On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:44:05 +0000 w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
writes:
>> From: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com)
>> Subject: Re: TopBand: Slinky test results
To: <topband@contesting.com>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 17:16:30 +0000
>
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:58:52 +0000
>w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
>> writes:
>> >I should have posted the size I measured, it was about 2 - 3/4
>inch
>> >mean diameter.
>>
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>> OK, then I now come up with a VP = .45 for the ones here.
>
>NO.
>
>For different s/d's (turn spacings divided by turn diameters):
>
> s/d = 0.5 Zo 1280 ohms Vp= .42
> s/d = 0.75 Zo 1060 ohms Vp= .55
> s/d = 1.0 Zo 930 ohms Vp= .63
>
>A Vp of .45 would require about one turn per 1-1/2 inches length. At
>85 turns per slinky, one slinky would cover 127 inches or about ten
>feet. If a 250 ft antenna used 25 slinkeys, Vp would be
>approximately .45 .
That makes no sense if I go by your prior postings.
Rather than waste my time in another argument and get ur buddy upset I
will ask others to run the math.
I'm still using the "impossible" antenna. Only 262 countries and 38 Zones
on 160M....I must do my Mea Culpas tonight.
73....Carl KM1H Slinky Beverage (tm)
>
>A s/d of 1 would be 2.75 inches spacing. Or 85 x 2.75 for 234 inches
>per slinky. 234 divided by twelve is 19 and a half feet. 250 feet
>divided by 19-1/2 is about 13 slinkys.
>
>If you have less than 13 slinkys per 250 ft, the Vp is higher than
>.63 and the impedance lower than 930 ohms. The less slinkys, the
>closer it comes to a conventional Beverage.
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
>Submissions: topband@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|