Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Inverted\s+U\s+antenna\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Inverted\s+U\s+antenna\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: stanseiffert@home.com (stanseiffert); Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 21:31:37 -0800; I am using a T antenna fed as a folded monopole (toploaded) with 4 elevated radials. This has the advantage of being a good direct match to 50 ohm coax. The models I have run show little difference b; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00130.html (7,329 bytes)
2. Topband: inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: crg8ibq@rmi.net (Curt Gamble); Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:41:54 -0700; Stan, One reason for a "U" is since you have dual downleads with the far end grounded and the feed end fed against ground you have only one fourth the ground losses. By the way I used airdux coils at; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00133.html (7,419 bytes)
3. Topband: inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: aa4nn@juno.com (Joe L Blackwell); Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:07:33 -0500; Stan W7AWA wrote, in part: Good question. Wonder if the Inv U exhibits more bandwidth? Any comparisions to U & T ? de Joe Blackwell, aa4nn -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/topband Submiss; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00134.html (7,053 bytes)
4. Topband: inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: w8ji@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:13:43 -0500; Hi Curt, Even if we (incorrectly) assume all losses are "connection" losses that show up at the feedpoint and the U reduces feedpoint current by a factor of two, the system losses only drop in half.; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00135.html (9,644 bytes)
5. Topband: Inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: "Gary Smith" <Gary@doctorgary.net>; Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:09:58 -0500; Well... it was supposed to be an inverted L on 160 but as it worked out, the terminal end is absolutely vertical and is 25' from the ground. so if you look at the antenna from a relief view, it looks; /archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00204.html (7,393 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: Inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:07:57 -0800; This shape will have a lower feedpoint resistance than an inverted L. My quick EZNEC model shows 32 ohms for the U vs 62 ohms for the L, including 5 ohms of ground loss, with the open end 15 feet awa; /archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00216.html (8,633 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: Inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: Greg Chartrand <w7my@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:50:04 -0800 (PST); I used an inverted U for several years and worked a lot of DX with it. In my case it was 60' up, 60' over and 60' down. One variation of the U I never tried was terminating the end into a ground syst; /archives//html/Topband/2008-11/msg00223.html (7,485 bytes)
8. Topband: Inverted U antenna (score: 1): Author: "wb0m@flashdog.us" <wb0m@flashdog.us>; Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:57:30 -0500; Hello Everyone, I've checked into plans for an inverted "U" antenna and have a question about the insulated wire thrown over the tree. Is there anyway to minimize the loss of the wire touching the tr; /archives//html/Topband/2009-10/msg00409.html (6,889 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]