Seems to work well, I'm about 54 inches and 16.5 I'm going to play around
building at least 1 more just to see what happens when.... but it seems to
work out alright. I have the copper pipe one too on my scanner in my attic,
I made that one 4 or 5 years ago that's not too bad either really. I put it
on my scanner though because I needed something but I have transmitted on it
and it does very well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Twin lead J pole
hey John:
Now that its been a while, how did that J pole turn out for you after all?
I am going to build one this weekend...i have done quite allot of research
on them on the net and come up with varying lengths, the most common around
57 to 58 inches for the longer section and around 16.5 for the
shorter...1.5-1.92 is the most common length for the stub....in your design
the length was around 54 inches...did this tune up reasonably well on the
whole
band?
I did make sure the measurements i was getting were for the twin lead
design...the copper pipe style is a bit longer, around 61 inches and 21
inches for the shorter and 3 inches for the stub....
So i guess i will cut mine for about 58 and 17 and put the coax at 1.5 and
see how it turns out.
73's from Colin, VA6BKX
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:28 PM
Subject: Twin lead J pole
> Well all, I finally made my first twin lead J pole, it went as could be
> expected, lot of minor problems but this one was a trial run and I'd say,
if
> anyone has tips for the place where I hook the coax up I'd like to hear
> them, I think next time I'll just cut it there and then make a stub to go
> under it and just solder it that way instead of trying to take insulation
> off the twinlead about an inch up because that's where it got me in so
much
> trouble this time. If anyone has better ideas, I'd love to hear them. I
> don't know when I'll get to try it again but this one actually, given that
> problem that I overcame, it works reasonably well
>
|
