- 101. [TowerTalk] 40/30 nested moxons? (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:44:28 -0400
- Has anyone experimented with a nested pair of 40/30 moxons? I'm in the early planning stages of a very modest suburban installation, with 2 el 40 @ 70' (zoning limit) and steppIR @ 60'. Would like to
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00316.html (6,913 bytes)
- 102. Re: [TowerTalk] arboreal yagis (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:22:38 -0400
- Hi Doug, The best bet is NOT to mount the yagi directly to the tree. Whatever you do will damage the tree. Instead, use light duty tower alongside the tree, and fasten them together loosely, using ch
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00413.html (7,451 bytes)
- 103. [TowerTalk] towers, zoning and permits (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:32:35 -0400
- TT: War stories notwithstanding, I think it's safe to say that we will never improve the regulations or their imposition, if we don't play within the system. With that, one illustrative war story: In
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00430.html (8,568 bytes)
- 104. [TowerTalk] AB621 (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:34:54 -0400
- Anybody else on here have one of these 6" guyed military pushup masts? Mine goes to 100', and has been modified for base rotation. If I put it up, I'm limited to 70' locally. As a result, I may surpl
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00437.html (6,982 bytes)
- 105. Re: [TowerTalk] Johnson Matchbox (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:15:57 -0400
- TT, Some added thoughts on this: The Johnson matchboxes were rated at a time when the FCC power rules were based on INPUT power, not output. So, the 275W version matched the specs for the Valiant, an
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00463.html (9,366 bytes)
- 106. Re: [TowerTalk] 20M 16 El yagi (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:14:57 -0400
- I can see building this thing, if you lived in the black hole, or just wanted to run EU in contests. But only at 50'? I wonder if he modelled it to see if a shorter antenna @ 70' would have been bett
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00591.html (32,718 bytes)
- 107. [TowerTalk] re; remotely switching balanced lines (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:16:22 -0400
- Anyone have any ideas on how to remotely switch balanced lines. The idea being to have 2 dipoles/doublets on a tower with one balanced feedline running to the shack and be able to switch the feedline
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00224.html (7,871 bytes)
- 108. Re: [TowerTalk] switching open wire lines (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:35:19 -0400
- In my comments regarding phantomed relay switching of the feedline, I did not consider the higher impedance situations. Gary is quite correct, in his observation (below). It's of greater concern if t
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00225.html (7,095 bytes)
- 109. Re: [TowerTalk] power wiring (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:53:58 -0400
- TT: I wasn't going to comment on this, as so many already had. But one of today's stories triggered a recollection of my days in the broadcast business. So let me bat cleanup on the topic: a) Summary
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00313.html (8,325 bytes)
- 110. Re: [TowerTalk] can I incorporate an existing tower base? (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:21:21 -0400
- I was involved with a 4 tower directional AM station whose array was built on a river-bottom pasture. We had a hurricane fueled flood, which sent 8' of water roaring down the flood plane, and eroded
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00398.html (8,790 bytes)
- 111. Re: [TowerTalk] Ultrabeam (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:11:03 -0400
- Looks for all the world like a contravention of the SteppIR patent, although I haven't researched it to be sure. There appear to be some mechanical improvements over the Mertel brothers' design, but
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00466.html (8,101 bytes)
- 112. Re: [TowerTalk] ultrabeam & prior art (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:20:11 -0400
- Just to acknowledge all comments regarding timely filing of prior art, and of the issues concerning EU and US patents. All are correct. As I told the Mertels when I bought my beam... "Damn, I'm glad
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00474.html (7,405 bytes)
- 113. [TowerTalk] LB Cebik (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:24 -0400
- I've been sending LB my copies of the IEEE antenna symposium, since he let his membership lapse. We spoke about a month ago.. well, swapped emails, actually... and he seemed rather lonely. Ask not fo
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00553.html (6,721 bytes)
- 114. Re: [TowerTalk] identification/advice (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:10:59 -0400
- Roger, You asked. So here goes: 1) make sure you place the tower at least one tower length from the house. 2) since it isn't engineered, guy it as best you can--and following the rohn plan shouldn't
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00595.html (7,396 bytes)
- 115. Re: [TowerTalk] LB Cebik (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:10:17 -0400
- With due respect, LB's estate may do whatever it wishes with his intellectual property. They don't need to explain anything to anyone, least of all us, and certainly not on any timetable but their ow
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00638.html (9,268 bytes)
- 116. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 guying (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 22:02:20 -0400
- Ignoring, for the moment, the prime directive, let's look at what you're doing if you guy a crankup tower. The lateral forces on the tower, which cause it to flex and shed load, are transferred to th
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00070.html (8,160 bytes)
- 117. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 guying (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 02:47:31 -0400
- Yes, you're right. I hadn't considered guying just the lower section. You could do that, but it wouldn't add capacity. I'm a fan of these tubular crankups, except for the fact that their ratings are
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00076.html (8,411 bytes)
- 118. Re: [TowerTalk] GAP voyager (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 17:56:00 -0400
- I have significant first-hand experience with this antenna, having owned two, one of them twice, and having written the manual. Careful comparison versus full sized antennas on 40, 30 and 20 suggest
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00099.html (7,466 bytes)
- 119. Re: [TowerTalk] crankup winch cable ... etc. (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 19:15:18 -0400
- Guys, This is very simple. If it's meant to move, like a crankup, it MUST be moved regularly. And lubed generously. If you let it sit, it will ossify, much like your own backside. 2-3 times a month i
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00132.html (7,337 bytes)
- 120. Re: [TowerTalk] crankup winch cable ... etc. (score: 1)
- Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 07:46:31 -0400
- Steve, Completely agree... I meant MOVING it 2-3 times a month, not lubing it. Hell, if it got once a month, that'd be fine. Shouldn't stop in the same place each time. +/- an inch or three, to preve
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00149.html (10,153 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu