Mail Archive Search: <+from:cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>

Results:

References: [ +from:cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu: 367 ]

Total 367 documents matching your query.

361. Traps and advertising claims (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 07:40:13 -0500 (EST); Trap losses have been a popular subject since the 1960s, when one manufacturer with an excellent test range (I have been there) measured some competitive beams. The beams of one competitor showed lit; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00359.html (10,537 bytes)
362. Follow-up on traps as loads (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:46:40 -0500 (EST); Antenna Element Losses I thought I might follow up on the discussion of "losses" due to traps with some quantification via modeling. This will graphically illustrate the fact that the insertion of lo; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00379.html (14,991 bytes)
363. side-by-side out of phase (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:52:08 -0500 (EST); Read a note on a square of beams, of which those on one side were upside down and hence out of phase--hence, no joy on the target. Think I found out why: I set two beams side by side at various dista; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00400.html (7,139 bytes)
364. [TowerTalk] Half-Square reference (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:51:38 -0500 (EST); I believe Paul Carr may have been the first to report on the half square antenna, and likely in CQ. Does anyone have more precise data on this reference? Any info appreciated. -73- LB, W4RNL L. B. Ce; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00500.html (7,126 bytes)
365. [TowerTalk] Half Square (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 20:53:02 -0500 (EST); To all who sent me notes, my thanks, especially those reminding me that Ben Vester, K3BC, was the first to report this antenna in QST in the 1970s. Also appreciate the added info sent by others. Do n; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00506.html (7,069 bytes)
366. [TowerTalk] More stack data from NEC (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:05:31 -0500 (EST); To those who supplied information on their stacks, I thank you. Although not absolutely complete, I have tried to model almost all the stacks "in principle." Here are the restrictions: the heights ar; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00508.html (16,684 bytes)
367. [TowerTalk] Correction to stack data (score: 1): Author: cebik@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (L. B. Cebik); Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:18:25 -0500 (EST); Dave Hachadorian, K6LL, caught a significant transcription error in my notes. The two beams at 0.7 and 1.4 wl up are actually at 50 and 100 feet on 20 meters, not the higher numbers shown. The rest o; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00511.html (6,947 bytes)

Current List: 361 - 367
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]