Tom,

Well, it probably doesn't matter, but as we know, antenna construction is an 
imperfect science and sometimes things matter even though they shouldn't.  I 
suspect that antenna's performance on 160 is critical anyway, and factors 
that don't normally come into play may be important.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 22:36
Subject: Re: SWR's continued


>    Steve:
>
> I asked the manufacturer of the antenna himself, and he emphatically said
> "no", the 40 extra feet of RG8X coax  wouldn't make a difference on 160
> meters.
>
> And, I know that Mike from the list pretty much said the same thing, and 
> he
> seems to know way more about the type of antenna I'm working with than I 
> do.
>
> Still and all, though, I sometimes do have to wonder.
>
> 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: SWR's continued
>
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Do you really need that long piece of coax?  I think John Miller is right
>> about what's happening.  You might check the manual to see if the length
>> of
>> the coax is a factor.  In some antennas, coax length is critical.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Tom Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 21:47
>> Subject: Re: SWR's continued
>>
>>
>>>    John:
>>>
>>> My initial feeling here is that you might indeed be correct, but others
>>> on
>>> the list have a different opinion, when you consider the overall losses
>>> for
>>> 40 feet of RG8X on 160 meters.
>>>
>>> Actually, now, I don't know what to think.
>>>
>>> I guess I could just try it and see what happens, although I hate to go
>>> to
>>> all the trouble, not know ing for sure if it will help the situation.
>>>
>>> I'll continue to read the thoughts of any others on the list who might
>>> want
>>> to weigh in on this.
>>>
>>> 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: SWR's continued
>>>
>>>
>>>> with 40 feet of coax coiled up, it's trying to radiate the coax, if you
>>>> cut
>>>> that section out, your readings and measurements will need to start 
>>>> over
>>>> again, but they'll make more sense.
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Tom Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:17 PM
>>>> Subject: SWR's continued
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I took the LDG TW1 out of the circuit, and made a direct
>>>>> connection
>>>>> to
>>>>> the 160 meter sloper antenna.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lowest SWR according to the TS590 was 3.0 to 1--not as good at the TW1
>>>>> read
>>>>> with a 2.0 around 1.830 or 1.840, and when I went to the top of the
>>>>> band,
>>>>> the TS590 read "over" until I got down to around 1.900.  The 
>>>>> auto-tuner
>>>>> didn't tune the antenna up above 1.900 either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why it tunes the antenna throughout the entire band with the TW1 in 
>>>>> the
>>>>> circuit is beyond me at this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, despite my efforts to shorten the thing about 9 or 10 feet, 
>>>>> the
>>>>> antenna still seems a bit long to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 from Tom Behler:  KB8TYJ
>>>>
>>>
>>
>