- 1. Re: [TowerTalk] Homage to Ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:52:50 -0700
- Exactly, its off by 2 ohms! Supposed to be 50. LOL! When we had standards, it was 52. Once standard became "nominal", it was rounded down in print to cover sloppiness/ease in manufacturing. Kinda l
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00126.html (12,693 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] Homage to Ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:13:05 -0700
- More likely because Zo and VF of ALL transmission lines vary with frequency. It's predicted by the wave equations. Several years ago, I measured Zo, VF, and Attenuation vs frequency for all of the tr
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00127.html (11,261 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] Homage to Ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: "Lux, Jim" <jim@luxfamily.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:38:43 -0700
- When we had standards, it was 52. Once standard became "nominal", it was rounded down in print to cover sloppiness/ease in manufacturing. I don't know that 52 ohms was ever a "standard" - Just today
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00133.html (12,045 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] Homage to Ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:43:14 -0700
- Peculiar. I didn't start seeing 50 commonly until the 70's onward. It really threw me, because much equipment, and documentation prior to that (probably going back another thirty years) was 52, and I
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00136.html (16,153 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TowerTalk] Homage to Ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:29:57 -0700
- Hi Kurt, That's 4% of the value. Could it be measurement error? How were you measuring these things -- that is, what test instrumentation? How was it calibrated? At what frequency did you measure? Do
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00137.html (11,030 bytes)
- 6. Re: [TowerTalk] Homage to Ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:33:08 -0700
- That's 4% of the value. Could it be measurement error? I have suspected for quite some time that one of the items is off by 3%. The baseline of 003 rather than 000 when shorted is a clue, so that's t
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00138.html (11,998 bytes)
- 7. [TowerTalk] homage to ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: "jim.thom jim.thom@telus.net" <jim.thom@telus.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:45:17 -0700
- Meanwhile, Mosely is still blathering on about... establishing 52 ohm resonance. You would gag when you see what they actually do to achieve 52 ohms resistive at the feedpoint of their trapped yagis.
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00142.html (7,199 bytes)
- 8. Re: [TowerTalk] homage to ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:59:35 +0000
- How do you get a beta match to work on all bands ? Hygain also does it on the TH7, so the secret must be out. Ken K6MR Meanwhile, Mosely is still blathering on about... establishing 52 ohm resonance.
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00145.html (8,174 bytes)
- 9. Re: [TowerTalk] homage to ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:58:09 -0700
- Probably the dual driven and infinite patience for trial and error. Nice history at https://ethw.org/Hy-Gain_TH7DX_Antenna I've had two. Good performance and strong. Have an estate third "NIB" origin
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00146.html (9,494 bytes)
- 10. Re: [TowerTalk] homage to ohmage (score: 1)
- Author: Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:41:07 +0000
- Even the original TH6 with the single driven element had the beta match. I think the TH3 did also. That must have been a bunch of trial and error since the TH6 has been around since the 1960s and I t
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2021-10/msg00147.html (10,616 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu