Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+40\s+meter\s+vertical\s+ant\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+40\s+meter\s+vertical\s+ant\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:41:38 -0800; Hi all I have a 40 meter vertical with a bunch (50 or 60) radials. I also have been thinking of putting up a 40 meter vertical dipole. Is there any advantage to either or antenna. Which works best fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00186.html (7,133 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:47:06 -0500; The vertical ground plane with 50-60 radials. Bob W6TR -- Original Message -- From: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net> To: "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:41; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00187.html (8,063 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: wa3afs@inav.net; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:52:28 -0500; If you have the space -- 2 verticals phased work very well. I have used two coaxial inverted L's (actually they were almost entirely vertical) phased at my previous two QTHs with very nice results. (; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00188.html (7,908 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:51:49 -0600; I think one of the advantages/disadvantages should be immediately obvious, you need an 80 ft plus tower to put up a 40 meter half wave vertical dipole. If you do put it on a tower, it will no longer; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00190.html (7,938 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:13:17 -0800; Until I moved to California this spring, I never had a decent antenna, let alone two decent antennas. Now that I have some good high dipoles and a pretty good vertical, I've learned firsthand that ve; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00191.html (8,577 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:45:03 -0800; Hi Jerry Well, I have one tree. It is about 80-90 feet high. Right now I have an 80 meter inverted V and a 160 meter inverted L hanging on it. I have some other shorter trees, 40-50 feet, around here; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00193.html (9,117 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:09:00 -0500; You're probably not going to do significantly better with a single vertical radiator than your 1/4 wave vertical. There might be some advantages to a half wave vertical, but I'd just feed it at the b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00194.html (9,400 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:10:05 -0500; Whoops.. my antenna is at http://www.n3ox.net/projects/sixtyvert _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@conte; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00195.html (8,022 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: " Peter Forbes" <prforbes@bigpond.net.au>; Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:47:11 +1100; Hi All, Why not rephrase the question slightly and take away the issue of mast support height? You have a 66 foot tree (or wooden mast) from which you can properly hang a vertical dipole. Alternative; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00197.html (9,347 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: k2qmf@juno.com; Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:06:42 -0500; The Vertical dipole will work better. That antenna puts the feed point higher up in the air. Also, you don't need radials... 73, Ted K2QMF On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:47:06 -0500 "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00209.html (9,614 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:46:12 -0600; You have a 66 foot tree (or wooden mast) from which you can properly hang a vertical dipole.".... A 66 wooden pole wouldn't do it, the bottom of the wire would be touching the ground. You could make; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00213.html (12,806 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:27:10 -0500; I have modeled this scenario and if I remember correctly, the dipole has a slightly lower radiation angle which should be better for long haul DX. It is also much easier to install since you don't ne; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00249.html (7,788 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:34:45 +0100; And another advantage is its 5-7db groundgain. With my dipol at 100´and sloping ground I always outperform on transmit a guy with a 2L-quad@20m 150km away, of course he is listening better. 73; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00253.html (8,514 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] 40 meter vertical ant (score: 1): Author: "peter.voelpel" <peter.voelpel@t-online.de>; Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:32:34 +0100; And its main advantage is 5-7db groundgain. With my dipol at 100´and sloping ground I always outperform on transmit a guy with a 2L-quad@20m 150km away. 73 Peter I have modeled this scenario an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-02/msg00258.html (7,584 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]