Mail Archive Search: <+from:Jan.E.Holm@telia.se>

Results:

References: [ +from:Jan.E.Holm@telia.se: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Re: Optimum Stacking Distance (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:32:35 +0200; Formula you are looking for might be: y X= -- 2sin(Z/2) where X= optimal stacking distance Y= lambda (boom lenght) Z= 3 dB beamwith angle This is from work by DL6WU This is alo used Stacking dist= 57; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-07/msg00595.html (11,309 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Re: Optimum Stacking Distance (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:16:13 +0200; Yes, as SM2CEW points out these formulas are overruled these days, this stuff is probably 20 years old by now. However, using these formulas might not produce a 100% optimum array but I dont think it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-07/msg00597.html (12,810 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Re:Connectors (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:12:29 +0200; Well, ofcourse UHF is perfectly fine. N is also perfectly fine. I guess UHF will take more power but for HF unless you do run a 4 by 5 at full blast N will be ok, N will take several KW´s on HF; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-04/msg00049.html (7,111 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Re:Concrete (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:36:01 +0200; Well, I rather go to the gym. If nothing else sure lots of beautiful women around. / Jim SM2EKM -- --Ursprungligt meddelande-- Från: bjk@ihug.co.nz [SMTP:bjk@ihug.co.nz] Skickat: den 9 april 20; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-04/msg00194.html (47,805 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Re: flexible coax (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:38:43 +0100; Think RG214 is marginal for 1500 W, at least on the high bands. The RG217 cable is an excelent choice, however connectors might be a problem, if you want to use UHF that is, I only know of N and C co; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00318.html (10,687 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Re: Advantages of vertical arrays (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:04:39 +0100; Yes indeed. I think of it this way. A 4 SQ will give about 5 dBi and a dipole at 1/2 wl will give about 7 dBi, waist of time with verticals. Forexample, a shortie fortie at 70 ft will take a 4 SQ to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00394.html (8,748 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] rope in elements (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:49:14 +0200; An antenna that needs ropes in elements are poorly constructed. If you taper the elements correctly there is no need. I have not lost a single element in 30 years and dont know of any that has (in th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00582.html (9,312 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Re:rope in elements (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:55:27 +0200; Someone is wrong here. Several people just did testify on this reflector that Force12 antennas will vibrate and drop element parts, I think I will beleive the stories from real life experience. Sure; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00583.html (10,816 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Re: rope in elements (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:13:31 +0200; Well, it´s a matter how to express things I guess, if you want to call it poor or not. I know from personal experiense that it´s possible to construct Yagi elements that doesn´t vib; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00622.html (8,802 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] re: quad (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:02:56 +0100; Didn´t K3BU make the statement that his razor was 10 dB better then the 6L KLM and the KLM was 10 dB better then the 5L Telerex? Result would be that the razor thing was 20 dB better then the T; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00235.html (8,333 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] Re: VE3BMV Razor beams (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:16:41 +0100; Yes but 20 dB better then a 5 el Telerex Yagi, get real! de Jim SM2EKM PS: Back in the early seventies competition was a far cry from what it is today. In Sweden there where hardly no big antennas, j; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00236.html (8,789 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] Re: Yuri's antennas (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:37:43 +0100; This TH6 sits just inbetwen those razor whiz things, there would be a lot of interaction here I guess, maybe that was the secret? de Jim SM2EKM -- the use few Over Razor, most The signals. I -- FAQ o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00286.html (9,881 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] Yuri`s razor (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:52:16 +0100; This just to clearify things a bit. I´m not taking away any credit from K3BU in the respect of the scores he did back then. What I react on is the claim of performance that was done on the part; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00287.html (7,396 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] K1XM antenna on 80/40? (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:11:32 +0100; I wrote this question to the cq-contest reflector but aparently it got refused by the moderator, very strange indeed!!!!! All I wanted to find out is what kind of antenna system K1XM was using on 80; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00396.html (7,013 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] Re: Comparing (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:14:31 +0100; Why dont home brew them, in doing so one might learn lots of things during the process. de SM2EKM -- --Ursprungligt meddelande-- Från: Zoltan.Pitman@libertel.nl [SMTP:Zoltan.Pitman@libertel.nl]; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00399.html (8,491 bytes)
16. [TowerTalk] Re: 40M beam at modest height (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:19:17 +0100; Absolutley! I had a big 4 el 40 at 65 feet and it worked great, wish I still had it, took it down to be put on another tower at a greater hight, however that other tower must first be erected and it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00475.html (7,822 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] 40 and 80 4SQ together? (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:00:25 +0100; Has anyone tried to run a 40 and 80 4 SQ on the same radial system, i e 40 inside the 80 ? It doesn´t look very good in EZNEC but I just wounder if anyone did try it in real life? 73, Jim SM2EK; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00355.html (6,832 bytes)
18. [TowerTalk] Re:Stacking Distances (more info) (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:57:57 +0100; Hi Clive and all, I can confirm this, it happend to me also. I have a 6/6 stack for 15 and 6/6 for 10 in the same tower and the low 15 and 10 ended up 3 meters from each other (10 below 15). When I c; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-11/msg00439.html (10,298 bytes)
19. [TowerTalk] RE: 40M Yagi recommendations (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:55:25 +0100; Think the W9 is W9RE / de SM2EKM -- 40-2CD was electrically a good antenna but the mechanical part was lousy. The Upgrade available from a W9.... ( dont remember) is a must. 73 Rag -- FAQ on WWW: htt; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-11/msg00471.html (7,496 bytes)
20. [TowerTalk] 80m rotary dipole construction ? (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:35:47 +0200; Has anyone out there construced a 80m rotary dipole? I´m trying to collect some construction data in order to maybe make something myself. Thinking about something like a 90 - 100 ft element ma; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00153.html (7,115 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]