Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:i4jmy@iol.it: 132 ]

Total 132 documents matching your query.

21. [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] Models and real world (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:42:16 +0200
There is a great difference with a model that allows to design an antenna, a model for predicting propagation or a model that tries to show as an antenna will perform over a media. When is sure that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00271.html (9,340 bytes)

22. [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] OWA Yagis (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:08:24 +0200
As everyone knows it's almost impossible to set all parameters at best in a single yagi antenna. In my experience, the difference in gain between an optimized yagi with good F/B over a stated boom an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00402.html (8,929 bytes)

23. [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] 20M Yagi ? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:33:00 +0200
In case of a 200/300' real drop, and 800' hill top location, it's quite possible that the first reflection is so far that the equivalent height of the antenna/s from ground is 800'. In such case stac
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00433.html (8,835 bytes)

24. [Towertalk] 20M Yagi ? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:54:29 +0200
Bill, I meant the situation as a 200/300 ft drop, a wall as it happens in proximity of a cliff edge, then a smoother but consistent terrain slope to a total amount of 800 ft. Having tested something
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00439.html (10,376 bytes)

25. [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] 20M Yagi ? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:32 +0200
Mike, What is important to keep in mind is that the antenna near field has little to do with pattern that's instead a far field, the combination of fields but at a certain (noticeable) distance from
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00455.html (9,611 bytes)

26. [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] 20M Yagi ? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:44:46 +0200
....apologizing: I meant the devils tower mountain (wyoming) not mount rushmore. Mike, What is important to keep in mind is that the antenna near field has little to do with pattern that's instead a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00456.html (9,725 bytes)

27. [Towertalk] 160 Meter Sloper (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:13:52 +0200
Bill, it' won't work properly. The slooper is a sort of a slant, upside down GP antenna. To make it working then you need all the metal (large antennas) that's on the tower top, grounding the wire th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00526.html (8,492 bytes)

28. [Towertalk] AO6 sample files (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:23:49 +0200
I've put some of my original .ant files on the web, may be someone is interested in. http://www.mcc-italy.it/archive_project/antfiles.htm
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-06/msg00303.html (6,307 bytes)

29. [Towertalk] Re: [Towertalk] 468/f (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:24:10 +0200
With a good modeling software and proper skill is nowadays possible to realize even very complex (yagi) antennas (like those with open sleeve tapered elements) and predict results, even SWR dips with
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-06/msg00412.html (9,208 bytes)

30. [TowerTalk] Are higher HF antenna's really better? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:56:03 +0100
LPL impression is confirmed by also my own, although I'm convinced that 10m benefits of very low angles much more than any other HF band. At IR4T we have infact a 10m yagi 7WL over a nearly perfectly
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00268.html (12,206 bytes)

31. [TowerTalk]Re: [TowerTalk] Are higher HF & (6m) antenna's really better? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:57:49 +0100
NE e a I don't really think one is astute and the other obtuse. The matter is what one can install compared with what one must install. A 6m enthusiast must install multiple systems otherwise a grea
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00284.html (9,088 bytes)

32. [TowerTalk] Are_higher_HF_antenna's_really_better? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:02:06 +0100
would you do and what Assuming that the height from real ground is coincident with the antenna height, that the terrain is flat, that's a single choice is anyway a compromise, that higher bands tend
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00337.html (10,431 bytes)

33. Re: [TowerTalk] low band receiving antennas options (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:00:08 +0100
e only o rt directional I would be covering Since a short beverage hasn't so much directivity, the first good option to take advantages is not to make it bidirectional. The pattern improvement lengt
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00352.html (8,331 bytes)

34. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 15:43:10 +0100
To me this appear only a formal controversy. The current density with a quarterwave vertical and quarterwave radials a quarterwave off the vertical base is infact quite limited. Where the radial scre
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00072.html (10,607 bytes)

35. [TowerTalk] What about hams with small lots??? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 13:22:09 +0200
Knowing that a small environment doesn't lead to anything magic, a clean idea that minimizes interactions between a forest of different radiators for lower bands is absolutely the most correct appro
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00047.html (12,017 bytes)

36. [TowerTalk] What about hams with small lots??? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 20:37:52 +0200
... we can agree that space is a problem, but I'd take the issue from an upside down perspective. If one wants to buy miracles as small antennas with biggest performances hiden in a back yard or insi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00060.html (12,211 bytes)

37. [TowerTalk] What about hams with small lots??? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:42:05 +0200
I don't want to discuss if a one or two WL horizontal loop suspended 20/30 ft around an house is or not an efficient antenna, whose I don't think, but I've also doubts if its really suitable for smal
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00142.html (11,792 bytes)

38. [TowerTalk] Horizontal loops : Correction (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:21:58 +0200
I'm prone to believe that on high bands a simple 1/4WL vertical already radiates a much bigger energy than an horizontal loop (like the mentioned ones) on angles below 15 degrees, requires a smaller
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00160.html (7,689 bytes)

39. [TowerTalk] Resonance of loaded Parasitic Elements (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:15:10 +0200
Beeing this a 2 elements yagi, the fed element will be shorter than it would be alone and the amount of its shortening is not a fixed %, likewise the reflector lenghtening. The boom lenght, infact, w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00211.html (10,642 bytes)

40. [TowerTalk] Resonance of loaded Parasitic Elements (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:14:02 +0200
A full size quad reflector and a shortened yagi element won't behave the same likewise they won't have the same fed point impedance. The same rule that worked once with a peculiar case won't necessar
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00236.html (9,985 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu