Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160\s+meter\s+current\-fed\s+T\s+antenna\,\s+where\s+did\s+I\s+go\s+wrong\?\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Lunday" <mlunday@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:43:57 -0400
ON4UN?s book, 3rd edition, Chapter 9, page 9-46. Pretty simple concept?the vertical portion is ¼ wavelength, and the total horizontal length is ½wavelength. Higher radiation resistance, not nearly as
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00022.html (7,510 bytes)

2. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: "Tim Duffy K3LR" <k3lr@k3lr.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:25:37 -0600
Hello Mark, As soon as you add a few 120 ft radials on the ground, this antenna will starting working better. The more you add (to a point) will even help more. Don't worry if they can't be all the s
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00023.html (8,697 bytes)

3. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Lunday" <mlunday@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:38:20 -0500
Thanks very much to so many fellow hams who responded to my original post! Nice to know the fraternity continues to help those with questions. This afternoon, a lovely fall day in North Carolina, I a
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00025.html (7,745 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters W0BTU <mrscience65704@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 17:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Hi Mark, N6LF recently found that the optimum radial length depends on how many radials you lay down. Check this out: http://www.w0btu.com/files/antenna/Optimum_no_of_radials_vs_radial_length.html 73
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00027.html (9,167 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: Trent Fleming <trent.fleming@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:27:53 -0600
doing my best to improve my 160 capabilities on a small suburban lot. Only have G5RV up at this point, flat-topped, at about 30' Runs mostly N-S. I have added connectors to allow me to make it a "T"
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00045.html (11,850 bytes)

6. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters W0BTU <mrscience65704@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:45:14 -0800 (PST)
I should have included this link: http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com GREAT information there. 73, Mike Waters www.w0btu.com ________________________________ ... Hi Mark, __________________________________
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00046.html (8,762 bytes)

7. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:54:08 -0500
Two long radials on the ground is only one step above using just an iron pipe in the ground. That should be common wisdom, like high dipoles do better than very low dipoles, but alas, is not. Try two
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00058.html (13,670 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: 160 meter current-fed T antenna, where did I go wrong? (score: 1)
Author: "Thomas F. Giella NZ4O" <nz4o@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:06:30 -0500
Mark my tee vertical design via the web page http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o9.htm was for a "voltage" fed electrical half wave tee tuned with a parallel network, not a 1/4 wave current fed tee tuned
/archives//html/Topband/2010-11/msg00060.html (8,771 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu