Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n3ox@n3ox.net: 305 ]

Total 305 documents matching your query.

201. Re: [TowerTalk] BCB Intermodulation (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:56:44 -0500
Yes, I get very bad mixing of a local 1500AM station with CHU 3330 after dark; it shows up on 1830. At times before I added a BCB filter to my system, I could easily copy both stations simultaneously
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-01/msg00146.html (8,581 bytes)

202. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' Vertical - Feed Point Tuner or Shack Tuner? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:37:14 -0500
A couple of other options: Fixed tuned matching networks: http://www.n3ox.net/projects/lowbandvert or motorize your tuner http://www.n3ox.net/projects/servo There are more elegant ways to do that, st
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00019.html (9,074 bytes)

203. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' Vertical - Feed Point Tuner or Shack Tuner? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:15:51 -0500
You know something? There's no good purely technical/performance reason for everyone to want one of these antennas. The basic theory, if you can call it that, is that you can build a mediocre but sim
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00126.html (14,744 bytes)

204. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' Vertical - Feed Point Tuner or Shack Tuner? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:13:46 -0500
I think that is many peoples' experience. And in the end, ham radio without making contacts is just electrical engineering. But I think a lot of people (and I'm not saying you do) follow this line o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00135.html (15,349 bytes)

205. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' Vertical - Feed Point Tuner or Shack Tuner? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:38:50 -0500
Nothing... I probably should have said 1500W ERP instead of full legal limit ERP, because of course, there's no such thing as the latter. I'm just saying that I think people expect they need to *RADI
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00137.html (12,443 bytes)

206. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot vertical feed (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:15:30 -0500
Dude, this one is twenty feet taller .. Doesn't that count for something? _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list Tower
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00178.html (7,181 bytes)

207. Re: [TowerTalk] tower resonances (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:02:41 -0500
Sorta hashed this out on the Low Band Chat a bit and I think briefly going inside each ring rotor with a standoff arm above and below for the detuning sheath wires should work OK. Not sure if it act
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00288.html (8,504 bytes)

208. Re: [TowerTalk] tower resonances (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:40:28 -0500
So what? I've got 103 countries worked on 160m with 100W into an antenna whose optimistic gain is -6dBi. 25W ERP on 160m and I work all kinds of DX. I have a lot of fun. But some people don't have t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00308.html (9,907 bytes)

209. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:04:12 -0500
With miserable efficiency! The MA-160V could easily be substantially better, given the coax and balun losses inherent in the 43 foot vertical approach, even though, as you point out, the MA-160V is s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00457.html (11,836 bytes)

210. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:25:06 -0500
Darn, knew I should have looked it up. OK, I was off by 13 feet ;-) And those antennas are resonant T verticals, almost completely top loaded except for a little tweaking inductance at the base, and
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00473.html (9,973 bytes)

211. Re: [TowerTalk] Where to get aluminum tubing locally in Connecticut? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:57:02 -0500
They've had good enough prices in their "Drop Zone" on stuff I needed that I've ordered from them and I live in Maryland ;-) _______________________________________________ _________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00624.html (7,821 bytes)

212. Re: [TowerTalk] lightning protection (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:50:25 -0500
If you don't drag your cables far outside, or have them grounded to a good bulkhead at the house that's bonded to the rest of your system, you risk burning your house down with disconnection. 20kA t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00034.html (9,260 bytes)

213. Re: [TowerTalk] cage dipole (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:19:56 -0500
So there's a cage dipole that's "listed" as having 5dBd gain (but users say it has up to 12dBd) and runs about $350. I'm thinking of starting a business. What I'd like to know from the group is if yo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00080.html (8,249 bytes)

214. Re: [TowerTalk] dx blaster antenna (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:28:46 -0500
There is no standard conversion from dB to S-unit. On my FT-857D, I measured with a step attenuator and signal generator and found something like this: barely audible to S1 : lots of dB, don't remem
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00112.html (8,675 bytes)

215. Re: [TowerTalk] dx baster antenna (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:32:48 -0500
All 1 sunit. It just doesn't seem linear...Not worth the extra $ to take Tony, When DX signals are about even with the noise, and the noise and DX signal are steady, a good set of DXer ears may be ab
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00115.html (7,973 bytes)

216. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical in pond (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:44:22 -0400
There should be less field cancellation at very low angles for a vertical that looks out over fresh water... look up "Pseudo Brewster Angle" in your favorite antenna book. If I change the earth diele
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00471.html (9,785 bytes)

217. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical in pond (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:04:35 -0400
"Could a fresh water pond have sufficient minerals dissolved in it to be helpful? Even if not salt in the water, I think it could be useful in the same way." I can tell you that water that's been cor
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00520.html (10,240 bytes)

218. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical in pond (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:13:32 -0400
I think I totally ignored mismatch losses Re: the 17dB total loss in my calculation ... turns out filling a line with water tends to alter its characteristic impedance. So I may be a good bit off wit
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00521.html (8,862 bytes)

219. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical in pond (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:46:43 -0400
I was outside pondering the vast amount of ice melter they use around here when we get (infrequent) snows and it occured to me that it's very possibly runoff from heavily salted parking lots. 73 Dan
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00543.html (8,802 bytes)

220. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical in pond (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:42:11 -0400
was only a few feet above >the fresh water ice. Ice and water have very different dielectric and conductive properties. _______________________________________________ ______________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00568.html (8,094 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu