Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:RadioIR@charter.net: 445 ]

Total 445 documents matching your query.

181. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted v vs dipole at different heights (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:14:42 -0600
Wow, and inverted vee for 80 meters at 1/2 wavelength height is a very good antenna. Maybe you meant 1/4 wavelength. To answer the question you asked, an inverted vee at 140 feet will beat the heck o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00095.html (10,787 bytes)

182. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted v vs dipole at different heights (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:01:47 -0600
I just noticed in your post you said that your sweep display looks like a pocket comb. That's the same information you would get from the PSK31 waterfall I was suggesting. This is a good indication t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00096.html (9,483 bytes)

183. [TowerTalk] PL259 crimp-ons for TV cable (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:07:01 -0600
Is there a version of these PL259 crimp-on connectors available that will fit 75 ohm TV cable? The most common size cable has an OD of about 0.28 (0.2 with the outer jacket removed) and a center diam
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00143.html (7,388 bytes)

184. Re: [TowerTalk] Shunt fed tower 2 (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:18:33 -0600
..."Above the top at 35 feet is a triband. I have a wire spaced 1 foot from the tower and attached at the 30 foot point. I feed it at the bottom with coax and many radials. On 80 cw with 50 watts I w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00248.html (9,808 bytes)

185. Re: [TowerTalk] Shunt fed tower 2 (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:48:38 -0600
One other item regarding phasing two different type verticals. The phase of the current in the shunt fed tower will not be what you expect due the matching network. You have to know the phase of this
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00249.html (11,438 bytes)

186. Re: [TowerTalk] Iron <-> copper tinned : Redox reaction?? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:51:03 -0600
I'm assuming your tower is really galvanized steel and not raw iron. I posted this message about a year ago. It seems to go against conventional wisdom around here, but I got no response from anyone.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00648.html (11,616 bytes)

187. Re: [TowerTalk] Iron <-> copper tinned : Redox reaction?? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 00:51:02 -0600
..."No it is not... It is really raw iron as I wrote the same use for rebar (the iron which goes in the concrete, is this the wrong term rebar?)"..... Ok. That's a surprise. Yes, rebar is the correct
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00666.html (20,707 bytes)

188. Re: [TowerTalk] stacking monobanders (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:37:19 -0600
You overlooked one other complicating factor, feedline length. The length of the feedline on the unused antenna determines if the unused antenna looks resonant or not. Considering only two of the ant
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00840.html (14,740 bytes)

189. Re: [TowerTalk] Grey PVC Loading Coil (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:02:31 -0600
You are going to need something more than just a loading coil to match it. A 40 ft vertical with an 80 uh coil at the base, using #14 wire, should be resonant on 160 meters but the feedpoint impedanc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00110.html (11,596 bytes)

190. Re: [TowerTalk] Grey PVC Loading Coil (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:50:24 -0600
It's not immediately obvious as to what is going on with these coils. The additional loss is from the dissipation factor of the dielectric which is a function of the electric field strength. Also the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00120.html (12,659 bytes)

191. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:47:59 -0600
You are correct Jim, there is a difference between using bare wire and insulated wire when folding it back. Either technique will "work" but they work differently. If you use bare wire, and determine
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00267.html (9,220 bytes)

192. Re: [TowerTalk] K9AY Loop (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:18:30 -0600
I would be interested in hearing what kind of phasing is being used on the K9AY four square. When I looked at doing this I was never able to achieve performance as good as I thought might be possible
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00717.html (14,904 bytes)

193. Re: [TowerTalk] K9AY Loop (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:12:02 -0600
Here is my answer to your question about a comparison between a K9AY four square and that of a full size four square on 160 meters. Assume a full size 160 meter 4 square 1/4 wave spacing and a K9AY 4
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00736.html (14,406 bytes)

194. Re: [TowerTalk] K9AY loops-- phased (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:42:23 -0600
A couple of words about RDF (Receiving Directivity Factor) and DMF (Directivity Merit Figure). Both of these may be used as a kind of figure of merit for receiving antenna performance, but neither of
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00762.html (15,097 bytes)

195. Re: [TowerTalk] K9AY loops-- phased (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:12:08 -0600
Using 180 degree phasing has several advantages including the advantage of being easily implemented, especially since you can get a broadband version by using a transformer. However if you are talkin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00770.html (20,393 bytes)

196. Re: [TowerTalk] Rain Static? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:02:25 -0600
Yep, rain static. I used to get this often when I operated mobile HF in Florida. Whenever the rain drops were charged, the noise was always proportional to the speed of the car. At about 60 mph I cou
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00906.html (10,797 bytes)

197. Re: [TowerTalk] Floating Elevated Radials (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:47:38 -0600
DON'T ISOLATE the radials of your vertical from an earth connection. This would be a disaster waiting to happen, both for safety and lightning protection. Tying your feedline into your tower ground s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00948.html (10,742 bytes)

198. Re: [TowerTalk] Floating Elevated Radials (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:14:50 -0600
I guess the answer depends on what you consider to be a significant loss. For an elevated radial vertical, the amount of loss you get from a ground connection varies depending on the exact configurat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00961.html (11,364 bytes)

199. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna/Tower Grounding (Lightning Protection) (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:23:54 -0600
WX7G wrote: ..."does anyone run simulations or calculations on lightning strikes. A common direct stike is 100 kA with a risetime of 8 us, correct? If so, using an inductance of 200 nH/ft, the voltag
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-01/msg00122.html (13,574 bytes)

200. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna/Tower Grounding (Lightning Protection) (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:58:10 -0600
..."The book "grounds for lightning protection" from polyphaser has those examples and formulas in it. They tell you how to estimate how much voltage will appear in different parts of the system. You
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-01/msg00147.html (13,492 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu