Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+L\s+Tuning\s+\-\s+Solved\s+\-\s+LONG\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+L\s+Tuning\s+\-\s+Solved\s+\-\s+LONG\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved - LONG (score: 1): Author: w3kl@w3kl.com; Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:48:23 -0800 (PST); I disagree with a couple of conclusions here. First, if the tower is indeed close to being resonant on 160, then adding radials (i.e., lowering the ground resistance) isn't going to change the reso; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00085.html (14,749 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved - LONG (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:37:44 -0500; I believe it DOES matter whether you connect the radios to the tower vs. the coax feed line on the inverted L. you have to provide a return path for the radio, and antenna circuit, and disconnecting; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00095.html (9,298 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved - LONG (score: 1): Author: w3kl@w3kl.com; Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:54:56 -0800 (PST); Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Yes, absolutely the inv L needs to see an efficient ground. However, my point was it doesn't matter if the radials start at the tower or at the base of the Inv L; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00096.html (10,515 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved - LONG (score: 1): Author: w3kl@w3kl.com; Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:00:32 -0800 (PST); Another point of clarification... The assertion made regarding no difference between radials starting at the tower and radials starting at the base of the Inv L can be made due to the relatviely sh; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00097.html (11,776 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]