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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Vertical\s+Antennas\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:52:50 -0500; I don't mean to disagree with Tom, whom I have the highest respect for, but the math doesn't quite work out. If you have 1/4 wl radials, you create a circle or radius 1/4 wl, with a perimeter of pi/2; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00031.html (8,249 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:08:02 EST; Simple, Tom is (always) right, you are using wrong Pi(e :-) Yuri Radiofest 2001 - DXContestvention Nov. 9-11 see www.verkhovyna.com List Sponsored by AN Wireless: AN Wireless handles Rohn tower syste; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00035.html (7,949 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: wes@attawayinterests.com (Wes Attaway); Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:58:27 -0600; Well, I think our course is now clear. Someone needs to put up a vertical with 40 1/4-wavelength radials and make some detailed measurements. Then do the same thing with 50 and 60 radials. Then see i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00046.html (9,418 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: davidw@copper.net (David J. Windisch); Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 09:08:04 -0500; I think it goes this way: Circles and lambdas have 360 deg. each. One percent of 360, or 0.01 of a lambda, is 3.6, which translates to about 100 radials. A radial every 0.025 lambda, or 8 deg, would; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00071.html (7,721 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara); Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 15:43:10 +0100; To me this appear only a formal controversy. The current density with a quarterwave vertical and quarterwave radials a quarterwave off the vertical base is infact quite limited. Where the radial scre; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00072.html (10,607 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 19:39:22 EST; Actually it is a little less. Just to be more precise and not to accumulate errors while lying out radials AA4LR example is valid for the length of the arc with radius of the radial length, being .25; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-11/msg00085.html (8,420 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: richardw@mho.com (Rick Williams); Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:44:21 -0600; I am in the process of erecting a Force 12 160VX (60ft tall 160 mtr vertical. The insturction manual addresses using 2 elevated radials instead of more traditional ground radials. After talking to a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00465.html (8,804 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:41:18 -0400; That is an unfounded old Ham's tale, just like the idea that two or four elevated radials is enough. (Four radials are enough if they are a hundred feet or more above ground on 160). This was all me; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00475.html (10,367 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: w5kp@swbell.net (Jerry Kincade); Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:12:58 -0500; Dick, I'd first invest twenty bucks in ON4UN's book "Low Band DXing" and read, read, read. Very informative and well written. Great section on verticals and radials. 73, Jerry W5KP conclusion of in l; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00479.html (10,526 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:36:17 -0400; There are THREE issues that are improved with ground radials, NOT just one. 1. Reduce ground resistance as a series resistance loss at the feedpoint. Since a shortened radiator has a lower radiation; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00483.html (14,668 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:32:45 -0400; Other problems are with small elevated systems, even at great height, you need to choke RF off the OUTSIDE of the feedline or efficiency suffers. You can NOT have a path to earth for RF, and that me; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00489.html (9,803 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:14:11 -0400; See interspersed. 73, Guy -- elevated Same problem as with a triband beam. Though if the elevation is 8 feet for a shortened 160 meter vertical, not sure that is % wise enough to worry about. If it's; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00490.html (11,999 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ik@subich.com (Joe Subich, K4IK); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:40:20 -0400; Guy, You missed a key piece of information ... The FCC standard is 120 *HALF WAVE* radials for AM broadcast. 1) it maintains the .02 wavelength separation at the ends ("dense" radial field) 2) it pr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00491.html (9,722 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: k1xt@hotmail.com (bill thomas); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:12:24 -0500; I have a full size 1/4 wave vertical for forty in my small back yard. Last year I used 4 raised radials. This year I have a dense ground screen made up of criss crossed strips of 3 foot wide 2 inch p; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00494.html (9,728 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: n2rd@arrl.net (Rajiv Dewan, N2RD); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:26:42 -0400; An early adopter of Force 12's 160VX (56' tall, linearly loaded vertical for the 160 band) told me that after one season of 4 elevated radials, he installed an extensive ground radial system. It impr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00495.html (11,336 bytes)
16. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: n8de@thepoint.net (Don Havlicek); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:09:14 -0400; My greatest success on 80m has been using a 60' Universal tower, insulated from the ground with fiberglass rods, and a radial system composed of 100 radials .. 60 equally spaced at 6 degrees each ..; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00498.html (11,646 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: ve7hcb@rac.ca (Chris BONDE); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:24:14 -0700; First, question, where is an inexpensive source of the book. Second, a long expanation for possible a silly question. I have read about underground antennas, about ground antennas that shorten the le; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00500.html (13,140 bytes)
18. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:31:35 -0400; Unfortunately you will read all sorts of unreliable things when the data is not peer reviewed. While most of the information is well intentioned, the fact is most of the data is never based on accur; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00502.html (10,433 bytes)
19. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: k1xt@hotmail.com (bill thomas); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:00:47 -0500; To: <towertalk@contesting.com> Let's face it. That's exactly what elevated radials are, "low dipoles...over bare earth". Thus, the antenna interaction encountered by those like myself. They are boun; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00505.html (9,201 bytes)
20. [TowerTalk] vertical antennas (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:39:00 -0400; With elevated radials, ANY path to earth for RF is a problem that reduces efficiency. This was one of the things that was claimed in the original elevated radial article that I verified. I was actua; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00517.html (11,272 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]