Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] grounding an elevated vertical (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:04:20 -0500
Seems to be a lot of people wading in with absolute authority on what is an "it depends" topic. What it depends upon is ground conductivity, for the most part. There was significant quantitative work
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00099.html (10,924 bytes)

2. [Towertalk] elevated verticals-- (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:34:53 -0500
We're getting wrapped around the axle here, fellas. Several good points have been made...and for the sake of sanity, I'd like to echo them. 1) Earth with good conductivity is better than earth with p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00133.html (9,612 bytes)

3. [Towertalk] Reflection Gain (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:59:27 -0500
With due respect, Yuri....reflection gain exists for grazing incidence moonbounce signals. There is an additive behavior here, which recovers part of the signal which would be below the horizon, but
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00145.html (8,223 bytes)

4. [Towertalk] 'seawater gain' (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:43:39 -0500
I don't disagree that being on the ocean makes verticals play wonderfully. Makes most antennas play better, in fact. What happens, though, is not gain. At some angles, you have less signal, not more.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00157.html (6,943 bytes)

5. [Towertalk] Unidentified Verticals @ CG installations (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:47:23 -0500
I've DF'd in on several of these from my sailboat. They're marine nav beacons in the 190-220 KHz band. Just follow the null in the fog, and you, too, can run into that pier! N2EA <snip> In covering s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00186.html (7,296 bytes)

6. [Towertalk] Ground is an Illusion! (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:01:05 -0500
K1TTT, speaks the truth: <snip> "First, there is no such thing as an rf ground. (time to put on the asbestos underware!) Any RF you generate is looking for a path back to where it came from. The most
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00187.html (9,049 bytes)

7. [Towertalk] crankup v. fixed (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:00:48 -0500
Chaque un a son gout. But it seems neither side in this debate is listening to the other. Hopefully this sheds more light than heat. A properly guyed tower will withstand hurricane force winds. There
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00272.html (8,714 bytes)

8. [Towertalk] tower failure---and a personal injury experience (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:26:22 -0500
Oh, come now.....and what was the cause of THIS failure? <snip> "Meanwhile, several thousand listeners tuned in to WDCB 90.0 GM at Glenellyn, Illinois, were left with nothing but static for a after w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00277.html (8,199 bytes)

9. [Towertalk] It's a coincidence, I swear! (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:08:28 -0500
My last post referenced the W1CW tower, as an example of a well done Florida installation. Turns out that Bob White's son, who presented the Dayton paper, is none other than Jim White, W4OJ. As reade
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00283.html (7,748 bytes)

10. [Towertalk] folding mast-boom bracket (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:03:01 -0500
For those of you with foldover/tiltover towers, who struggle with skewering the earth with your elements, and getting the boom on the mast... I designed a hinged bracket system, which keeps my beam h
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00319.html (6,657 bytes)

11. [Towertalk] Towers, towers, towers---tell me about this double lanyard system (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:20:09 -0500
First, can someone describe the K7LXC 'double lanyard system' for safety lines? I suspect it may be obvious, but often lengths are critical, and this may be helpful. Secondly, I climb, but I like cra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00327.html (7,935 bytes)

12. [Towertalk] Forces on EME array (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:17:43 -0500
Jim: Maybe I'm missing something....but I see 4500 lbs of bending moment on the mast, where it passes through the house, and about 1100 lbs of resisting force where the mast sits on the floor of the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00373.html (8,583 bytes)

13. [Towertalk] lpda's (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:23:47 -0500
This thread is interesting....I'm in process of designing a new antenna/tower system for Summer installation. Need to decide between an LPDA and ham-band Yagi. With respect to LPDA's, I had a Cushcra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00411.html (7,094 bytes)

14. [Towertalk] 40m directional antennas (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:26:47 -0500
with a f/b ratio that is well less than 20dB. Azimuth beamwidth is on the order of 85 degrees. By comparison, a 'spitfire' array.... 4 sloping dipoles, folded back toward the base from the feedpoint
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00412.html (7,055 bytes)

15. [Towertalk] It's not a spitfire... (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:25:02 -0500
Seems I mis-applied the name which YCCC is using to describe a bent, sloping dipole array. A Spitfire, it's not. The system I contemplate consists of four sloping dipoles. The hoist for these is 1/2
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00421.html (7,097 bytes)

16. [Towertalk] LPDA stacking distance? (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:59:28 -0500
OK, now I'm really curious. Who has stacked LPDA's, and what stacking distance did you choose? Why? N2EA Jim Jarvis Essex Vermont
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00427.html (6,591 bytes)

17. [Towertalk] Sloping Dipoles Square Array (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:27:11 -0500
Thanks to all who provided the YCCC link for spitfire array info. Turns out to be mis-identified by me. What I'm contemplating is the K8UR Sloping Dipoles Square Array, as described by ON4UN, in Low
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00429.html (7,585 bytes)

18. [Towertalk] Spitfire array (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:38:40 -0500
For benefit of those who recommended I look hard at this array....the W1FV, K1VR (FVR) Spitfire would make it possible to get directional gain from a 75-80' pole, on 80 meters. I haven't discounted t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00430.html (6,690 bytes)

19. [Towertalk] Stacking Tilted LPDA's? (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:12:07 -0500
Folks, I've lost track of who suggested this...but I would like to hear from anyone who has modelled or actually installed two log periodic arrays, stacked, but NOT parallel. That is, by tilting the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00451.html (7,966 bytes)

20. [Towertalk] credit where due.....tilted LPDA's (score: 1)
Author: jljarvis@abs.adelphia.net (jljarvis)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:02:25 -0500
For the record, the idea came via Don Havlicek [mailto:n8de@thepoint.net] who told me about Dr. Duhamel of Collins Radio .. the possessor of the patent on LP's. With appologies to Don, for losing his
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00458.html (6,548 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu