CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] [TowerTalk] Skyhawk, KT36XA, opinions requested

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [TowerTalk] Skyhawk, KT36XA, opinions requested
From: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:07:43 +0200
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
At least that explains something, small capacity changes, especially at a
current node effectively retune antennas.

Wonder why one has to to buy a book to get aware of that.

73
Peter 


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Hachadorian

Regarding KT-34XA anomalies:

Toward the end of KLM's production run of XA's, they mistakenly shipped some
antennas where the 16" length capacitor tubes had a wall thickness of .058"
instead of the correct .049".  This error totally degraded the performance
of the antenna. Steve and Ward's Antenna Comparison Report apparently used
one of these bad antennas in their testing, so the results are totally
non-representative of either a correctly functioning KLM or
M2 unit.

Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
Yuma, AZ

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>