Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+optimum\s+vertical\s+length\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:53:05 -0400
Jim, 43' was chosen as a length because it represents 5/8 wave on 20m, which is the point at which a higher angle lobe starts emerging, but groundwave is maximized. Clearly, the antenna is the bigges
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00002.html (7,331 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:58:10 -0400
Even a low Yagi (25' on 10 meters) has a take off angle around 15 degrees. The 43' vertical is much too tall to be usable on 15 and particularly 10 meters. On 10 meters the dominant lobe is at 57 de
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00003.html (10,440 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:26:17 -0400
Seems to me the 43-foot verticals are reasonably good for operation between 40M-20M where the lobes are contained to low angles and where the antenna can achieve good radiation efficiency without to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00005.html (8,549 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:26:54 -0700
". So, then, what about this trade-space (again, in the world of fairly inconspicuous antennas).. You could have a ground mounted vertical (of whatever length) OR a shorter vertical sticking up from
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00006.html (7,988 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:59:21 -0400
In my opinion, the "optimum" solution consists of two antennas. The first would be a roof mounted 22 foot vertical (either a "half size" 43' vertical with tuner or an R5/AV-620) for 20-10 meters and
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00007.html (11,037 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:34:01 -0400
When you start talking about 12 foot high vertical dipoles, you really need to revisit your assumption of a lossless matching network. With big, fantastic loading coils at the center with Q=500 , a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00009.html (10,559 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:44:09 -0700
<snip> And, also Joe's comments about multiple antennas. So.. given one fixed length element, the trade is to make it long enough that the efficiency isn't wretched on the lowest band of operation, b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00026.html (9,817 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Ryan" <mryan001@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:20:41 -0400
Where did that 12 - 15 ft above a structure come from? - m --Original Message-- From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of jimlux Sent: Tuesday, Jun
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00040.html (11,040 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:38:38 EDT
From a Rohn pamphlet called "Manufacturer's Technical Information for Bracketed or Self Supporting Towers." I don't recall if the information is in a Rohn catalog or online. Cheers, Steve K7LXC TOWE
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00047.html (8,514 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:36:47 -0700
I'm not sure, but you see restrictions of "12 feet above the highest point of the structure" for all sorts of things, so I suspect the FCC just adopted it for the old CB antenna rules. I just looked
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00055.html (9,690 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:47:28 -0700
Correction... the FCC specifically rejected a particular limit.. They had received comments prior to the rulemaking recommending the BOCA building code which says that permits are not required for st
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00056.html (10,361 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:03:01 -0400
Actually the very old rules for Citizens Band did have a "20 feet above the structure" limit. If I recall correctly - this comes from 40 years ago - the rule applied to the highest point of the ante
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00058.html (12,689 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:21:45 -0700
Thanks.. I knew it was something like that.. so the 12-15 ft is probably a building code kind of thing (and who knows where it comes from..probably because lumber or pipe came in 10 foot lengths or s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00060.html (9,484 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu