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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Antenna\s+Formulas\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Antenna Formulas (score: 1): Author: Daniel Hileman <n9wx_dan@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 07:39:41 -0700 (PDT); Hi Everyone, Now I'm gonna feel real stupid asking this...buuuuut, I really would like to know...so, here goes. How come the formula for a half wave dipole is 468/Freq but the formula for a Full wave; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-05/msg00186.html (7,160 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna Formulas (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:08:58 -0400; The formulas for open-ended antennas like dipoles use some rough guess for capacitance loading of the end caused by the abrupt termination or abrupt end of the antenna conductor. There's a little ca; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-05/msg00187.html (8,972 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna Formulas (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:22:20 EDT; ......and to make it more interesting...if you use insulated wire, the formula will not be right either....too long! Bill K4XS _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomput; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-05/msg00188.html (6,903 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna Formulas (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 10:43:24 -0700; Not a stupid question at all. It's one that they spend quite a bit of time on in Antennas classes, because, at first glance you'd think that it should be exactly a half wavelength long ( half wavelen; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-05/msg00200.html (14,940 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]