Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160M\s+Antenna\s+puzzlement\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 10:59:22 -0500
I may be suffering from a case of too much information, but I'm puzzled by my new 160-meter inverted L, about 60 feet vertical with 8 on the ground radials each about 65 feet long My old inverted L b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00037.html (10,339 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: "Wes Attaway" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 10:11:04 -0600
Without going into all the feedline details, why not just add the extra wire to the far end of the horizontal portion? If you don't have enough space for all of the extra horizontal wire then I would
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00038.html (11,331 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Mike Fahmie via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:22 +0000 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the coax run is acting as another radial in your ground system. You can test this theory by placing a ferrite or isolator at the antenna end of the coax run.-Mike-WA6ZTY My old inve
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00039.html (10,745 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 09:25:16 -0700
I second this idea. Wes  N7WS On 12/19/2021 9:11 AM, Wes Attaway wrote: Without going into all the feedline details, why not just add the extra wire to the far end of the horizontal portion? If you d
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00040.html (10,825 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 08:36:57 -0800
What I do is use an autotransformer at my antenna to transform the ~25 ohm resistance at resonance to ~50 ohms. This basically takes the feedline out of play. Rick N6RK My old inverted L broke, so I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00041.html (10,754 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 11:42:14 -0500
I hope that's not the case, Mike.  There is already a two-toroid common mode choke between the coax and the antenna, wound with RG-400. 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network web serv
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00043.html (10,761 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 09:55:03 -0700
Another thought. I'm a little short of space between the vertical part of my L and the tower which supports the far end of the loading wire.  So I feature it; the feedpoint is capacitive and below 50
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00044.html (10,452 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 12:55:30 -0600
Pete, The common mode choke - that's how many turns and what material? For 160 something around 8+ turns & type-31 are the "right" rule of thumb answers.  Fewer turns or using (example) a type 43 mat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00046.html (13,451 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 11:50:54 -0800
Based on my research, a lot more turns. http://k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf Pete has received lots of good advice in this thread. I'll add this. Base loading is a bad thing, because it places inductance
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00048.html (10,008 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:09:38 -0700
He already has the feedpoint Z. "Measuring the SWR and R/X at the base of the antenna with my Rig Experts AA-55 Zoom," If he removes the loading inductance and trims the wire for -j25 (and the R stay
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00049.html (11,156 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <ab7echo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 13:20:37 -0700
Yup.  It's the vertical equivalent of a hairpin match. 73, Dave   AB7E If he removes the loading inductance and trims the wire for -j25 (and the R stays around 30) then a shunt inductor of 5.3 uH wil
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00050.html (8,812 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:14:18 -0500
Thanks, everyone, for a lot of thought-provoking advice.  A couple of specific comments. At the base of the antenna I have 2 #31 cores each wound with 12 turns of RG-400, in series.  I think that may
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00051.html (12,630 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 04:41:29 -0600
You need way way way more radials, around 60 on ground at a minimum, and due to copper cost, keeping them at 40 or even 30 feet is better than a paltry 8 at 65+ feet. Your feed point resistance will
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00052.html (8,933 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:12:40 +0100
No, R is too high, should read about 19 ohms in a lossless environment. I would improve the radial system to get the impedance lower and then use a 1:2 unun to transform to 50 ohms. 73 Peter, DJ7WW I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00053.html (9,391 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:21:31 -0500
Thanks, Rob, but I'm trying to keep things in some sort of proportion.  I'm currently redeploying my K9AY (which was down for the summer - yeah, I know it's overdue) and then I'll see about more radi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00054.html (10,141 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:11:00 -0600
These guys are right about the radial count, in the absolute sense.  But it's a matter of perspective. The difference between 8 short radials and 64 long ones is about 3 dB per N6LF.  That's half an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00055.html (11,418 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Antenna puzzlement (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:06:38 -0800
On 12/20/2021 10:11 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote: The difference between 8 short radials and 64 long ones is about 3 dB per N6LF.  That's half an S-unit.  It's significant, but in the scheme of things, havi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2021-12/msg00056.html (9,515 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu