Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:riel@surriel.com: 65 ]

Total 65 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] Davis Buryflex out of stock! (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:33:44 -0400
I use a direct bury rated LMR-400 knock-off that I bought off Ebay. Of course, I do bury it inside PVC pipe out of rodent paranoia :) The particular one I got cost me $200 for a 500' spool and has co
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-08/msg00688.html (7,352 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] **Davis Buryflex out of stock! respon fr DAVIS RF (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:35:14 -0400
It's your money :) FWIW, Jefatech is not some fly by night Chinese company, they're a company from Maryland who mostly sell into the wifi market. I've been quite happy with their LMR-400 equivalent.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-08/msg00698.html (7,893 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Attic Based Antennas (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:07:43 -0400
At the feed point, one can mount something like an LDG auto-tuner. Those devices can handle a pretty high SWR and will probably allow you to run the above antenna on all the bands 80 and up. In a 40x
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00218.html (8,909 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Protection Question (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:52:04 -0400
Nothing wrong with having cheap "spark gap" connectors at the tower. Worst case they don't do nothing, best case they short some of the largest lightning induced pulses out before they reach your (mo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00253.html (9,014 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Free climbing a 1700' tower (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:29:03 -0400
Not to mention he could fall on the guy who was climbing below him. Endangering yourself is one thing, endangering your colleague is just unacceptable. -- All rights reversed. _______________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00473.html (7,870 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Dimensions (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:30:11 -0400
Have you considered N6LF's vertical H? http://surriel.com/radio/more-small-160-meter-antennas -- All rights reversed. _______________________________________________ _________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00499.html (7,968 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] How to support a large loop? (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:38:09 -0400
Not too long, since I just have an 80m loop here. However, I did get it covered with about 1/2" of ice and snow, several times. I do leave the wire (I use aluminum electric fence wire) loose in the i
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00542.html (7,988 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Fwd: How to support a large loop? (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:47:05 -0400
I leave enough slack in my antenna, and use flexible tree branches, that snow and ice get shaken off by the wind. Of course, the antenna still seems to work fine when it's covered in snow and ice :)
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-09/msg00564.html (8,131 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] "New" Wire (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:38:29 -0500
However, due to the skin effect at radio frequencies, copper clad aluminum is just fine for radio use. The material in the middle of the wire doesn't see any RF, anyway. -- All rights reversed. _____
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00099.html (7,246 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Weatherproofing unused coax (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:36:51 -0500
The easiest way may just be to use N connectors, which are waterproof. -- All rights reversed. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTal
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00160.html (8,033 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] tuners and power rating (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:11:29 -0500
A 5:1 mismatch can be entirely reasonable depending on the band, the antenna, etc... For example on 160m and 80m it is common to have high impedances at the band edges, because these bands are just s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00479.html (8,787 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] tuners and power rating (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:51:35 -0500
Go to the URL below, then type in the numbers: 0.17 dB matched loss 0.26 dB SWR loss 0.43 dB total loss That is 100' of LMR-400 at 2 MHz with a 5:1 SWR. Just how much trouble should one go through to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00483.html (9,055 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Tuners (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:01:16 -0500
The big horizontal loop antenna seems decent, provided it is cut at a length that gives it a good match on not just the primary band but also the others: http://surriel.com/radio/multi-band-hf-loop-a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00489.html (10,046 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Tuners (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:39:17 -0500
Definitely agreed there. On 15 and up the nulls are often noticable. On 20 and 17, the lobes are still very broad and the nulls are very narrow, but I do suspect a null on 20 towards Antarctica and a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00494.html (10,945 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] tuners and power rating (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:20:47 -0500
I guess it was early - that point escaped me :) Now, does 24 +j60 count as a high or a low Z, compared to 50 ohm coax? The total magnitude on the smith chart is larger than 50 ohms, but the resistive
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00498.html (9,394 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] tuners and power rating (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:04:50 -0500
After some searching around the web, I found an online transmission line calculator that does take these things into account: http://www.stroobandt.com/antennas/tl-calculator.html It does indeed give
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-11/msg00505.html (9,409 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] wire yagis for the top band vs phased 26.5 m verticals (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:56:48 -0500
Have you considered a bruce array? You seem to be wanting low cost and a fixed direction, so a two or three element bruce array may do the trick for you. A two element bruce array contains a full wav
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-12/msg00188.html (8,875 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] 80/40 coax trap dipole design (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:41:57 -0500
I have a crazy idea for a compact 160/80/60 antenna that works reasonably well even over poor ground and has gain on 80 and 60. The idea is to have a 160m double L (aka lazy U) antenna, which also ac
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-12/msg00253.html (11,359 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Fractal Antennas, Chip Cohen (N1IR) on Nova Last Night (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:20:21 -0500
I've gotten NEC to blow up in so many ways using perfectly reasonable wire antenna designs, it's hard to even begin guessing which of the many ways NEC can blow up Chip ran into... Even a simple doub
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-12/msg00263.html (9,175 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] 80/40 coax trap dipole design (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:52:04 -0500
There are good examples of antennas that work well on two bands without a trap. For example, the 2m / 70cm verticals, which are a little short to be 1/4 wave verticals on 2m (the coil acts as a loadi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-12/msg00282.html (8,658 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu