Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n6ry@arrl.net: 83 ]

Total 83 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] new antenna design (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:56:40 -0700
At 07:54 AM 2004-06-04, Bob Taylor K8FI wrote: Can anyone come up with more information on this? http://www.uri.edu/news/release/?id=2659 Bob, I'm skeptical of his claimed 80% to 100% efficiency if h
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-06/msg00075.html (7,953 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Breakall short vertical (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:38:54 -0700
At 10:00 AM 2004-06-11, Jerry Keller wrote: I may be one of those Pete calls "those with trees conveniently situated", and I am indeed "tempted" by this idea for a short vertical for 160M...:-)... ha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-06/msg00232.html (8,792 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Breakall short vertical (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:12:36 -0700
Kintronic also has a link to a more theoretical IEEE article on this antenna: http://www.star-h.com/publications/ieee2002.pdf In the end, this is just a permutation of a short fat vertical with a lar
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-06/msg00236.html (9,782 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Technique for Putting Don Radials? (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:28:18 -0700
At 08:26 PM 2004-06-21, RICHARD BOYD wrote: And, it shouldn't take much more wire. Let's say the stakes are one or two or three feet apart at the perimeter, you would have, say, a 130' radial and a t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-06/msg00483.html (8,443 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Power lines, hawks, and fire ignition(slightly off-topic) (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:31:04 -0700
At 09:53 AM 2004-07-20, Bill VanAlstyne wrote: I couldn't help but wonder at this snippet from an AP newswire article in this morning's paper regarding how the Santa Clarita wildfire in California su
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00529.html (9,136 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] 500 ft. rolls of #14 at Home Depot for $14? (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:31:46 -0700
At 08:17 AM 2004-08-04, Joe Giacobello wrote: I recollect that several months ago there were several posts referring to the availability of 500 ft. rolls of #14 wire from Home Depot (Lowes?). I was a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00092.html (8,157 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Modelling Dilemma (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:26:05 -0700
At 05:59 PM 2004-09-09, you wrote: Using EZNEC 2.0, I model a one-wavelength wire at 50 feet above real ground ("normal"), and feed it at 50% from one end. I get a pattern that has nulls off the ends
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00151.html (8,762 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Home Depot 14 gauge wire (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:19:09 -0700
At 08:57 PM 2004-10-01, David Kozinn wrote: As another point of reference, the Lowes nearest me (in Rockland County, NY, very close to the Bergen County, NJ border) sells the same thing for $20 (stra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-10/msg00038.html (8,589 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical on metal building (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:23:37 -0700
At 07:48 PM 2004-10-01, Jim Miller WB5OXQ wrote: I wonder how a vertical would perform on top of my office building? Sheet metal roof. 20' high at center, 18' at eves. 160'X80' dimensions. I have a t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-10/msg00039.html (7,951 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical on metal building (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:25:27 -0700
At 11:36 AM 2004-10-02, "Jim Miller WB5OXQ" <wb5oxq@grandecom.net> wrote: There is nothing electrical on the roof. the AC units are on the ground. Sounds good. There is this 190' tower beside the bui
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-10/msg00051.html (8,285 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] 40/30 SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:09:22 -0700
What about the MonstIR? Too big? Too expensive? http://www.steppir.com/pdf/monstir%20brochure.pdf 73 Terry _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Sup
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-10/msg00122.html (7,375 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Coaxial Antennas (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:58:39 -0700
If you look closely at these N0KHQ-type antennas, you will see that they are center-loaded by the inductance of two shorted sections of transmission line. I visualize it this way: The current on each
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-05/msg00562.html (9,916 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] USIA Array (was Sturba Curtains) (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:48:04 -0700
Tom, Do you have any reference on the USIA array? The only hit I got on Google was your message. Keep clam, Terry N6RY _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-05/msg00590.html (8,149 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] tower mounted vertical (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:20:23 -0700
I'm sure Tim meant to say that the impedance will go up with sloped radials. I modeled quarter-wavelength verticals on a 50 foot tower, with four 45 degree sloping radials. The feed impedance at reso
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00283.html (9,191 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated Verticals (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:01:15 -0700
On Sun Jun 12 09:49:54 EDT 2005, Jim Jarvis wrote: I differ on the topic of radiation pattern. Not sure about the source of Tim's caution, but if we're talking about 2 resonant radials...it's just a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00307.html (9,218 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] elevated verticals....radial config. (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:28:15 -0700
According to modeling in EZNEC, as long as the two radials are symmetrical (180 degrees apart, same slope), the azimuth and elevation patterns are very uniform, and the horizontal radiation cancels q
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00338.html (9,334 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] elevated verticals....radial config. (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:14:35 -0700
Excellent points, gentlemen. Even with a current balun/choke at the feedpoint, the coax feedline can easily couple to the antenna & radials and skew the pattern. I've included approximations of my tw
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00344.html (9,926 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole resonates lower than expected. (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:56:07 -0700
Just for fun, I put your antenna and feeder into EZNEC+ over average ground. Here's a look: At Antenna == Bare #12 conductor F=3.809 R=72.8 SWR(50 ohm)=1.46 or L=472.3/F Looking into 100' of 75 ohm,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00626.html (10,366 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] 135 degrees phasing. (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:11:14 -0700
That's fine if the load is matched to the line Z, or for 90 or 180 degree lines, but the phase shift will not be 135 degrees if the line is mismatched, which is often the case with verticals in a ph
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00712.html (8,573 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 M OCF antenna (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:29:04 -0800
Using a folded monopole will indeed raise the feedpoint impedance (by a factor of 4, which can make matching easier), but the radiation resistance and ground losses are unchanged, since the net curre
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00371.html (7,975 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu