- 1. [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: upthetower--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:25:24 +0000 (UTC)
- Howdy - Here's some info we're having trouble getting posted so I'll try it here. My apologies if it doesn't come thru in a reasonable fashion. If so, this is only a test - hi. There's som
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00069.html (12,278 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:16:32 -0500
- Here, maybe this will be easier to read... -Steve K8LX ** Howdy - Here's some info we're having trouble getting posted so I'll try it here. My apologies if it doesn't come thru in a reasonable fashio
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00071.html (14,362 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: "Lux, Jim" <jim@luxfamily.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:49:51 -0800
- <big snip> 3) The On ground system on VERY POOR SOIL is only 1 db better than the FCP on Average soil. This one was a bit more of a surprise (intuitively) but also explains why some of the confusion
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00072.html (14,667 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: "Salvatore [\"Ted\"] K2QMF" <k2qmf@juno.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:54:31 -0500
- Wow, All this Epsilon, Lambda, Sigma, and e" and e" stuff is a bit much for most of us lowly hams. Just put it up tune it for lowest SWR and have fun working stuff. There's a fairly simple explana
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00073.html (15,580 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: David Gilbert <ab7echo@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:19:45 -0700
- Thankfully for any of us that actually consider ham radio to be a technical hobby instead of just a wireless chat room, not everyone here shares your perspective. Dave AB7E On 1/21/2022 11:54 AM, S
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00074.html (8,612 bytes)
- 6. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Martin Flynn <maflynn@theflynn.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:26:21 -0500
- Ted, I'm hoping that's humor... .....As to the advanced practice, bring it on! Martin W2RWJ On 1/21/2022 1:54 PM, Salvatore ["Ted"] K2QMF wrote: Wow, All this Epsilon, Lambda, Sigma, and e" and e" st
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00075.html (8,460 bytes)
- 7. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 11:48:05 -0800
- YES! Much of the ARRL Handbook is tutorial material. Indeed, I'd wager that most if not all of the teams that have put us in space first learned electronics and radio from the Handbook. And most of w
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00076.html (9,101 bytes)
- 8. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:43:06 -0600
- I have been following this thread closely because I am planning a 4 square and thinking of the single, elevated radial from each vertical. For 160m I was thinking of a quarter wave radial from the bo
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00077.html (10,273 bytes)
- 9. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:54:52 -0800
- On 1/21/2022 12:43 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote: I have been following this thread closely because I am planning a 4 square and thinking of the single, elevated radial from each vertical. For 160m I was thi
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00078.html (9,823 bytes)
- 10. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:56:18 -0600
- The argument in support of using high elevated radials is not supported by the N6LF data. In fact the data Rudy has says even a slight elevation from ground gets you most of the way there with respe
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00079.html (12,216 bytes)
- 11. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: W7TMT - Patrick <W7TMT@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:58:39 +0000
- Jim et al, I think what is frequently overlooked when exchanges like this pop up is the reality that many of us face. Lack of space and other resources are often the overriding factors rather than la
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00080.html (12,698 bytes)
- 12. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 22:12:33 +0100
- And end up with a pleasantly quiet signal Wow, All this Epsilon, Lambda, Sigma, and e" and e" stuff is a bit much for most of us lowly hams. Just put it up tune it for lowest SWR and have fun working
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00081.html (8,641 bytes)
- 13. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:08:58 -0500
- And most of what I post online is aimed at helping folks learn. The disappointing thing is when I do that, questioners seem to post new questions suggesting they didn't bother to study either what I
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00082.html (11,266 bytes)
- 14. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:14:14 -0500
- On 2022-01-21 3:56 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:> The argument in support of using high elevated radials is not supported by the N6LF data. In fact the data Rudy has says even a slight elevation from ground
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00083.html (13,322 bytes)
- 15. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:58:53 -0800
- It's been a while since I studied Rudy's work, but I do remember that when I interpolated his 40M work on elevated radials to 160, I needed them much higher. And when I raised them to 20 ft, as N6BT
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00084.html (10,473 bytes)
- 16. [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Dave Sublette <k4to.dave@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:52:11 -0500
- I have followed this thread with interest. I am surprised that nobody seems to have considered the following: Several months ago I was given a link to a couple of papers by K5IU and someone else, who
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00085.html (10,603 bytes)
- 17. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:54:06 -0800
- On 1/21/2022 12:58 PM, W7TMT - Patrick wrote: I think sometimes comments like the one that triggered this thread are not meant as disrespecting or ignoring technology but rather just a reflection of
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00086.html (10,829 bytes)
- 18. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:41:05 -0600
- No idea. In his article, you can infer on fig 17 that 4' on a 40m antenna is about 0.06 WL. And going from 0.5 to 4' was worth about 3/4+ of dB. Is there a reason to think that height above ground
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00087.html (13,105 bytes)
- 19. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: "Lux, Jim" <jim@luxfamily.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 16:44:13 -0800
- On 2022-01-21 3:56 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:> The argument in support of using high elevated radials is not supported by the N6LF data. In fact the data Rudy has says even a slight elevation from groun
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00088.html (11,732 bytes)
- 20. Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt (score: 1)
- Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:50:20 -0600
- Dave, There are a number of articles that reference non-1/4 WL radials and the benefits. That made complete sense to me and the verts and 4sq that I built were made purposely with lengths not on qu
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2022-01/msg00089.html (11,968 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu