WU2X wrote: He had purposefully chosen 78 feet over even higher heights because HFTA showed that higher heights actually raised his angle of radiation towards Europe. ..... Take off angle from irregu
K8JHR wrote: I DISAGREE with the claim it is a mere cloud warmer on the higher bands. EZNEC studies, performed by others more knowledgeable than I, indicate it has a fairly low take off angle -"....
I just tried it. Its working but it's moving at the speed of dial-up for loading the pages. You may have to allow pop-ups for the website, at least temporarily. Jerry, K4SAV Here are the steps I used
YO is not likely to work well for stacking dissimilar antennas. You might be able to do it with NEC if you are very careful and model the entire system. If the antennas happen to have dissimilar matc
AA5JG wrote: I was looking at a recent issue of CQ at the local bookstore tonight (it wasn't the April issue) and in a column dealing with semi stealth antennas, they mentioned that a 3/8 or 1/2 vert
The only time I have verified EZNEC being different from my real world measurements is usually because of some error I put into the model or something I left out of the model. However I can't do comp
G3TXQ wrote: Are we sure we're looking at the EZNEC results carefully enough. If I compare a 160m half-wave at 300ft with a ground-mounted quarter-wave vertical, over average ground, the vertical has
Thanks Bill. Lots of good data referenced, which I am now collecting, reading, and trying to digest. However I fear I may need the help of a few bottles of Tums or some Nexium. Jerry, K4SAV _________
Steve I have also seen cases where EZNEC will not repeat the results of a calculation after reopening a file and re-running it. It's sometimes frusterating when you are preparing some data, need one
If that error is reproducible, I would certainly send it to W7EL. Jerry _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTal
G3TXQ wrote: " My point is that, even if the propagation massively favours the very-low-angle path, the dipole will only ever be 6.62dB behind the vertical. The fact that there may be other, much wea
The website doesn't claim the gain was based on analysis, as a matter of fact they say you can't get the correct gain with your modeling program. (I wonder if they have a custom modeling program writ
A quick modeling job on the superloop shows that the gain in its best direction is very close to that of a dipole at the height of the top wire on both 80 and 40 (probably within 1 dB). Maximum gain
It's difficult to make a 160 sloper work very well with only a 54 ft tower. (That's a quarter wave sloping wire, not a half wave sloping dipole.) The configuration that works the best is one in which
Darn it. I did it again, sent it to the wrong reflector. Please disregard. Jerry _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list
It's too bad he didn't do a controlled experiment, one system with the tree and one without the tree. He gave a clue as to the performance. He says it works much better after he added a 30 dB gain pr
W5PVR wrote "..... Eznec says I will have a 7:1 SWR. A 1:1 Balun would convert that to 50 Ohms with the 7:1 SWR. My question is what happens if I use a heavy duty 4:1 Balun. ".... Since you are alrea
-- It does resemble a gamma, but it doesn't resemble a G. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.c
I often see the quote that making a vertical (or inverted L) longer than a quarter wave reduces ground loss because the radiation resistance goes up. I would like to believe that, because that is wha
N6RK wrote ..."About 10 years ago, I built a 1/4 wave 20 meter vertical with 32 1/4 wave radials and compared it to a 1/2 wave 20 meter vertical with 4 4 foot radials. No difference at all. So the 1/