Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

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

Total 445 documents matching your query.

81. Re: [TowerTalk] Another Sort of Anomalous ground condition (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:13:10 -0600
I don't see anything unusual here. You sre simply making a receive loop antenna. No doubt that the ground rods are not a good RF ground, but even a good RF ground probably isn't going to make any dif
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00246.html (12,029 bytes)

82. Re: [TowerTalk] A near imminent TX-455 failure (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:30:06 -0600
Man, that is a scarry looking situation. Looks like one little twist of the tower, and down it comes, and there seems to be a house close by. Does someone have any suggestions as how to stabilize thi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00434.html (12,767 bytes)

83. Re: [TowerTalk] 160-m Inverted L or Sloper? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:39:17 -0600
Let me add a little to what Tom is referring to about half slopers. It is true for the average guy who puts up a half sloper (1/4 wave sloping wire) on whatever tower he has, tunes it for the lowest
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00443.html (11,125 bytes)

84. Re: [TowerTalk] 160-m Inverted L or Sloper? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:22:22 -0600
Jerry wrote: Which means all the wires from the tower have to be connected to the tower radial system at the base of the tower. It also means that all wires exiting from the tower act like a radial t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00462.html (11,545 bytes)

85. Re: [TowerTalk] Radio tower self resonanance (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:34:57 -0600
Hey Bob, good question. Same one I asked a few days back and never got any answers. http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00144.html Jerry, K4SAV ___________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00464.html (7,531 bytes)

86. Re: [TowerTalk] 160-m Inverted L or Sloper? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:52:06 -0600
Two to three S units is a lot of DBs. I can only think of two possibilities that could cause this. The first, and not very likely, is that there is something wrong with the inverted L. This is not a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00470.html (11,695 bytes)

87. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials, lightning ground, RF ground (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:48:34 -0600
You started off correct, but jumped to an incorrect conclusion. If the resistance in the two parts of the antenna (vertical, and ground portions) was the same, then your statement would be true. If y
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00656.html (10,831 bytes)

88. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna design questions please (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:05:10 -0600
Here is a quick simulation. This may not be exactly what you are thinking because I don't know how high the ends of your vee will be off the ground, but it should give you an idea of what to expect.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00838.html (11,258 bytes)

89. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna design questions please (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:30:44 -0600
I was so concerned with trying to match the antenna on more than one band that I forgot to address the basic issue of how the antenna will perform. On 160 meters for low angle signals, in its best di
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-11/msg00841.html (13,027 bytes)

90. Re: [TowerTalk] Suggestions for limited space 80M and then 40-10Mantennas for a small lot (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:33:16 -0600
Gordon wrote: I have an 80M V dipole/sloper going from a fiberglass sidearm on my house tower at 40 ft to the back of my lot. The ends go to two 15ft towers with 15ft masts on top along the back of t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00000.html (11,673 bytes)

91. Re: [TowerTalk] Suggestions for limited space 80M and then 40-10Mantennas for a small lot (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:37:40 -0600
OK, I take it back. This antenna is not a dummy load EVERYWHERE. There are some frequencies where it shows a resonance, although the resonances are very sharp, and outside the resonant points, for fr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00002.html (14,116 bytes)

92. Re: [TowerTalk] Indirect Coupling to tower helps vert. polarization? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:25:22 -0600
You are correct that a 160 meter inverted vee at 60 ft is not a DX antenna. Compared to a full size vertical with a good radial system, at 10 degrees elevation it should be down 7 to 10 dB, and if yo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00019.html (11,786 bytes)

93. Re: [TowerTalk] Positoners Calibration to True North (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:11:50 -0600
Calculating the difference between magnetic north and true north is one way. Here is another way. Go here and enter your QTH cordinates. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.html For the day you a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00023.html (11,527 bytes)

94. Re: [TowerTalk] Cushcraft XM240 vs. M2 2 and 3 ele lin loaded (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:36:02 -0600
I made the decision to go with the XM240. I have the same combo, XM240 over a 4 element SteppIR. So far the XM240 has been a good antenna, but it has only been up for a short time. It is working well
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00024.html (8,589 bytes)

95. Re: [TowerTalk] Cushcraft XM240 vs. M2 2 and 3 ele lin loaded (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:40:27 -0600
Also here are a couple more references to XM240 problems you might want to read. http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-08/msg00534.html http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00027.html (9,335 bytes)

96. Re: [TowerTalk] Radiation angle (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:53:11 -0600
The two largest factors affecting the take-off angle of a horizontal dipole are the height above ground and the terrain surrounding your antenna. NEC based and similar programs will give you informat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00156.html (10,036 bytes)

97. Re: [TowerTalk] End Fed Wire (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:50:29 -0600
Beverages depend on poor earth conductivity to work. It is this poor conductivity that cause the velocity factor of the induced current in the antenna to be less than the that of the incoming wave in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00244.html (10,793 bytes)

98. Re: [TowerTalk] Cushcraft XM240 (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:12:32 -0600
See: http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-08/msg00534.html After hearing reports of static discharge from the reflector to the boom, and doing an EZNEC analysis which, as expecte
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00335.html (8,096 bytes)

99. Re: [TowerTalk] New Design? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:23:36 -0600
I'm sure it has something to do with the rotten tomatoes and goat poop. Wonder what the kit for this antenna will look like. Jerry _______________________________________________ See: http://www.msco
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00336.html (11,204 bytes)

100. Re: [TowerTalk] formatting on TowerTalk (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:56:23 -0600
Hmm, I'm no expert on this, but it seems to be a little more complicated than this to me. I notice that messages that go thru a reflector appear different from message that do not go thru a reflector
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00475.html (11,316 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu