--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5100001 Date: 04/30/97 From: ROY WITT Time: 08:23am \/To: RAY BROWN KB0STN (Read 3 times) Subj: I got this ideer... Hello Ray. 27 Apr 97 22:22, Ray Brown Kb0stn wrote to Rob Dennis: >> to the top of the discone. Take the rubber cap off the top >> off the discone and screw on the metal ex-cb antenna part. >> (they are the SAME threading !) >> RBKs> So, for about $80, I could have one antenna that does unity on 6m RBKs> down to 900 MHz? Hmmm. I'll have to consider this one. But, I think I RBKs> might be more persuaded to just do a double copper cactus. I just want RBKs> to work some 6m soon. I have a 6 dipole, but it's inside. I dunno. Too RBKs> many decisions! :-) Better than that; it'll cover 10meters to 1.2GHz...mine works at 27.4 and 1296.0 as well.... ... Every absurdity has a champion to defend it. * Origin: KB6PI's Antenna Farm * San Diego, CA (1:202/909.10) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5100002 Date: 04/30/97 From: PETER SKORUPSKY Time: 11:02am \/To: WAYNE SAROSI (Read 4 times) Subj: Re: Lpas-2 Thanks for the three posts. de nt2i --- --- MsgToss 2.0d(beta) 02/21/93 * Origin: Freedom Infonet * (609) 586-4847 (1:266/305) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5300000 Date: 05/01/97 From: JOEL KB0UKU Time: 03:32pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Radio Shack 100 Can any one tell me how to hook up and run packet on the Radio Shack 100 portabl computer?? --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: The KB0SYC BBS - (816)241-4999 - K.C. Mo. (1:280/132) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5300001 Date: 05/02/97 From: STAN BLACK Time: 5:28 am \/To: WAYNE SAROSI (Read 2 times) Subj: continous loaded antenna Hi Wayne! I want to build a rotateable dipole for 40 meters. I want to use a 5 foot piece of 1 1/4 inch aluminum on each side and wire wrapped around some pvc for the rest of the length. I have heard that I will need about twice as much wire on each side to form the 1/4 for each half of the dipole. Is this accurate? I will be using #8 aluminum wire for the coils and end part. I also want to have about 1 foot or so straight on the ends to trim.. Sound feasable? Anyone else is welcome to comment, too. Thanks for any input! 73 de Stan KC5BFA --- GEcho/386 1.11+ * Origin: The Tradin' Post - Abilene, Tx (915) 676-2799 (1:392/1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5400000 Date: 05/03/97 From: JOHN MUDD Time: 10:44pm \/To: STAN BLACK (Read 2 times) Subj: continous loaded antenna Greetings! I have been playing with the "Ham Sticks" and using these to build rotatable dipoles. The one I built for 10 meters works great and just bought the ones i need for 20 and 40. i fashioned a bracket that mounts the antennas end to end and attached the center conductor to one and the braid to the other (just as you would for a dipole) then i turned about six turns about 4 to 6 inches in diameter to decouple the coax and ran it into my rig. my 736 loaded just fine and the automatic tuner handled the entire band. the only characteristic is that it is very very directional, bad for a local net i try to join once and awhile. real cheap (the hamsticks are about 18.00 each and about 20.00 worth of brackets, mast and coax) and it works! sidenote... any comments or improvements Wayne?? enjoy 73 de kc5gmm john --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: The Politically Incorrect! [OS/2, V34+] (1:106/1010) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5400001 Date: 05/02/97 From: PETER SKORUPSKY Time: 09:06am \/To: THOM LACOSTA (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Web based message boar That's fascinating and sounds very useful. Alas Idon't have routed netmail, only direct dialing the destination node. Although I'm sysop, I have no other arrangement for routed mail. But you mention internet access address; that may work and be the answer for me. I can't wait to try, there is much information you may have that would be of great interest and use here. Thank you for your thorough reply; it's news to me. I am glad to took time to explain it to me. --- --- MsgToss 2.0d(beta) 02/21/93 * Origin: Freedom Infonet * (609) 586-4847 (1:266/305) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5B00000 Date: 05/05/97 From: PATRICK GORMLEY Time: 10:49am \/To: STAN BLACK (Read 2 times) Subj: Kennwood tr7625 Stan what I would do would be to check the circuits from the voltage control oscilator and carefully realign that part of the rig. If the thing is transmitting on the wrong frequency, I can bet you any amount of money the cullprit might be either the vco or the master oscilator power amplifier circuit which is right after that one in the transmitter chain. 73- KK3F --- Platinum Xpress/Wildcat! v1.3 * Origin: The TALKING HUB * Alexandria, VA * (703) 549-5612 (1:109/632) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5B00001 Date: 04/16/97 From: RALPH MOWERY Time: 06:27pm \/To: ROY WITT (Read 2 times) Subj: Swrs & More Power Debate RW> RW>> If I tune an antenna with the swr bridge at the antenna and then RW> RW>> place the swr bridge at the other end of the coax, there's a RW> RW>> difference. 1.2:1 at the antenna, 1.9:1 at the tx. No amplifier, RW> RW>> No antenna tuner, no etc.. Now what do I tune to get 1.5:1 or RW> RW>> less at the tx? RW>I don't have a bridge, per sey. It's a Bird 43 wattmeter, which I have 5, RW>25, 50 and 100 watt, VHF/UHF slugs for. A little too large to connect to RW>VHF/UHF antenna. I use a piece of (RG8A) coax cable with teflon RW>connectors, cut to an uneven number of multiple half-wave lengths. In his RW>case, it's a UHF antenna and the test coax is 7 half-wave lengths long. RW>(.66 x 246/F(460MHz)=4.235" x 7 = 29.65" long, connector end to connector RW>end. RW>I haven't cut the test coax for this frequency, as I figure the one I have RW>cut for 445MHz (30.65") should be close enough. Also, my antennas don't RW> FM> If you replace the antenna with a good dummy load, is the SWR at RW> FM> the transmitter end of the cable still 1.9:1? That would suggest a RW> FM> conflict between the design of the SWR bridge and the characteristic RW> FM> impedance of the cable. RW>The wattmeter and test coax are 1.0:1 into either one of two oil filled, RW>50ohm dummy loads. With the site coax between the transmitter and RW>wattmeter into the dummy load, the swr goes up. With the antenna RW>connected, it goes higher. RW>Except for a few long hard-line cable runs to the top of a 200ft tower, RW>most of the antennas I sell are used near the 50 foot or lower level and RW>are fed with 9913 or RG8A. RW>I suspect the site cable used has been contaminated by weather as the RW>antenna checks out perfectly under all my tests. I've suggested the owner RW>switch to a new piece of RG8A or 9913 cable and try again. ************************************ I think that you are correct, there is something wrong with the cable or connectors. Try putting the watt meter and dummy load at the antenna end and measuring the power lost in the cable. If the system is 50 ohms, then the swr readings can only go down as you move away from the antenna unless you just hapen to hit some unusual spot in the coax. If the antenna is only 50 or so feet from the antenna it should not be too hard to replace it and it should only cost around $ 50 or less for the coax and connectors. Shouldn't take too much time to scoot up the tower and do a temporary install. Not to tell you anything you don't know, but that 9913 type can fill up with water very easy. That will throw the readings way off, especially if there is a low place in the coax and the water is collecting somewhere up the line. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Borderline! BBS Fido_Net Concord,N.C. (1:379/37.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5B00002 Date: 05/06/97 From: STAN BLACK Time: 12:5Pam \/To: PATRICK GORMLEY (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Kennwood tr7625 Hi Patrick! Thanks for the help! Now if I only had a schematic?? Maybe I can dig up one on the internet. Any help is greatly appreciated! 73 de Stan 5bfa --- GEcho/386 1.11+ * Origin: The Tradin' Post - Abilene, Tx (915) 676-2799 (1:392/1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 188 HAM TECH Ref: E5B00003 Date: 04/26/97 From: WAYNE SAROSI Time: 05:50pm \/To: STAN BLACK (Read 2 times) Subj: tubing size In a message to Wayne Sarosi <25 Apr 97 15:28> Stan Black wrote: SB> Hi Wayne! Is there a formula that will SB> figure how much shorter and antenna SB> will be if made out of large diameter SB> tubing as compared to one made out of SB> copper wire? I've heard that the larger SB> the tube, the shorter the antenna for SB> the same resonant frequency. True or SB> false?? Thanks for the info!! 73 de Stan SB> kc5bfa That is true. There is a formula and it's in the ARRL Antenna handbook or the regular handbook ... I don't remember. Anyhow, use the scaling formula for conversion to another frequency except keep the frequency the same. Just change the diameter of your element. Also, if you have taper in the elements you will have to allow for that too. There is a limit to how 'fat' you can go. That deals with the diameter to length ratio. I believe it is when the diameter is an eigthwave of the frequency. I'll have to re-read the section. Or you can take a gander at it. Just remember for HF wire antennas: Thinner->Longer, Thicker-> Shorter. In HF Thicker gives more power handling and better Bandwidth. This improves in VHF/UHF. Of course, a sewerpipe sized dipole on 6m is a bit impractical but can be done. Hey, there was an artical where some guy used two similar cars as a dipole and it worked. Now that is a 'Fat' dipole. Hope this helps. -WS --- XRS! 4.50+ * Origin: KB4YLY, Moderator (1:374/73.2)