Mail Archive Search: <+from:n4zr@contesting.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:n4zr@contesting.com: 269 ]

Total 269 documents matching your query.

61. Topband:Parallel vertical antennas and 160M amps (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:33:40 -0400; N4ZR: K9AY: Gary's correct, but there do seem to be limitations, even when these precautions are taken. I followed exactly the procedure he describes with my C-3 modeling, and while gain and pattern; /archives//html/Topband/2001-04/msg00015.html (8,313 bytes)
62. Topband: Apologies for red herring (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:55:45 -0400; At the moment, I cannot reproduce what I thought I remembered about my C-3 models -- one based on the physical antenna, the other a monotaper model provided by F12 that they have "tweaked" to make th; /archives//html/Topband/2001-04/msg00016.html (7,127 bytes)
63. Topband: Water Conductivity (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:10:32 -0500; Right, but doesn't Leeson say in his book that for horizontally polarized antennas, ground conductivity is basically irrelevant, at least in the Fresnel zone where pattern formation occurs? He says,; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00110.html (7,537 bytes)
64. Topband: modeling question (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:28:22 -0500; I am revisiting the modeling of my entire station in NEC-2, in particular on 80 and (planned) 160. The tower that I plan to shunt feed has 3 yagis on it, each of which has insulated elements. In orde; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00137.html (8,122 bytes)
65. Topband: Insulated elements atop shunt fed tower (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 22:08:43 -0500; Thanks to Tom, Natan, Bill, Earl and Mauri for setting me straight on the potential problem with insulated yagi elements atop a shunt-fed tower. Somewhere in my amateur radio education I'd missed the; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00146.html (7,800 bytes)
66. Topband: Elevated vs ground mounted verticals (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:35:48 -0500; I'm trying to think through the tradeoffs in time, money and effort between elevated radials and those laid on the ground. If I understand what I've been reading here and on Towertalk, if its elevate; /archives//html/Topband/2001-02/msg00070.html (7,366 bytes)
67. Topband: RFI levels (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:51:46 -0500; I'm wondering what the consensus is on a "reasonable" noise level for a rural location on 80 meters in daytime, with no thunderstorm activity within groundwave range. Right now, in CW wide position,; /archives//html/Topband/2001-02/msg00107.html (6,996 bytes)
68. Topband: RFI noise levels (continued) (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:22:03 -0500; Bill points out that I should have specified that the levels I'm hearing are on my transmit antenna - a K3LR/W9LT-style 4-element lazy vee parasitic array - with my TS-930's SSB filters (2.8 khZ @ 6; /archives//html/Topband/2001-02/msg00108.html (6,815 bytes)
69. Topband: Using noise canceller with low-noise RX antenna (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:03:07 -0500; Anyone had any luck using the MFJ-1026 with a low noise RX antenna,such as a flag, ewe or pennant, using the transmitting antenna as the noise antenna? as I read the 1026 manual online, it appears th; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00009.html (7,310 bytes)
70. Topband: Minimum discernible signal ? (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:54:47 -0500; Very interesting message, Tom. Makes me wonder why someone with the necessary technical smarts doesn't offer a modification for better CW to a popular transceiver (the FT-1000MP comes to mind). If In; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00114.html (7,983 bytes)
71. Topband: re: dual band array (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:19:31 -0500; A good inexpensive source of these relays is www.mgs4u.com, on the President's Page. Allen Bond is easy to deal with -- I'm just a satisfied customer. 73, Pete N4ZR -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesti; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00178.html (7,579 bytes)
72. Topband: Inverted L Matching (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:08:49 -0500; I'm not sure all this matters much at 160 meters. Feedline loss from a 2:1 SWR probably isn't worth the trouble of setting up a matching network at the antenna, unless you have a tremendously long ru; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00256.html (8,265 bytes)
73. Topband: shunt feeding anomaly? (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:54:01 -0500; After hearing CN8WW rolling in on 160 during CQWW, I've got the bug. The best thing for me to do to get on 160 is to shunt feed my tower, which has a side-mounted C-3 at 69 feet, one top-mounted at 9; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00064.html (7,761 bytes)
74. Topband: WIDEBAND NOISE (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:19:54 -0500; For what it's worth, a few years ago a source of terrible square-wave noise at 3530+/- 15 khz and 3790 +/- 15 khZ turned out to be an ordinary 72 cent Leviton light switch in my nieghbor's house. Not; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00146.html (7,885 bytes)
75. Topband: Shunt feed - how high is high enough? (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:44:58 -0500; it appears that I can obtain 50+j250 or so at the bottom of a shunt feed wire spaced 30' from my tower with the tap to the tower at about 30 feet, or a considerably higher resistive component (and l; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00154.html (8,062 bytes)
76. Topband: Shunt feed - how high is high enough? (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 08:39:43 -0500; Fascinating, Earl, and thanks for doing all that work! My NEC-2 model (EZNEC 1.0) probably incorporated all the inaccuracies that you anticipated, because I used a 12" "wire" 97 feet tall for the tow; /archives//html/Topband/2000-12/msg00172.html (8,559 bytes)
77. Re: Topband: Fw: 25G insulators (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:02:42 -0400; At 08:20 PM 8/29/03 -0700, Earl W Cunningham wrote: 3) Because the tower is grounded, a lightning strike is conducted directly to ground, thus eliminating damage to anything (my tower in Houston was; /archives//html/Topband/2003-08/msg00150.html (9,775 bytes)
78. Re: Topband: Fw: 25G insulators (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:18:14 -0400; At 09:06 PM 8/30/03 -0400, Tom Rauch wrote: The most benign place is the middle of the tower, where a Faraday cage is formed by the structure itself. That's where the sensitive cables should be route; /archives//html/Topband/2003-08/msg00161.html (10,733 bytes)
79. Topband: RDF (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:30:54 -0500; I have been hunting for more information on RDF, which Tom Rauch defined the other day as "the difference between average gain and gain in the desired direction and angle." I get the concept, but als; /archives//html/Topband/2003-11/msg00076.html (7,157 bytes)
80. Topband: re: RDF (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:53:07 -0500; Thanks to everyone who supplied the answer(s) to this. It turns out that my favorite modeling software, MultiNEC, now calculates Average Gain in addition to Maximum Gain, which makes calculating RDF; /archives//html/Topband/2003-11/msg00084.html (6,674 bytes)

Current List: 61 - 80
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]