E
On Oct 17, 2014 4:12 PM, <towertalk-request@contesting.com> wrote:
> Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> towertalk@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> towertalk-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> towertalk-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander (john@kk9a.com)
> 2. Re: Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander (Bill via TowerTalk)
> 3. Re: Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander (GALE STEWARD via TowerTalk)
> 4. Re: Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander (Joe K2UF)
> 5. Re: Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander (k2qmf@juno.com)
> 6. Inner station RF feed lines (Wayne Kline)
> 7. Re: Inner station RF feed lines (Wes Attaway (N5WA))
> 8. Re: Guyed + self supporting /2 ?? (Doug Renwick)
> 9. What Balun for KLM KT-34XA (Paul )
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:16:12 -0500
> From: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> Message-ID: <efda7271b01d8cfd3a9072c1e9d11c0d.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Putting the 40m beam on top has two benefits. Since it is the smaller
> antenna there will be less mast stress and since it is a lower frequency
> beam it should be higher. The tribander below it will have no effect on
> the radiation angle.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> From: "Marsh Stewart" <marsh@ka5m.net>
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:04:56 -0500
>
> My tower is a US Tower HDX-555. I'm planning to stack a compact 2L 40
> monobander and a larger tribander on the same mast 10' vertically apart.
> Which antenna should be on top?
>
> The 2L 40M is lighter and has about half the wind load area of the large
> tribander. So mechanically it should be on top. But, will it "shield" the
> tribander and degrade its performance?
>
> Marsh, KA5M
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:38:17 -0400
> From: Bill via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
> To: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> Message-ID: <21a7d.377e6285.41729ff9@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I agree with John on the mechanical issues, but want to add one comment.
> I have used tribanders about 10 feet from 40 meter beams and from my
> experience there is little interaction...except on 15. You may see the
> SWR on
> that band creep up somewhat....maybe instead of being 1.2, it may be 1.4.
> However, that is a small trade off.
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2014 4:16:32 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
> john@kk9a.com writes:
>
> Putting the 40m beam on top has two benefits. Since it is the smaller
> antenna there will be less mast stress and since it is a lower frequency
> beam it should be higher. The tribander below it will have no effect on
> the radiation angle.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> From: "Marsh Stewart" <marsh@ka5m.net>
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:04:56 -0500
>
> My tower is a US Tower HDX-555. I'm planning to stack a compact 2L 40
> monobander and a larger tribander on the same mast 10' vertically apart.
> Which antenna should be on top?
>
> The 2L 40M is lighter and has about half the wind load area of the large
> tribander. So mechanically it should be on top. But, will it "shield" the
> tribander and degrade its performance?
>
> Marsh, KA5M
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:06:27 -0700
> From: GALE STEWARD via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
> To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> Message-ID:
> <1413565587.35863.YahooMailNeo@web121106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> My TH6 and 40-2CD ended up being 9 feet apart. The 40M is on top. This
> setup has worked great for some years.
>
> GL with the project.
>
> 73, Stew K3ND
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marsh Stewart <marsh@ka5m.net>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:04 AM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
>
>
> My tower is a US Tower HDX-555. I'm planning to stack a compact 2L 40
> monobander and a larger tribander on the same mast 10' vertically apart.
> Which antenna should be on top?
>
> The 2L 40M is lighter and has about half the wind load area of the large
> tribander. So mechanically it should be on top. But, will it "shield" the
> tribander and degrade its performance?
>
> Marsh, KA5M
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:35:18 -0400
> From: "Joe K2UF" <joe@k2uf.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> Message-ID: <20141017173517.8195CAC8022@mx.contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I have a Bencher Skyhawk at about 74 feet and a 2 el 40 beam at 85 feet on
> the same tower. Works very good. Has withstood some good wind gust and a
> lot of ice here in upstate N.Y.
>
> Good luck,
>
> 73 Joe K2UF
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Marsh
> Stewart
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:05 AM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
>
> My tower is a US Tower HDX-555. I'm planning to stack a compact 2L 40
> monobander and a larger tribander on the same mast 10' vertically apart.
> Which antenna should be on top?
>
> The 2L 40M is lighter and has about half the wind load area of the large
> tribander. So mechanically it should be on top. But, will it "shield" the
> tribander and degrade its performance?
>
> Marsh, KA5M
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8406 - Release Date: 10/17/14
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:55:14 -0400
> From: <k2qmf@juno.com>
> To: marsh@ka5m.net
> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stacking a 2L 40M and Tribander
> Message-ID: <AABLEC3URAPK4M8J@smtpout01.vgs.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> 40 On Top!!!
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:04:56 -0500 "Marsh Stewart" <marsh@ka5m.net>
> writes:
> > My tower is a US Tower HDX-555. I'm planning to stack a compact 2L
> > 40
> > monobander and a larger tribander on the same mast 10' vertically
> > apart.
> > Which antenna should be on top?
