuum variable. What I have been using for decades are very large air variables hung from a stick, or tree or whatever and I cover it up with a 2L pop bottle* with the bottom cut; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00044.html (9,162 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:58:26 -0600; I fully agree. And wide plate spacing isn't either, even at the legal limit! I used an omega match (with two capacitors and no inductors) to match the coax to my 160m inverted-L. The largest one in t; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00045.html (8,978 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:10:42 -0800; Makes sense Rob. Probably a good approach is to find the capacitance needed and use fixed vacuum caps in lieu of a vacuum variable. Then we have a bullet proof feed sys. Fixed vac caps are plentiful; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00047.html (9,768 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:16:36 -0800; Agree. I use three fixed serial caps with shorting relays to tune my 160m T, 8 elevated 125' radials, across the full band in 45KHz segments. The antenna is cut for 1820 and fed with a 50::25 TLT. Th; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00048.html (11,996 bytes)
15. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 06:10:40 -0600; The rule of thumb for effective elevated radial height is 1/10 wavelength, so on 160, around 50 feet up. 73 Rob K5UJ _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00053.html (8,572 bytes)
16. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:48:21 -0800; thanks Rob, The best I can do in my situation is 10 feet high for the 160M elevated radials. A far cry from 50 feet :-( I will work on maximizing the size of my ground screen under the inverted L. Ho; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00054.html (9,376 bytes)
17. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:11:57 -0600; Fifty feet?! That means the feedpoint --the bottom of the antenna-- would be 50 feet up! Do you know how high the top would have to be? I don't agree with that at all. And I've never heard of anyone; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00055.html (9,974 bytes)
18. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:14:15 +0100; My elevated radials are now 24m up but sloping. Big difference to before where I tried 4m high radials. I went from a T-vertical to a driven tower with top load as an elevated groundplane some years; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00056.html (10,624 bytes)
19. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: "David Cutter" <d.cutter@ntlworld.com>; Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:37:17 -0500; I recall reading from Ralph Holland that 0.015 wavelength was a good height. David G3UNA -- Original Message -- From: "Mike Waters" <mikewate@gmail.com> To: "Rob Atkinson" <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; "t; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00058.html (11,108 bytes)
20. Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:57:51 +0100; Think of a dipole close to the ground, it will not be efficient with all that coupling to earth and resulting losses. 73 Peter I recall reading from Ralph Holland that 0.015 wavelength was a good hei; /archives//html/Topband/2016-11/msg00060.html (11,424 bytes)

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