Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

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

Total 445 documents matching your query.

321. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:44:55 -0500
I'm glad you found something useful in the actual experience stories. ..."I see some of the self declared techie types are concerned about my motives for asking the question in the first place. So be
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00575.html (11,127 bytes)

322. Re: [TowerTalk] Square loops (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:20:02 -0500
I hope you didn't want measured data. Here is an EZNEC comparison between (1) a vertical square loop on 40M fed at the center of the bottom wire, with the top wire at 70 ft, (2) a 2 element Yagi at 7
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00580.html (8,473 bytes)

323. Re: [TowerTalk] Square loops (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:32:44 -0500
I forgot to mention, the loop fed on the side is almost omni-directional, within about 3.5 dB. The loop fed at the bottom has nulls in the direction of the plane of the loop of about 9 to 16 dB depen
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00582.html (9,376 bytes)

324. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:54:42 -0500
Those numbers I gave don't include all those variables. Some of the variables like ground quality were included as a average value. Those last models do not include all the possible variables because
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00585.html (9,875 bytes)

325. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:08:29 -0500
Also: There are some things that the software can't analyze. It can't handle an arbitrary terrain. It has only a very limited capability in this area. It can handle flat ground OK. Non-flat ground ca
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00587.html (11,871 bytes)

326. Re: [TowerTalk] Rectangular loops, was 'square loops' (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:32:29 -0500
I not sure exactly what antenna you are remembering, but there are several ways of optimizing rectangular loops. Here is one of my favorites for when you are very limited on height and want a 40 mete
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00599.html (9,491 bytes)

327. Re: [TowerTalk] 3El Bobtail for 80 meters (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:07:21 -0500
You will need a space of about 1200 feet to build it and a method of accurately aiming it, 11.3 dBi gain, beamwidth 12.2 degrees. Jerry, K4SAV _______________________________________________ ________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00101.html (7,214 bytes)

328. Re: [TowerTalk] 3 el bobtail for 80 meters (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:58:51 -0500
..."Assuming you could efficiently match it and deliver power to it. Figure 3dB loss in that scheme, and you'd net out with 7 or 8 dB fwd gain, and a beamwidth which won't span europe. "... Could be.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00119.html (10,369 bytes)

329. [TowerTalk] Long cable pull (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:13:53 -0500
After being disappointed in the direct burial method, I am planning on adding some conduit to access my low band receiving antennas. I have one section of conduit that is 500 feet. Can I do this with
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00519.html (8,140 bytes)

330. Re: [TowerTalk] Long cable pull (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:21:53 -0500
Thanks for all the good ideas on pulling cables. I'm glad I asked. There were some good suggestions that I had never thought of. For the string, I have a shop vac and will try that. I can also add an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00533.html (8,400 bytes)

331. Re: [TowerTalk] Linear loaded KE4UYP vertical (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:26:19 -0500
Don't believe everything you read in print. I just modeled an 80 meter version of that antenna, using the recommended dimensions, top wire at 31 ft and 65 ft long, with 82 ft of wire in the vertical
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00645.html (8,947 bytes)

332. Re: [TowerTalk] Linear loaded KE4UYP vertical (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:09:38 -0500
Here is one solution for matching that antenna to 50 ohms, and also moving it to the CW portion of the band. Make the top wire 88 ft long and reduce the amount of wire in the vertical portion to 56 f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00647.html (10,785 bytes)

333. Re: [TowerTalk] effect of large metal roof (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:41:05 -0500
Based on simulations I have done for similar situations, I would expect a lot of interaction with the roof. (I have done this simulation for a dipole over a 36 x 64 roof on 10 meters, and for vertica
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00702.html (10,512 bytes)

334. Re: [TowerTalk] STEPPER OF ITALY (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:04:49 -0500
What I find interesting is that Stepper of Italy introduced their version of the Ultrabeam before SteppIR introduced their version. How did they do that? Jerry, K4SAV ________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00808.html (8,533 bytes)

335. Re: [TowerTalk] STEPPER OF ITALY (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:13:03 -0500
I meant to say DreamBeam, not ultraBeam. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.c
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00809.html (8,395 bytes)

336. Re: [TowerTalk] Grounding mast? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:36:46 -0500
N2EA wrote: ...Points out lack of conductivity across rotors, and asserts 300-500V per meter above ground as the possible potential buildup. ... Did you mean across the balun, or between floating ele
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00818.html (10,293 bytes)

337. Re: [TowerTalk] Grounding mast? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:54:11 -0500
K9YC wrote: "A current balun (common mode choke) has DC continuity ......" Some baluns built are like that. The subject starting this thread was the SteppIR balun. That is a 25 to 50 ohm balun which
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00829.html (9,113 bytes)

338. Re: [TowerTalk] Grounding mast? (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:23:10 -0500
N2TK wrote ...."Even without grounding the elements I can move the SWR on 160 all over the place with running the elements in and out on the MonstIR."..... That would agree with NEC simulation. Even
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00830.html (9,651 bytes)

339. Re: [TowerTalk] upgrading from a G5RV (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:31:17 -0500
A quick check with EZNEC shows the following loss in the 30 feet of RG213. The antenna was placed at 40 feet. 3.5 MHz 2.17 dB 7 MHz 1.95 dB 10.1 MHz 4.42 dB 14 MHz 6.5 dB 18.1 MHz 2.28 dB 21 MHz 3.1
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-08/msg00408.html (8,329 bytes)

340. Re: [TowerTalk] upgrading from a G5RV (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:26:57 -0500
K8RI wrote: 6.5 sounds pretty high. Well it is. Seems there was a minor problem with the decimal point. It should have been 0.65 dB for 20 meters, not 6.5. I did notice that I used a 125 ft dipole in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-08/msg00415.html (9,550 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu