Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n4kg@juno.com: 1306 ]

Total 1306 documents matching your query.

221. [Towertalk] SUBJECT LINE and CONTENT (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:48:13 -0600
I think it would be useful and beneficial for writers to: CHANGE the SUBJECT LINE to reflect the CONTENT of the MESSAGE BOX Tom N4KG ________________________________________________________________ G
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00770.html (12,345 bytes)

222. [Towertalk] Can my 40' tower be a 160m vertical? (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:59:08 -0600
YES. IF you can get 1/4 WL (or more) then 30 to 60 radials is beneficial. IF you are limited to 1/8 WL long radials, there is virtually NO benefit above 15 radials. Tom N4KG _________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00870.html (11,576 bytes)

223. [Towertalk] Phasing (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:26:40 -0600
Bill, Think about what you are asking to do. What spacing would you use? Typically you need at least 1/2 WL for any useful gain. That's 17 ft on 10M, preferably a little more. Could you accomodate th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00906.html (8,885 bytes)

224. [Towertalk] Crane or Gin Pole? (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:14:04 -0600
Sounds like a LOT of EXPENSIVE additions to this FREE? tower. Also, the BX series is pretty LIGHT WEIGHT with a small load capacity. Why bother? IMHO, the SAFEST, STRONGEST, and most COST EFFECTIVE a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00927.html (9,196 bytes)

225. [Towertalk] Can my 40' tower be a 160m vertical? (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:11:12 -0600
Perhaps I should have said there is only a very small benefit to having more than 15 radials IF they are equal or less than 0.125 WL long. THE definitive work on radial systems was published in the J
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00938.html (10,461 bytes)

226. Fw: Re: [TowerTalk] Compromise Vertical antenna ground system? (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:32:36 -0600
Here is what W8JI had to say on the subject 2 years ago. Tom N4KG system There are always points of limited return in any design. Radials are no exception. The optimum number of radials for any radia
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00943.html (9,145 bytes)

227. Fw: [Towertalk] Field Strength vs. Radial Field (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:59:27 -0600
Here is the 1937 Field Intensity Data vs Radial Field followed by a conversion to dB relative to 113 radials 0.411 WL long. This was originally posted 3 / 2002. Tom N4KG Here is the data from the ori
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00944.html (9,974 bytes)

228. [Towertalk] TH-3 vs 5 elem 10 (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:54:29 -0600
Congratulations ! Another testimonial that HIGHER IS *NOT* ALWAYS BETTER :-) Your observations probably say more about take-off angles for the two antennas at 35 and 72 ft than the gain difference be
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00954.html (9,022 bytes)

229. [Towertalk] 45G (guyed) vs. SSV (self-supp'g) 70-ft. tower (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:55:15 -0600
Why don't you call Texas Towers, get the prices for ALL of the material you would need and add it up YOURSELF? (Actually, I expect Texas Towers would even add it up for you). Then call a professional
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00972.html (9,071 bytes)

230. Re: [Towertalk] From QRZ .. Tower Worker Injured (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:01:04 -0600
This VERY ISSUE was addressed recently on TowerTalk. It was STRONGLY recommended by myself and others to ALWAYS use a set of TEMPORARY SAFETY GUYS when removing an old tower. NEVER ASSUME the BASE is
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-09/msg00985.html (9,120 bytes)

231. [Towertalk] 25GSSB New? Baseplate (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:09:15 -0600
SNIP N4KG: WRONG ! Center of gravity has NOTHING to do with resisting overturning forces in a GUYED tower (and only contritubes partially in a self supporting tower). My (guyed) towers are set in the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00025.html (8,965 bytes)

232. [Towertalk] Kevlar Guys (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:47:42 -0600
N4KG: WRONG ! 28 ft is self resonant at 17.6 MHz (near 17M), or possibly lower due to end effects of the loops through the insulators. Did you remember to put an insulator at the TOP of the uppermost
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00026.html (9,862 bytes)

233. [Towertalk] Ground Rods (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:30:27 -0600
So, you will have 2 ft of the ground rod in the earth and 6 ft of the rod in the concrete base. Something tells me this is NOT a good idea but I confess I don't know much about concrete bases since I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00040.html (7,677 bytes)

234. [Towertalk] 25GSSB New? Baseplate (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:49:14 -0600
N4KG: Ideally, the Guys LIMIT movements of the tower :-). Maybe, in the case of a mast or a tower with no guys Yes, but that is NOT the primary contributor to keeping a self supporting tower up. Pict
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00042.html (9,892 bytes)

235. [Towertalk] 25GSSB New? Baseplate (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:33:53 -0600
This is an EXTREME case John, but I still contend that CG is NOT the determining factor. For example, the same mass could be shaped into a LONG NARROW form with the SAME Center of Gravity but the ove
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00062.html (12,139 bytes)

236. [Towertalk] Tailtwister won't turn. (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:23:53 -0600
The recommended / described use of electrolytic capacitors for replacing an AC motor start capacitor is a SERIES connection so the effective capacitance is HALF (unless the reverse biased side acts a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00108.html (10,193 bytes)

237. [Towertalk] Interaction of Verticals (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:12:46 -0600
When I was operation /9 back in 1970, I used a 48 ft push up mast with a 10 ft TV mast extension as a 1/2 Wave vertical on 40M fed with an L network against a ground rod. It was a very effective DX a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00171.html (8,534 bytes)

238. [Towertalk] Intermitant high SWR (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:04:17 -0600
First check the screw that holds the 15M trap COVERS. That could detune 15M without affecting 10 and only a small effect on 20. If one of the 15M coil screw were loose I would expect to see an interm
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00172.html (8,511 bytes)

239. SV: [Towertalk] Interaction of Verticals (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:17:20 -0600
The problem is that ANY length more than 1/4 WL grounded WILL act as a parasitic reflector. A near resonant reflector at 0.15 WL can provide 4-5 dB gain (at least in a Yagi) but a longer (detuned) re
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00173.html (12,787 bytes)

240. [Towertalk] Interaction of Verticals (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:53:41 -0600
Interaction between the verticals is not the only problem. A grounded tower with Yagi's on top WILL act as a non-resonant reflector for 40 and 80M verticals. I've seen this problem with 50 and 70 ft
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00174.html (9,904 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu