Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+OCF\s+antennas\s+evolution\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+OCF\s+antennas\s+evolution\s*$/: 78 ]

Total 78 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TenTec] Orion 2 Situation (score: 1): Author: <chacuff@cableone.net>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:08:12 +0000; There are many integrated circuits from that era (20 to 30 years back) that are just not available any more...at any price. I have found that its easier to get tubes for radios that are 50 years old; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00194.html (11,098 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] Tuner (RF feedback or CM) (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:29:38 -0500; If you have feed line radiation with both a balun and cable isolator (coax isolator) in place you may have a faulty balun or isolator, or have them installed at a critical length for the band where y; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00198.html (10,309 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Carl Moreschi <n4py3@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:31:30 -0400; I totally agree with you Stuart, the 135 foot dipole fed with open wire line and a balanced tuner is the best all band antenna I can think of. Carl Moreschi N4PY 121 Little Bell Dr. Hays, NC 28635 ww; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00199.html (13,080 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Robert Mcgraw" <rmcgraw@blomand.net>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:45:03 -0500 (CDT); I agree 100% with Carl and Stuart on this. One caveat, please use a balanced tuner an not a poor performing balun to get from unbalanced to balanced configuration. Also most likely a 1:1 current balu; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00200.html (15,384 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] TT service (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:24:22 +0200; Hey, let's be clear on one point. Rob Sherwood does NOT rate rigs. His list is NOT a ranking of performance of the radios. It is only a ranking of close-in DR3 of all of these radios. Many other thin; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00202.html (9,583 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:26:41 +0200; I disagree. I prefer a 270 foot lazy loop, fed with openwire. It is quieter, and has more gain. The 135' openwire fed dipole is #2 on my list. 73 Rick, DJ0IP I totally agree with you Stuart, the 135; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00203.html (14,452 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Tony Lelieveld" <va3dwi@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:58:46 -0400; Stuart, What is an IDEZ? Is it just an EDZ configured as an Inverted V? BTW I use an EDZ up at 55 feet with somewhat unequal lengths fed with ladder line all the way to my Ten-Tec 238B tuner running; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00204.html (11,231 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:07:55 +0200; Guys, Carl, Stuart, Bob, you are all correct, but not correct in every instance. Partially correct, mostly correct, but not totally correct. I agree with everything you all are saying, BUT, one canno; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00205.html (20,501 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: "Rodney" <w3krq@dejazzd.com>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:47:44 -0400; I use a 80m double ext zip work 160 - 10m tune it with a Ten-Tec 238 tuner. 73 Rod the ant is up 70ft. Guys, Carl, Stuart, Bob, you are all correct, but not correct in every instance. Partially corre; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00206.html (20,738 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:35:46 -0500; Rick, I am fine with loops also, even 270 foot or larger. Our club used up to 1024 foot horizontal loop for Field Days some years ago when we had a large sports field. Each year for several, we would; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00207.html (12,151 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] Orion 2 Situation (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:22:55 -0400; Its entirely reasonable that some things from that era are not repairable Disappointing but a fact of life. ________________________________________ Well said, CA. I am amazed how long these radios; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00213.html (11,529 bytes)
12. [TenTec] Sherwood rig measurements (score: 1): Author: stoskopf@tri.net; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:27:37 -0500 (CDT); I stand corrected, but as a casual contester I want a rig that will dig signals out of the crap on a crowded band. Sherwood seems to measure that. The Orion does that well. As for all of the other be; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00217.html (8,107 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] Sherwood rig measurements (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:53:58 -0700; Yes, and lately, Rob has been paying a lot more attention to transmitted phase noise and other trash, which EVERYONE should care about. Transmitting a dirty signal, especially when running power, is; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00219.html (8,887 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:27:02 -0700; Gosh. In the midst of the OCF discussion one of the answers for where to use a 4:1 balun just has to be for an OCF dipole. Most people now feed them at the 200 ohm point with a 4:1 Balun. There is ev; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00220.html (20,697 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] TT service (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:13:16 +0200; Gary, you are over-simplifying. The high DR3 is indeed useful but it does not help if your radio is degrading due to other deficiencies. For instance, in an electrical storm (which seems to be a side; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00227.html (14,701 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] Sherwood rig measurements (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:42:24 +0200; Rob Sherwood (himself) is indeed the measurement, but his list is not the measurement. The list reflects DR3 performance in a lab using 2 signals. That's all. It does not reflect real life condx on a; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00229.html (10,040 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] Rob's Test of the new Argonaut VI (score: 1): Author: Richards <jrichards@k8jhr.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 03:52:04 -0400; I WAS JUST SHOWING MY WIFE THE SHERWOOD LIST... My young bride, Susan takes a real interest, and shares the pleasure of owning, the equipment in the shack. While she does not want a license, she does; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00236.html (9,282 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] enjoyability is job one (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:45:33 +0200; John, there are a couple other good things about the 525: - Low battery drain on RX, especially if you turn the dial lights off. This is THE most important thing for current drain - Switchable hi pwr; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00241.html (8,312 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Carter <k8vt@ameritech.net>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:29:27 -0400; I smile when I see everybody describing their favorite wire antenna, so let me jump in with my comments (asbestos suit on). <grin> Mike, not to deny your success nor picking on you or anyone else des; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00242.html (9,668 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution (score: 1): Author: Mike Bryce <prosolar@sssnet.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:06:36 -0400; Gang, I'll have to jump in here, too. I remember reading in one of the antenna books that some guy, to prove a point, worked DXCC using a light bulb as an antenna. But... Several years ago I homebrew; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-07/msg00243.html (11,135 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]