Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:RadioIR@charter.net: 445 ]

Total 445 documents matching your query.

261. Re: [TowerTalk] putting a reflector below a 75 meter inverted (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:30:09 -0500
I think the 2.53(0.05 dB) number is a typo. He doesn't even say which antenna he is talking about in that paragraph. Assuming it is the Figure 4 graph, the gain difference, looking at his graph versu
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00283.html (10,265 bytes)

262. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Advice (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:12:20 -0500
Bill, the term "single point ground" is a terrible misnomer. It does not mean a single point ground, or only one ground point. When you think about it, there is no such thing. Only the first person t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00360.html (9,386 bytes)

263. Re: [TowerTalk] SPG & Service Entrance Grounds. (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:39:25 -0500
I think Bill is just trying to make a point that the name stinks, and I agree with him. Yes the meaning is well defined and accurate, but the term is misleading. Sure, it isn't going to go away. It's
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00434.html (11,706 bytes)

264. Re: [TowerTalk] SPG & Service Entrance Grounds. (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:13:31 -0500
Guess you didn't read my first message. http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00360.html Not that it will make any difference, other than makes me feel better. _____________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00437.html (10,719 bytes)

265. Re: [TowerTalk] #2 solid or stranded for tower leg grounds (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:21:31 -0500
I posted this message last year and never got any responses on it. Since the subject has come up again, I will repeat it and see if anyone has any good information. Am I missing anything here? The me
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00445.html (11,308 bytes)

266. Re: [TowerTalk] exploding foundations (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:44:15 -0500
The article does say what the cause of this crack was. Here is what they said: "A word of caution: A Ufer ground consisting solely of the tower foundation is a bad idea. Lightning surges passing thro
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00492.html (12,408 bytes)

267. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m 1/4 Wave Vertical Results Thus Far... (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:47:47 -0500
I put this thing on EZNEC and with the information you have provided so far. I can see no correlation to anything you have measured. The only way I could get anything close was to assume a bad piece
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00819.html (12,641 bytes)

268. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m 1/4 Wave Vertical Results Thus Far... (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:29:59 -0500
Do you perhaps have another tower close to this one? By placing another tower 100 ft away from this one and tuning it to the right frequency in EZNEC, the feedpoint impedance changes from 43 ohms to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00826.html (11,108 bytes)

269. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:12:07 -0500
Instead of asking what does it take to match this, the question should be, why does this not already give a good match. Using your updated information, and assuming some kind of guy wire system that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00010.html (13,031 bytes)

270. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:07:48 -0500
...."I used a single 8 pf insulator at the junction with the top guy sections and grounded the far end. "..... I'm not sure this is correct. Steve said he said the top wire had 3 insulators. The next
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00059.html (14,105 bytes)

271. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:22:58 -0500
Oops, I lost one of my insulators on the numbers I gave. The resonant point is now 1.97 MHz SWR=1.18 (R=42). It's interesting that the coupling to the broken up guys made the resonant frequency go up
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00060.html (14,886 bytes)

272. Re: [TowerTalk] OCF dipole and "good" balun (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:55:31 -0500
The BL2 balun is intended to be inserted into a piece of equipment. It will not be acceptable for outside use. The balun you need for this antenna is a 4 to 1 current mode balun. It MUST be a current
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00868.html (9,507 bytes)

273. Re: [TowerTalk] OCF dipole and "good" balun (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:02:15 -0500
..."All the 4:1 baluns I know about are TRANSFORMERS. They pass all the transmitter power through the core of balun (transformer). Maybe you know something I don't know. ".... A good commercially ava
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00871.html (10,290 bytes)

274. Re: [TowerTalk] Takeoff Angles and Non-Reciprocal Propagation (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:42:13 -0500
I don't know the answers here, but I have been following this discussion trying to make sense of it. I am beginning to get a dim view of how this may work. The definitions of reciprocity given, or im
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00089.html (15,595 bytes)

275. Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:17 -0600
The USGS website dropped the 1 arc second option from their menu after the last revision of the HFTA instructions, so the answer won't be in there. If you select the 1/3 arc second option, you will s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00195.html (8,053 bytes)

276. Re: [TowerTalk] Microdem Terrain Files (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:33:58 -0600
For HFTA, on the first line of the ".pro" file, put the word feet or meters, depending on your data. I'm not sure how YT works. Jerry, K4SAV _______________________________________________ __________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00249.html (8,159 bytes)

277. Re: [TowerTalk] Cable Treatment Suggestions (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:46:02 -0600
If your tractor has a three point hitch, look at the "middle buster" or "sub-soiler" implements. They are the same except for the blade. The sub-soiler blade is narrow but doesn't throw the dirt out
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00279.html (8,981 bytes)

278. Re: [TowerTalk] Topband: Silver Plated Conductor (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:41:03 -0600
Before you consider silver plating a coil, here is something you should know. At 2 MHz the RF skin depth in silver is 0.00178 inches. You need about three skin depths of plating, that's about 0.0053
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00432.html (9,264 bytes)

279. Re: [TowerTalk] Topband: Silver Plated Conductor (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:53:13 -0600
Sorry, posted to the wrong reflector. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.cont
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00433.html (9,654 bytes)

280. Re: [TowerTalk] 40-2CD (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:41:42 -0600
I counted 66 turns on my XM240 coils. Maybe that's the reason I had a lot of trouble getting it to go low enough in frequency. I would expect to see some kind of difference, either element length or
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-12/msg00075.html (8,388 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu