Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Inverted\s+L\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Björn Mohr <bm@broadcast.se>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:43:13 +0100
A few weeks ago I raised my topband inverted L which have an 62 feet vertical section and uses two elevated radials that are bent almost 90 degrees 10 meters out from the base. My location is on the
/archives//html/Topband/2009-11/msg00245.html (8,765 bytes)

2. Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Phil LaMarche" <plamarc1@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:47:25 -0500
Many emails and thank you. With a very short feed line (15) I presume I have to put a capacitor in line and tune the antenna that way. Added more coax and that didn't work. K3 still shuts down to 50
/archives//html/Topband/2009-11/msg00060.html (7,102 bytes)

3. Topband: inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Allan Greening" <vk3pa@vk3pa.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:41:28 +1100 (EST)
I need to put up a temp L antenna ..i hve 200 ft between 2 towers far tower is 65 ft es near tower 50 ft, Q is how long is the top run es wot type of matching this is for a temp antenna untill i get
/archives//html/Topband/2009-04/msg00000.html (6,007 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Rick Stealey <rstealey@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:52:40 +0000
Brad, how do you know? How do you (anyone, for that matter) know how well the antenna works? Just for kicks, let's say somehow we KNEW the antenna didn't work well. Say someone (to play a prank on yo
/archives//html/Topband/2009-01/msg00109.html (7,938 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Brad Rehm" <bradrehm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:19:36 -0600
I would like to know opinions on whether to go with a ground radial system or if an elevated counterpoise would work better. Thanks Darl NA8W Darl, I've just finished an Inverted-L for topband, using
/archives//html/Topband/2009-01/msg00108.html (7,337 bytes)

6. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:06:35 -0800
system or if an elevated counterpoise would work better. Google to find N6LF's website and study it. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband@contesti
/archives//html/Topband/2009-01/msg00107.html (6,710 bytes)

7. Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Darl Deeds" <na8w@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:32:29 -0500
I am planning on erecting an inverted L when the weather cooperates. I would like to know opinions on whether to go with a ground radial system or if an elevated counterpoise would work better. I do
/archives//html/Topband/2009-01/msg00106.html (6,460 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Samir Popaja, 7S7V \(SM7VZX\)" <7s7v@adamomail.se>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:15:23 +0100
--Original Message-- John, 4 radials isn't anywhere near enough (unless they're elevated). SWR doesn't tell you anything about antenna efficiency. Ideally, you want to keep adding radials until your
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00049.html (9,059 bytes)

9. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: w2pm@aol.com
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:49:28 -0500
  partial excerpt:    --Original Message--  From: sebdesn <sebdesn@comcast.net>  To: topband@contesting.com  Sent: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 3:59 pm  Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L    The work I have not see
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00048.html (9,349 bytes)

10. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "sebdesn" <sebdesn@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:59:18 -0700
The work I have not seen done (hint, hint, N6LF) is to quantify the effect of starting with the limited count, very short radial field ( 8, 12, or 16 radials) then as you add to the radial count make
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00038.html (8,533 bytes)

11. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: w2pm@aol.com
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:08:03 -0500
--Original Message-- John, 4 radials isn't anywhere near enough (unless they're elevated). SWR doesn't tell you anything about antenna efficiency. Ideally, you want to keep adding radials until your
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00037.html (9,603 bytes)

12. Re: Topband: inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Roy" <royanjoy@ncn.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:35:54 -0600
About, "...So am I to leave well enough alone or should we add more radials? This is...(etc.)" The more radials the better. Expect a feedpoint Z of 14 ohms or so with a lot of them. Just use a shunt
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00034.html (7,675 bytes)

13. Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Dennis OConnor <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:17:53 -0800 (PST)
The work I have not seen done (hint, hint, N6LF) is to quantify the effect of starting with the limited count, very short radial field ( 8, 12, or 16 radials) then as you add to the radial count make
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00033.html (7,729 bytes)

14. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Kiessig" <kiessig@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 20:06:38 +1300
John, 4 radials isn't anywhere near enough (unless they're elevated). SWR doesn't tell you anything about antenna efficiency. Ideally, you want to keep adding radials until your feedpoint impedance l
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00030.html (7,916 bytes)

15. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "EP Swynar" <gswynar@durham.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:32:53 -0500
"...I have only 16 65 ft radials and I know I need more..." ** Hi Rick, Taking another look at Table 1 on page 3.10 of the ARRL "ANTENNA HANDBOOK", with radials 1/8-wave long -- such as what you have
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00019.html (9,115 bytes)

16. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Rick Stealey <rstealey@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:15:30 +0000
John, SWR is not the best criterion for determining the optimum number of radials. In fact if your impedance is 50ohms and no reactance you still have a lot of ground losses. I have a very similar an
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00018.html (7,421 bytes)

17. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "EP Swynar" <gswynar@durham.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:58:53 -0500
"...I have at present 4 - 130' radials attached... Question is, without involving "Murphy", is if I add more radials will the vswr change in that I might have to shorten the antenna, will me signal s
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00017.html (9,763 bytes)

18. Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Jwpjj@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:25:58 EST
Hopefully I can use this forum for questions about antennas for the Top Band. I recently installed a 160 meter inverted L, Its about 130' , vertical height is 60' , horizontal length 70'. The horizon
/archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00014.html (7,740 bytes)

19. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: "K9AY" <k9ay@k9ay.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:49:06 -0600
from Ron, 4S7RO: Ron, It is possible to install a separate 80M 1/4-wave wire at the same feedpoint to make a "parallel" or "fan" vertical. To make it work properly, the two wires should be separated
/archives//html/Topband/2008-02/msg00027.html (7,476 bytes)

20. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Ron <sparkrohan@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Thanks for all the fine input, gentlemen. BTW, my inv L trails down along a simple pipe mast. It is about 45' vertical and slopes away from the mast, at a slight angle. The horizontal is tied to a ne
/archives//html/Topband/2008-02/msg00026.html (7,425 bytes)

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

This search system is powered by Namazu