Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:lists@subich.com: 528 ]

Total 528 documents matching your query.

241. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:12:24 -0500
If the antenna is at 36 feet, why are you using 100 feet of coax for the measurement? Why not use 50 feet or calibrate out the losses and present true "at the antenna" measurements? 73, ... Joe, W4T
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00569.html (8,967 bytes)

242. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Antennas Navassa5 (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:15:37 -0500
I think Dick is referring to *horizontal* (level) alignment of the elements - not "tuning" the elements for SWR/Frequency. A saddle with no reference point results in a physically "non-flat" antenna
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00570.html (8,753 bytes)

243. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:38:30 -0500
It depends ... perhaps with quality RG-213 where loss is ~1 dB/100' at 30 MHz the difference is not significant. However, if you're using RG58 with nearly 3 dB/100' at 30 MHz even a non-resonant ant
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00576.html (11,496 bytes)

244. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Dipole gain? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:59:24 -0500
Any horizontal antenna will have a direction (angle above horizontal) with higher power density due to the combination of direct rays and rays reflected from the ground. The turnstile, if properly fe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00081.html (9,889 bytes)

245. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Dipole gain? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:32:46 -0500
Only in free space or at heights less than 1/4 wave above ground. 73, ... Joe, W4TV John KK9A To: towertalk@contesting.com Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Dipole gain? From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00096.html (8,741 bytes)

246. Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole gain? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:55:57 -0500
That's only true at relatively low heights for horizontal polarization. It can be a factor at heights below roughly one wavelength but the significance varies depending on front to side ratio of the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00113.html (9,683 bytes)

247. Re: [TowerTalk] Single tower and 3 monoband yagis - "Christmas three" (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:12:23 -0500
Unless the monobanders have been designed to operate in a stack ("Christmas tree"), stacking them as closely as will be needed to stay within your 5m mast will certainly reduce their performance. If
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00118.html (8,622 bytes)

248. Re: [TowerTalk] Single tower and 3 monoband yagis - "Christmas three" (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:10:58 -0500
Given the short distance between top and bottom antennas, is there a benefit to this kind of array vs. interlaced monobanders on a common boom? That's exactly the reason I asked if the monobanders ha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00126.html (12,227 bytes)

249. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: Adding 160 to an 80M dipole? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:09:54 -0500
In addition to coax traps there are two or three commercial sources of traditional L/C traps - including the Reyco (W2VS) KW75 and KW80 available through vendors like Amateur Electronic Supply and Ha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00229.html (10,429 bytes)

250. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: Adding 160 to an 80M dipole? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:38:54 -0500
Not necessarily ... I also did fairly well with a "low" dipole from Ohio - not exactly close to the Atlantic - although the vertical was certainly better (but with more noise on receive). 73, ... Joe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00234.html (9,499 bytes)

251. Re: [TowerTalk] Adding 160 to an 80M dipole? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:19:11 -0500
This is the point exactly ... the radiation resistance of a "short" vertical (less than 50' or so on 160) combined with the relatively high losses in a base loading coil and less than optimum ground
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00250.html (10,570 bytes)

252. Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: FW: Adding 160 to an 80M dipole? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:39:49 -0500
There are two approaches to "coil loaded only" dual band dipoles (also works on a vertical). 1) Use a coil with enough inductance that it acts like an RF choke on the higher band. 2) adjust the locat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-12/msg00252.html (13,415 bytes)

253. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower installtion question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:29:19 -0500
Seminole County, FL was 100 MPH based on the old "fastest mile" standard. Without finding a new chart that uses "peak gust", 139 MPH would seem to be equivalent. Requiring the calculations or a PE ce
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00258.html (7,695 bytes)

254. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower installtion question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:39:49 -0500
I'd start by checking with an ARRL Volunteer Consulting Engineer. The generic aluminum tower may be problematic if you do not have specifications on the material. BTW, I would never bury aluminum in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00261.html (10,398 bytes)

255. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower installtion question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:59:54 -0500
too ?? Yes. 140 MPH is "Miami-Dade" specifications for windows, doors, etc. and is incorporated in the building codes of most of Florida these days. Seminole Country, FL is no different. The insuran
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00278.html (11,980 bytes)

256. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower installtion question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:03:47 -0500
Don't get me started on what absolute thieves the insurance companies are. The chance of significant damage to properly built structures (unless one is right out on the barrier islands where building
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00286.html (14,775 bytes)

257. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Winsome and vertical radiator question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 17:33:32 -0500
But of course, if you put a 4:1 voltage balun at the feedpoint the braid isn't connected directly to either leg :) Which is why the Carolina Window did not use a voltage balun <G>. I believe it used
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00453.html (10,427 bytes)

258. Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Winsome and vertical radiator question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:23:59 -0500
"Forcing" was my term. W4THU's write-up on the web site claimed the "DMU" was designed to *enhance* current in the vertical radiator. I suggested the DMU was an autotransformer based on what I recal
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00462.html (15,382 bytes)

259. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 25G tower permitting (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:47:27 -0500
First, it's *GUYED* not "guided" ... Second, the Rohn specifications for free standing Rohn 25 call for *very little* wind load area even in the old 60 MPH wind zones. There is no way a freestanding
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-01/msg00531.html (9,840 bytes)

260. Re: [TowerTalk] Beverage Antenna (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:55:15 -0500
I'm curious to know if the fence would act similar to good conductivity dirt WRT Beverage performance. Anecdotal reports over the years (~ 30?) of Beverage antennas over an existing conductive wire/f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00071.html (11,292 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu