Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:jruing@ameritech.net: 412 ]

Total 412 documents matching your query.

241. Re: [TowerTalk] Flagpole and Stealth Antenna (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:12:03 -0500
Shoot -- Had a hot flash ... no... not THAT kind, the cool idea kind... ;-) Set up a stiff 35 foot (or so) Fiberglass flagpole - complete with flag. BUT also add an extra HALYARD for hoisting the fla
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00661.html (9,300 bytes)

242. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:17:01 -0500
Eeeewwww.... yuk. But a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do... == K8JHR == go out and have to clean out RF-fried == _______________________________________________ __________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00694.html (9,014 bytes)

243. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:20:24 -0500
Easy for you to say... Some of us have the spirit, but lack the know how. And yet we are trying to be good ham operators all the while. I am up to building dipoles, installing my new vertical, solder
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00695.html (10,660 bytes)

244. Re: [TowerTalk] remote enclosures for electronics (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:59:01 -0500
Tubes? What sort of store would I find these in. How large, what dimensions? Cannot picture them, but I am sure if I saw one I would say, "Oh yea...THOSE!" Are they the smaller ones like you would ke
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00697.html (11,322 bytes)

245. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:27:31 -0500
I FOUND A REFERENCE TO A NEW HIGH POWER, BUT LESS EXPENSIVE SIMPLE REMOTE TUNER WITHOUT MEMORIES AT THIS SITE AND HAD SOME EMAIL CONVERSATION WITH THE PROPRIETOR THEREOF. HIS REPLIES, WITHOUT EDITING
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00698.html (11,346 bytes)

246. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:22:33 -0500
Well.... kinda! ;-) == Richards == ., _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.cont
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00716.html (9,458 bytes)

247. Re: [TowerTalk] Was "43ft Vertical Feeding (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:20:32 -0500
Yes. I did not notice that. Good observation. == James K8JHR == == _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@con
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00745.html (9,822 bytes)

248. Re: [TowerTalk] Survey (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:13:12 -0500
UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, I WOULD HAVE A 75 FOOT TOWER WITH A FAIRLY LARGE TRIBAND BEAM WITH A FULL HALF WAVE DIPOLE FOR 160 METERS, AND SOME SHORTER DIPOLES FOR 20,.80, AND 40 METERS, AND PROBABLY AN
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00750.html (8,281 bytes)

249. Re: [TowerTalk] Survey (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:26:12 -0500
UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, I WOULD HAVE A 75 FOOT TOWER WITH A FAIRLY LARGE TRIBAND BEAM WITH A FULL HALF WAVE DIPOLE FOR 160 METERS, AND SOME SHORTER DIPOLES FOR 20,.80, AND 40 METERS, AND PROBABLY AN
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00756.html (8,832 bytes)

250. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 ft vertical - feeding and balun (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:31:22 -0500
z _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertal
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00757.html (7,503 bytes)

251. Re: [TowerTalk] Survey (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:50:24 -0500
OK Roger -- Let's say you could not do a tower.... Then what would be your budget antenna list? == Richards - K8JHR == == _______________________________________________ _____________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00760.html (8,001 bytes)

252. Re: [TowerTalk] Survey (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:16:32 -0500
Thanks. There is a lot of buckshot in that one shell. Lots to ponder. == Richards - K8JHR == A lot !!! == _______________________________________________ _____________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00767.html (8,574 bytes)

253. Re: [TowerTalk] Survey (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:25:15 -0500
Hi Lee -- I think it is a good question. While I dream of the BIG ONE... whatever that might become.... I daily wrestle to figure out what I can afford... and I can afford plenty, but STILL it is a v
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00774.html (8,967 bytes)

254. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:46:19 -0500
I agree. Most city inspectors will want it built to rated specs as stated in the local code - when it is up. Even if you actually lower it during storm conditions, it will have to be built to code sp
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00792.html (8,524 bytes)

255. Re: [TowerTalk] Gin Pole for AN Wireless - Recommendation Needed (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:05:37 -0500
Did you ask AN-Wireless what THEY recommend? IF SO WHAT DID THEY SAY?? Thanks. == K8JHR == == _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00011.html (8,129 bytes)

256. Re: [TowerTalk] WOW (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:18:34 -0500
Holy Crap Batman ! That footage is better than the last one, because WE are up there with the workers... I about soiled my shorts when THEY looked down.... Ooooohhhhhh eeeee aaaahhhh..... Sheesh... n
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00014.html (7,579 bytes)

257. Re: [TowerTalk] Gin Pole for AN Wireless - Recommendation Needed (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:24:20 -0500
I just did that to convey "emphasis" - not many ways to do that in text only mode. It's nothing personal I assure you. Sorry. Happy trails. == K8JHR == -- == _________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00018.html (9,128 bytes)

258. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning Question (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:57:27 -0500
I would not connect it to the tower, itself. If the tower is connected to the ground rods, then I would just use radial wires laying on the ground. I would lay more ground wires if using just those.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00072.html (7,685 bytes)

259. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:33:21 -0500
Great - Glad to help -- You might try a few extra radials, also, as I believe that will bring the SWR down naturally. It does for my vertical monopole. Happy trails. == Richards - K8JHR == UNUN and =
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00078.html (7,032 bytes)

260. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L Tuning - Solved (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:12:42 -0500
ER... ah... um.... In my experience with a large vertical monopole antenna, adding more radials seems to bring SWR down. As for the correct answer in theory... I am not entirely sure. I based my advi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00082.html (9,964 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu