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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+inverted\s+l\s*$/: 66 ]

Total 66 documents matching your query.

21. 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)
22. 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)
23. 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)
24. 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)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)
34. 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)
35. 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)
36. Topband: Inverted L (score: 1): Author: John Clark <n5er74@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:48:56 -0800 (PST); Looking to build an inverted L can anyone point me toward a good set of plans. Or plans for something that will work have way decent. I plan on hanging it on my tower. A 75' Rohn 25 with a Force 12 C; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00110.html (6,288 bytes)
37. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1): Author: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:30:03 -0400; John, You don't need to put up anything since your 75 foot tower with a C-3 on top will make a much better TX antenna on 160 with a shunt fed or cage feed. There is one thing about the Force 12 C-3 i; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00116.html (9,695 bytes)
38. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:55 -0500; If you pull up an inverted L next to a tower, be sure that the base of the tower is bonded to the ground radial system. Depending on all kinds of things, the tower can carry anywhere from next to no; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00117.html (8,402 bytes)
39. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Gene Smar" <ersmar@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:37:02 -0500; John: If you can de-mount your C-3 and get at the 20M parasitic elements at the ends of the boom, you don't need to install a choke to provide top loading for 160M. Natan W6XR, the designer of the ea; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00119.html (10,040 bytes)
40. Re: Topband: Inverted L (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:49:00 -0500; I had forgotten about the insulating of the parasitics on the F12 stuff. He would just have to remove the slit plastic tubing (slit pvc water pipe) and tighten the element mount U bolts directly on t; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00122.html (11,364 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]