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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Vertical\s+plans\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "W5CPT" <w5cpt@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:15:36 -0500; Here is what I plan to do for an 80M vertical. Please feel free to advise what else I might do or to warn me what not to do. I am going to Dallas TX in June for HamCom and while there I plan to visit; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00083.html (8,148 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: Jim Hoge <knowkode@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 07:46:02 -0700 (PDT); Clint, Why settle for a loaded vertical if you are in the country? You are only talking another ~20' of height for a full sized 1/4 wave antenna. If you do proceed with this design, consider doubling; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00084.html (7,299 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:07:32 -0400; Why not just find a used HyGain Hytower and put that up? I have been using a homebrew version of it for the last 4 years and it really works fine. you get 80/40 and 20 with no coils and it is 53' tal; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00086.html (9,713 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "WA3GIN" <wa3gin@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:10:15 -0400; Another approach might be to use two 30ft sections of 3" irrigation tubing. We did this for a Field Day antenna. Used a block of pressure treated 4X4 that was turned on the ends to slip into the tubi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00087.html (9,718 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:35:22 -0400; If you can't put up a full size 4 square array with at least 5 miles of radial field - you are wasting your time and any one else that will have to try and hear your puny signal. It is a waste of mon; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00092.html (10,816 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:57:29 -0700; The top hat tubes sound pretty unwieldy to me. You're going to need to guy the vertical section in a couple of different places anyway, so why not just make the top set of guys partially out of large; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00094.html (11,088 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Bill Jackson" <k9rz@radiks.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:01:38 -0500; Then I guess I've been wasting my time working 192 countries on 75m with a simple Cushcraft HF2V and 48 1/4 wave radials. _______________________________________________ _____________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00095.html (9,230 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>; Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:16:38 -0500; Bill when you're bragging about how good your antenna is you probably should, at the very least, know who makes your antenna..... :-) 73 MAL N7MAL BULLHEAD CITY, AZ http://www.n7mal.com Everyone in t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00096.html (9,994 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Bill Jackson" <k9rz@radiks.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:29:00 -0500; I mispoke. My apologies to the fine folks at Butternut, the makers of the HF2-V. de Bill _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mail; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00097.html (8,354 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:30:36 -0400; Scott your ignorance is showing. My HyTower look-a-like has 80 radials of various lengths under it and there is nothing I can't hear nor a pileup I can't crack, all with legal power levels. Verticals; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00098.html (12,884 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:52:05 -0500; Bob....I wholeheartedly agree....especially with your first sentence. I have a recently installed a MFJ Hy-Tower with 90 67 foot radials and my experience with it is the same as yours with your versi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00101.html (13,905 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 17:50:39 +0000; Sounds like someone is afraid of the competition ... or did April first come around again !! Guess my 219 worked on 80 with a vertical qualifies as ..."wasting my time"... . 73, Dick, W1KSZ 80M verti; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00102.html (12,206 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Mike" <noddy1211@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:14:45 -0700; No, according to the previous statement you have been wasting everyone else's time :-) --Original Message-- Then I guess I've been wasting my time working 192 countries on 75m with a simple Cushcraft; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00105.html (9,643 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:31:49 -0400; That was what I was told - that I would be wasting my time and time of everyone else by putting up a simple vertical on 80M. Then I guess I've been wasting my time working 192 countries on 75m with a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00106.html (9,957 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "J. Gordon Beattie, Jr., W2TTT" <w2ttt@att.net>; Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:41:04 -0500; Gentlemen, Ouch! Obviously, we need to remember that modest implementations in the right environment can produce surprising results! Thanks & 73, Gordon Beattie, W2TTT 201.314.6964 No, according to t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00107.html (10,217 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:54:16 -0700; Horsepucky. A REASONABLY EFFICIENT vertical will outperform a dipole that's up a quarter wave on axis of the dipole by an S-unit at low angles, which is what you want for a lot of DX. At higher angle; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00108.html (9,636 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:23:11 -0700; He is right. Might as well sell your gear and take up stamp collecting if you can't put up a full sized 4-square with 5 miles of radials. I have found out that any antenna will work DX, some just bet; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00109.html (9,193 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: Commander John <crazytvjohn@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:38:12 -0700 (PDT); Good thing you didn't say this on the Midwest Information Net.3967.5 mc. 6-7:30pm CDT daily. The boys there would be playing the recording into the next millennium, like the dude who said you can't h; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00110.html (11,298 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "W5CPT" <w5cpt@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:57:09 -0500; Dr MacKenzie, Your website has some interesting facts. For someone who has 210 contacts on 80M using a Gap Titan I don't believe you have an information base large enough to offer the advice that you; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00111.html (8,889 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans (score: 1): Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:05:10 -0400; I think the problem is that sarcasm doesn't work well in print, guys ;-) _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-04/msg00112.html (9,554 bytes)

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