> >
> > The 2L 40M is lighter and has about half the wind load area of the
> > large
> > tribander. So mechanically it should be on top. But, will it
> > "shield" the
> > tribander and degrade its performance?
> >
> > Marsh, KA5M
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Map Your Flood Risk
> Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5441664f83aa2664f1d40st01vuc
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:59:54 -0400
> From: Wayne Kline <w3ea@hotmail.com>
> To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Inner station RF feed lines
> Message-ID: <BAY177-W150D621E912BB0EDAAD57D8FA80@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> OK another dumb question.. I have a 100 ft spool of Alpha RG400 and
> about 60 ft. of Belden RG 142.
>
> I have used pieced B-4 for some Radio /AMP Amp Wattmeter and radio
> BPF box.
>
> With 9 RG 214 jumpers coming from the outside shack BOX to the
> distribution/ground panel.
>
> What's the thought on using it to the 6X2 box and then to the amps ect
> ? longest run would be 12 ft
>
> Or should I stick to the RG214 ?
>
>
> Wayne W3EA
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:15:53 -0500
> From: "Wes Attaway \(N5WA\)" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>
> To: "'Wayne Kline'" <w3ea@hotmail.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inner station RF feed lines
> Message-ID: <7ABF550B370B4D3F8D4F15BB7B288BC9@Office1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The RG400 and RG214 are both 50-ohms. RG214 has lower loss. I doubt that
> 12-ft of RG400 would make any measurable difference.
>
> If you are going to blame the 12-ft of RG400 every time you miss a station
> in a pileup then don't use it.
>
>
>
> ----------------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) -------------------
> 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106
> --- 318-393-3289 (Cell) ---
> Computer Consulting and Forensics
> -------------- EnCase Certified Examiner ---------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Wayne
> Kline
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:00 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Inner station RF feed lines
>
> OK another dumb question.. I have a 100 ft spool of Alpha RG400 and about
> 60 ft. of Belden RG 142.
>
> I have used pieced B-4 for some Radio /AMP Amp Wattmeter and radio BPF
> box.
>
> With 9 RG 214 jumpers coming from the outside shack BOX to the
> distribution/ground panel.
>
> What's the thought on using it to the 6X2 box and then to the amps ect ?
> longest run would be 12 ft
>
> Or should I stick to the RG214 ?
>
>
> Wayne W3EA
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:05:06 -0600
> From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
> To: "'Steve Maki'" <lists@oakcom.org>, "'towertalk'"
> <towertalk@contesting.com>, "'Roger \(K8RI\) on TT'"
> <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guyed + self supporting /2 ??
> Message-ID: <9096DD3475EE4C62AD85CD6AD26D4BA1@DOUG8PC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> We have discussed this subject many times before and it appears to be a
> waste of time as some folks have completely forgotten that SELF SUPPORTING
> TOWERS CAN BE GUYED. Thirty seven years of guying self supporting towers
> (5) up to 132 feet is enough added proof, and besides it is manufacturer
> approved.
>
> Doug
>
> I wasn't born in Saskatchewan, but I got here as soon as I could.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> On 10/16/2014 2:49 AM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>
> >> But when someone says *you MUST not guy a self supporter*, it makes me
> >> cringe.
> >
> > Why. A self supporter can be designed for guys, but most are not. If
> > they are not designed with the guy forces taken into account, you are
> > just gambling.
>
> Why? Because it's just not true to say that. Note that I'm not
> recommending anything, other than to speak accurately..
>
>
> -Steve K8LX
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:03:56 -0700
> From: "Paul " <radioboy@telus.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] What Balun for KLM KT-34XA
> Message-ID: <016301cfea1b$93556ee0$ba004ca0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> You probably don't remember, but quite a number of you helped my ID this
> antenna 10 years ago.and with all the life changes and such, never did get
> around to putting it up.but now, alas, I have 20 glorious acres in the
> country, with no restrictions and I have poured 6 yards of concrete and am
> about to put up a heavy duty 70 freestanding tower..and finally get my old
> KT-34XA in the air.
>
> I have cleaned and NOALOXed all the joints, checked screws and such per all
> of your recommendations from 2003, assembled it next to the tower and it
> looks great, problem now is the balun. Can't find the one that came with it
> and am confused by the manuals I have acquired. These are manuals from the
> old KLM and a few from Mirage. Most of them state a 4:1 balun is required,
> but one has the 4:1 spec circled and hand written note stating 1:1 is
> better
> and a t-match ??? Kind if hard to read it but that's what I saw.
>
> So, anyway, what balun should be using with this fine antenna 1:1, or 4:1?
> I
> suppose I could try both on the ground and test with my MFJ-259, but I only
> have a 1:1 right now. I'll be feeding it all with LMR-600 and N connectors,
> but also have LDF-4 and 5 but it's a pain hauling up 70' of tower :-) and
> is
> probably overkill. I will be running either my amp Supply LK-500ZB or
> Collins HF-80 system.
>
> Thanks for any info you can offer.
>
> Paul
> VE7KHz
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 142, Issue 34
> ******************************************
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|