CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Which would make better stubs?

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Which would make better stubs?
From: "Marty Woll" <n6vi@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:01:04 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I have made stubs from LMR-400, RG-213, RG-400 and RG-58 for various home and 
field applications over the years.  In general, they all work; the difference 
is in depth of the null and in the bandwidth of the null.  As W4EF pointed out, 
the lower-loss cables produce higher-Q traps; i.e., sharper, deeper nulls.  My 
RG-58 stubs attenuate the second harmonic by about 24 dB; the RG-213 stubs by 
about 29 dB; and the LMR-400 stubs by about 31 dB.

In Field Day, where no station is running more than 200 watts and there is some 
physical separation of antennas, the RG-58's are fine, and they're pretty easy 
to transport in a carrying bag.  At the Caltech station, where side-by-side KW 
stations feed yagis stacked on the same tower, I went with the LMR-400 for the 
extra 7 dB it provides.  Since they reside behind a desk, their greater bulk 
isn't an issue.

73,

Marty N6VI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Which would make better stubs?, Marty Woll <=