Mail Archive Search: <+from:vr2bg@harts.org.hk>

Results:

References: [ +from:vr2bg@harts.org.hk: 134 ]

Total 134 documents matching your query.

21. [Towertalk] 5.7 GHZ dish network feed f/d ?? (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 04:56:55 +0000; NN7J asked: Unless it's a unique reflector for Echostar, I believe bog standard Ku-band LNBFs for offset reflectors are designed for an f/D of around 0.59 & an edge illumination of around 12 dB down; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00097.html (6,951 bytes)
22. [Towertalk] Salt Water Locations (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:16:00 +0000; N4ZR asked about 7RM's beach antenna feeders: CATV hardline. Antennas were small 3 or 4-element yagis, on a section or two of 25G. On 28 Mc there, I would transmit on the Bluff but listen from the be; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00176.html (7,658 bytes)
23. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:24:12 +0000; I reckon AA4LR mentioned the crank-up tower I was thinking of previously when K7LXC replied to another post about crank-ups & how they do not provide a way to take the load off the cable when extende; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00476.html (8,598 bytes)
24. [Towertalk] List - Digest vs raw (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:55:06 +0000; A big thank you to W4AN & Co for the transition to mailman, as we had been warned in an earlier post from Bill. Those previously on the digest version were kept on the digest. Few things ruin one's d; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00667.html (7,172 bytes)
25. [TowerTalk] RF Ground (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 07:53:52 +0000; A 2.4m roof tower will be too short for your final antenna, unless you are thinking of 50 or 70 Mc. Even at more than twice that height, I find too much interaction with the roof at 14 Mc with a trib; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00121.html (8,922 bytes)
26. [TowerTalk] Re: [Force 12 Talk] C4 vs C4s (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 07:11:34 +0000; VE6YC posted: <snip> I believe the difference in performance is wider bandwidth on 28 Mc (not SWR but gain or F/B, as a result of the extra element which differentiates the standard model from the -S; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00514.html (7,794 bytes)
27. [TowerTalk] Re: [Force 12 Talk] C4 vs C4s - errr... (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:01:56 +0000; I believe the difference in performance is wider bandwidth on 28 Mc (not SWR but gain or F/B, as a result of the extra element which differentiates the standard model from the -S). Fingers nor eyes e; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00520.html (7,213 bytes)
28. [TowerTalk] Sinking Tower, A Question (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:30:31 +0000; N4ZR commented: Unfortunately, it worked - Ocean Terminal remains high & dry... well past the time that a typical structure here is demolished & redeveloped as the property market dictates what is bu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-06/msg00447.html (9,019 bytes)
29. [TowerTalk] Quad Question(s) (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR2BrettGraham); Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:44:15 +0000; I have put up four Lightning Bolt quads over the years, all two element models - two in VR, one in HS & another in 9M6. The first one in VR belonged to VS6WV (SK). After first seeing the wire but wit; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-05/msg00068.html (10,786 bytes)
30. [TowerTalk] Hills towers (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR98BrettGraham); Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 09:28:44 +0000; Does anybody - particularly folks from VK - have any contact info for Hills Industries, or Hills Electronics, or Hills something-or-another, an Oz manufacturer of at least towers & I suspect quite a; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00040.html (6,901 bytes)
31. [TowerTalk] Re: Hills towers (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR98BrettGraham); Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:14:50 +0000; Thanks to VK4ATQ & VK3QI for the contact info for Hills Industries. Their VK5 office isn't answering the phone & I await the VK4 office to reply to my fax so I can call them. Looks like I'm well on m; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00077.html (6,876 bytes)
32. [TowerTalk] Radials lying on/within vines, brush? (score: 1): Author: vr2bg@harts.org.hk (VR98BrettGraham); Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:38:02 +0000; KH7M recently described his experience with raised radials & vines in a tropical paradise. This is a never ending problem at VR98BG & I'd swear the things develop an immunity to whatever you spray th; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-09/msg00446.html (8,270 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] dead birds (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:25:37 +0000; N2EA suggested: Without a doubt, "communications towers" didn't kill any birds. It was the flux density of the transmitters...and therefore possibly microwave energy, or something close to it. After; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-08/msg00767.html (10,435 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: TH7 Traps (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:07:09 +0000; N3DRK replied to K4OJ about K7LXC's & N0AX's tribander comparison tests: I am not damning a very well done effort. Yes the effort was there but it is not scientific. Read your handbook. One of the ne; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-09/msg00282.html (8,794 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: SteppIR in Ice Storm (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:44:58 +0000; N5OT asked: From what I know about these antennas, this might actually have contributed to the survival of the antenna. Would anyone else care to make wildly unsubstantiated comments? No, but I concu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00478.html (8,135 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] One Man Tower (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:25:28 +0000; LA5HE added: When I finally got a tower after some 40 years of ham radio it was a " one man tower" made by Strumech in UK. This is getting better - pirated copies in US of an Ozzie knock-off of a UK; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00318.html (8,456 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: steppir radio interface (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:15:45 +0000; N6KJ added: Yes, but the SteppIR retunes every 25KHz. Suppose I am tuning around 14.025. Every time I jump over the "retune point" the controller starts running the stepper motors. And you then hear; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00398.html (8,784 bytes)
38. Re:[TowerTalk] Re: steppir radio interface (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:21:00 +0000; KD4E suggested: Why not just stack a Cushcraft D4 or similar 10-14-20-40M dipole above or below the Steppir beam for band scanning? That way there is no problem with listening as the Steppir remains; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00415.html (8,001 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: steppir radio interface (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:25:44 +0000; KD4E replied: I don't understand. The SteppIR requires tuning, the D4 does not. That makes the D4 (or something like it) the perfect adjunct to the SteppIR. Another option might be a vertical to list; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00423.html (9,054 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] Steppir tuning noise (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:36:11 +0000; I don't think I hear noise every time my SteppIR dipole tunes - only when it is tuning across certain frequency ranges. My theory has been that received energy rectifies across the temporarily dodgy; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00424.html (8,643 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]