[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: QFH modification


I've done exactly as you've suggested...hardline is hard to find in small 
quantities, and I did many, many experiments on two meters using RG58 
stripped of the outer insulation, and placed in copper tubing...After 
satisfaction with the result I duplicated it in hardline with no detectable 
difference...  Go for it..

>    I wondering if has significant difference in the behavior of QFH antenna,
>if we replaced the UT-141 section on Domenico's design or the "hard line"
>in the US-model, with a soft copper tube which has inside  a piece of
>Coaxial cable
>with smaller diameter of tube's diameter (RG-174?) till the N-type connector
>(pre-amp input).
>  Actually, for many of us is very difficult in some cases to find a piece of
>The QFH antenna is simple and effective, I know that because I've tested a
>QFH, but
>this piece of coaxial is a big trouble !
>  On the other hand, I saw several models around Internet, without this
>They have a simplest feeding method: the coaxial pass through the
>plastic-tube (and QFH)
>and is connected in the upper-point of QFH.
>Question:  is it accurate this method? if not, the modification with
>copper-tube including a smaller coaxial cable is it acceptable?

            73, Dave wb6llo@amsat.org
                    Disagree: I learn....

               Pulling for P3E... 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org