Mail Archive Search: <+from:schiers@netins.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:schiers@netins.net: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] 160/80m Inverted L dualband design (score: 1): Author: hasan schiers <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:11:26 -0500; Pat, what are the details of your trap? I'm using an inverted L for 80m, about 5' away from my tower and have been VERY happy with its performance. I've often thought of putting a trap in it and exte; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-07/msg00042.html (9,336 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Documentation of K3LC Formula (Radials) (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:23:06 -0500; http://www.ncjweb.com/k3lcmaxgainradials.pdf This document contains the "proof" for the formula that I listed. It is an excellent reference for anyone who wants to know about losses in their vertical; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00249.html (7,796 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Optimized Radial Formula - here it is (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:07:22 -0500; (This formula is from both QST and Low Band Dx'ers Handbook by Devoldre) Obviously a ton of short radials does not equal a ton of long radials, but it can get you really close. See the articles for l; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00248.html (8,741 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] No of Ground Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:58:32 -0500; Phil, 60 1/4 wave radials is OVERKILL in many situations (all but the worst local ground characteristics), and a LOT more work and expense than is needed. than is needed. See the K3LR radial optimiza; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00247.html (9,468 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Resistance (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:20:27 -0500; Yes, it can be quite easy...not for precision but for "effectiveness". Forget the megger...other than an intellectual exercise, it will tell you nothing about the effectiveness of your radial field f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-08/msg00239.html (14,687 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Question on Multiple Inverted L Antennas (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:03:02 -0500; Inverted L's have similar bandwidth to a 1/4 wave vertical...and it isn't "real broad" without excessive return loss. All measurements need to be made at the feedpoint. I've done radial studies on my; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00494.html (11,846 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Question on Multiple Inverted L Antennas (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:52:36 -0500; Hi Bruce, The only way for the bandwidth of an inverted L to be broad is if there are excessive losses. If you measure the resonant impedance at the feedpoint and compare it to the known radiation re; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00473.html (9,646 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Question on Multiple Inverted L Antennas (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:54:13 -0500; I have an 80m inverted L up and running very nicely with 26 x 60' radials. I'm thinking about adding 40m. My support for the 80m L is at 46' on a pulley connected to a cross-boom 5' out from my tower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00462.html (13,660 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Question on Multiple Inverted L Antennas (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:36:07 -0500; Hmmm..another variation on the question. It seems one ought to be able to run two inverted L's from the same feedline, using the same radial field (common radial plate). Fanning them out from the bas; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00402.html (9,154 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] newbie question on inverted-L's, tuners, and radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:10:10 -0500; Hi Eugene, My comments are interspersed in your posting. I run an inverted L for 80m with full radial field and I LOVE the DX Engineering radial plate...first rate, stainless steel hardware...very ni; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00483.html (14,392 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:41:37 -0500; Dave, Do a neat trick with your antenna analyzer if it shows impedance: Before you put ANY radials down, measure the Z at the antenna (at it's resonant freq). Then put your 8 radials down, and remeas; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00375.html (16,528 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:11:01 -0500; Dave, If you are going to lay the radials on the ground and the vertical is ground mounted, then I think you would be very happy with the moderate performance of 16 radials, 1/4 wave or so on the low; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00372.html (13,951 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:07 -0500; Yes, that is a "special case" and has been theorized about in the literature...however, the general and more typical case is low angle based. Asserting the exception doesn't create the rule, it just; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00359.html (11,174 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:44:03 -0500; Bill, If you don't understand the fascination, then you are not a DX chaser on those bands, in which case you have no use for a vertical (other than convenience or quick temp setup) If you seriously; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00356.html (11,899 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:52:44 -0500; Actually, they can be MUCH shorter than .22 wl, as long as you have enough of them. Many more shorter is quite a bit better than many fewer longer. There are free programs by G4FGQ, RADIAL2 is the na; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00346.html (12,347 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:33:15 -0500; If you are talking about elevated radials, they have to be tuned for each band at a 1/4 wave. At the very minimum you need two for each band (on opposite sides of the "circle"). The higher you get th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00254.html (9,888 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:13:21 -0500; But....aluminum in a lot of soil types will disintegrate in a couple of years, so best to know the soil characteristics before making the effort to lay a bunch of aluminum down. 68 bucks for a 1000'; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00252.html (9,725 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial wire size (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:56:36 -0500; No, larger wire only helps from a strength/breakage/corrosion point of view. You say you have 1000' of radials, but didn't indicate how many. As long as you have enough of them, the wire size is imma; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-05/msg00300.html (11,474 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Decision: T8 or T11? (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:27:01 -0600; I also used a T-10 for years at 72' and it was an outstanding performer. When I moved to a new qth with a much less capable tower, I dropped to a T-6 and have been surprised how well it works. I'm a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-03/msg00576.html (11,584 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Broadbanding a dipole (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:20:56 -0600; Jim, The "fan" dipole, and the bow tie are examples of broadbanding without loss, assuming you are talking about the two wires being resonant on the same band. I've seen a fan dipole with one wire cu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00610.html (14,416 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]