Any chance the 2:1 error is related to the incorrect measurement
procedure described in some versions of user manual:

http://lists.contesting.com/_topband.../msg00017.html

73,
Steve G3TXQ

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT), steveeh131047
wrote:

Any chance the 2:1 error is related to the incorrect measurement
procedure described in some versions of user manual:

http://lists.contesting.com/_topband.../msg00017.html

73,
Steve G3TXQ

That's very interesting. The newest online manual has a slightly
different procedure for measuring Distance to Fault. When it stops
raining (and the balanced line dries off) I'll go and measure again
with the newer procedure.

Bob
k5qwg

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:50:42 -0500, Bob wrote:

When it stops
raining (and the balanced line dries off) I'll go and measure again
with the newer procedure.

Hi Bob,

This rain is an opportunity to astonish youself about the measurement
variability of line operation in real-life.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT), steveeh131047
wrote:

Any chance the 2:1 error is related to the incorrect measurement
procedure described in some versions of user manual:

http://lists.contesting.com/_topband.../msg00017.html

73,
Steve G3TXQ

I finally got it to work properly. The trick is getting Xs=0 at a
second frequency -- I couldn't get it on the same band as the first
frequency but had to go to a second band, either up or down, and once
the second frequency was found with Xs=0, it came up with the correct
distance to fault, 53.2 feet.

Bob
k5qwg