Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+L\s+Tuning\s+\-\s+Solved\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: RLVZ@aol.com
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:29:49 EST
Hi Guys, Thank You for all the wonderful ideas on getting my 160-m. Inverted L tuned. Your ideas got me going! My first mistake was connecting the radial ground to my tower ground. Here's what fixed
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00077.html (7,883 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:33:21 -0500
Great - Glad to help -- You might try a few extra radials, also, as I believe that will bring the SWR down naturally. It does for my vertical monopole. Happy trails. == Richards - K8JHR == UNUN and =
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00078.html (7,032 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:28:38 -0800
Hi Richards. Wouldn't adding more radials bring up the SWR? 73 Tom W7WHY _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTa
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00080.html (8,522 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:30:00 -0600
Your last post came in just as I was about to send this one. I see you found something that lowers your SWR. I will go ahead and send this anyway, so you can see what was causing the problem. Assumin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00081.html (10,260 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:12:42 -0500
ER... ah... um.... In my experience with a large vertical monopole antenna, adding more radials seems to bring SWR down. As for the correct answer in theory... I am not entirely sure. I based my advi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00082.html (9,964 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: TexasRF@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:49:17 EST
There is a scenario that you are both correct: If the large vertical has quite high ground resistance in the beginning, the base impedance can actually be greater than 50 ohms. As radials are added,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00083.html (10,820 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:22:22 -0800
Hi Richards Yes,in some cases--maybe :-) If you have a vertical, with just a ground rod, you may have a great SWR, clear across the band. Some people think that is GREAT! But, it probably means you
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00123.html (9,669 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:13:24 -0500
Makes sense when you say it that way. The good news is that we all seem to agree the guy needs more radials. Thanks for the uptake! == Richards -K8JHR == == == _______________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00127.html (9,612 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: "WA3GIN" <wa3gin@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:24:24 -0500
We did a test here with a vertical cage antenna. Started with four quarter wave radials. SWR was 1:1...every weekend we added four more radials. Each time the SWR went up and the input impedance went
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00128.html (11,142 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu