Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+vertical\s+vs\s+horizontal\-\-a\s+different\s+take\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:26:50 -0500
K8RI's post on this topic finally prompted me to raise a question that's been bothering me for some time. Why is powerline noise vertically polarized? Power lines are horizontal. Yes, it's true that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00251.html (7,700 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 06:41:47 -0800 (PST)
My vertical is feed by open wire line through a balun transformer. It is very well decoupled from the feedline. Not to mention it is fed against a massive ground screen. It is extremely noisy on rece
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00254.html (8,378 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 06:47:24 -0800
Rick Karlquist posted an excellent discussion on this a couple weeks ago, when was wondering exactly the same thing. It's not that the noise source is H or V pol, it's that for ground/surface wave pr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00255.html (7,875 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:09:12 -0800
Exactly. And the corollary is that DX signals, coming down from the ionosphere, do not suffer this horizontal attenuation. This is why a horizontally polarized antenna receive skywave signals just fi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00257.html (8,101 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:19:10 -0500
I understand the notion of the physical response patterns of verticals and horizontals. And, I would agree with Jim lux's observation about groundwave absorption.... except for the question of how ra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00258.html (10,708 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: Joe Giacobello <k2xx@swva.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:20:08 -0500
Jim, this subject came up in another context several weeks ago. Someone said that the horizontal component of the noise signal seems to be attenuated much more (by the ground?) than the vertical comp
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00264.html (10,574 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:41:14 -0600
The surface wave is what AM broadcast stations depend on for propagation of their signal. Vertically polarized signals at low frequencies, up to around 4 MHz, will follow the surface well beyond line
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00266.html (12,185 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical vs horizontal--a different take (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:02:32 -0800
One could probably find out more than one wants to know about "surface waves" "Zenneck waves", etc., at J. Zenneck, Ann. der Physik, 23, 846--866 (1907) And a more useful reference is probably D. A.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00270.html (9,978 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu