It's been a while since we needed these, but I used to make them all the 
time for low band fire (33.70 and 46.38). As I recall, the stub is a 
short to the opposite frequency - making the antenna appear to not be 
there. Hence, all the power goes to the 'on frequency antenna'.

Congrats on the third harmonic, BTW.

Joe M.

Scott Zimmerman wrote:
> skipp025 wrote:
>  > The Catholic Church says only the rhythm method is allowed.
> I SOMEHOW don't think that 'method' will help us in this situation. 
> Although that's how my third child came along. (3 of 3) A BOY BTW!!!!! 
> (Yea, Me!!)
> 
>  >> P.S. I do have a copy of Motorola 68-80100W86 - Diplex
>  >> Antenna Manual. This document is written for use with
>  >> "standard base-loaded mobile antennas only."
>  >
>  > Is it scanned into or available in a PDF file format? I'd
>  > really like to see a copy if it's available and easily
>  > Emailed.  Always nice to see how others do things...
> 
> I thought the above was pretty much common knowledge. Please see the 
> attached PDF file. (Note to Mike Wa6ILQ: Please add to the RB site.)
> 
> I was warned that this document seems to be backwards in that the length 
> of cable that it says is supposed to go to the higher frequency antenna, 
> actually goes to the lower frequency antenna and vice-versa.
> 
> I would LOVE to know some of the theory behind this method. I was hoping 
> to use this on a remote base antenna with 'Station' type antennas, but I 
> don't think that will work since it clearly states that "Only standard 
> base-loaded antennas are used"
> 
> Comments? Suggestions? Theory?
> 
> Scott
> 
> Scott Zimmerman
> Amateur Radio Call N3XCC
> 474 Barnett Road
> Boswell, PA 15531
> 
> 
> skipp025 wrote:
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.783 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2746 - Release Date: 03/14/10 
> 03:33:00
> 

Reply via email to