Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+CAT5\s+for\s+Flag\s+Antenna\s+Feedline\s+\?\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0700
I was reading a post from the past about the FO0AAA delta shaped receive antenna used on 160. I states in the post that they used CAT5, using just two twisted wires feeding the receiving loop rather
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00114.html (7,504 bytes)

2. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 23:12:41 -0700
I've not heard that, nor can I think of a theoretical basis for saying so. CAT5 is very good twisted pair, with a high twist ratio, Zo = 100 ohms, and its loss is low enough to make it work fine on 1
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00115.html (8,644 bytes)

3. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:20:22 -0700
Jim, Your hams guide to RFI is my bible for mitigating RFI issues. My feedline chokes are all designed from this great article. I probably have optimized my feedline to the flag in regards to common
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00116.html (10,236 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:28:35 -0700
If terminated balanced on both ends, as you're describing, there's probably no advantage to having a shield. Indeed, the presence of the shield, and the other three pairs, might make things worse. On
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00124.html (9,834 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: "JC N4IS" <n4is@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:08:39 -0400
Bob Here the missing part of my original post to motivate you to try a single twisted pair. See bellow Ilian's comments about the performance of the RX antenna. Illian was not detuning his TX antenna
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00133.html (12,277 bytes)

6. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: "Charlie Cunningham" <charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:19:30 -0400
Those flag, pennant and KAZ antennas really work well. At least my KAZ terminated delta loop did!! Great option for those of us without the real estate for Beverages! (And it's feasible/possible to c
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00134.html (13,069 bytes)

7. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:57:03 -0500
I hear that BOGs and Slinkys do too. Someday I'll try them here. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _________________ Topband Reflector
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00138.html (14,995 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 19:03:06 -0700
JC, Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I see that I need to go ahead and try CAT5 and see how it compares to coax for my flag feedline. 73, Bob K6UJ _________________ Topband Reflector
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00139.html (13,766 bytes)

9. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:17:04 -0400
Would shielded CAT5 be useable as a Beverage feed? It would be easy enough to match with a binocular core at both ends and I just happen to have about 300' doing nothing. Carl KM1H I've not heard tha
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00148.html (10,263 bytes)

10. Re: Topband: CAT5 for Flag Antenna Feedline ? (score: 1)
Author: "Arunas LY2IJ" <ly2ij@qrz.lt>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:00:57 +0300
Hi Carl, I temprorary used 200m of CAT6 cable to connect two reversable Beverages - one direction per one pair few summers ago. Worked well. I used regular binocles from 73 material for transformers
/archives//html/Topband/2013-09/msg00151.html (11,233 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu