Yup, I hear you, Steve, and very much appreciate the thought!
73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: SWR's continued
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
