Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:stevek@jmr.com: 601 ]

Total 601 documents matching your query.

221. [Towertalk] remote antenna switch (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:26:00 -0700
The only remote antenna switches I know of that actually "work" at UHF are the Dow-Key/Transco types, which I've used with great success for many years. The "M" series products have 0.05dB attenuatio
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00290.html (9,277 bytes)

222. [Towertalk] remote antenna switch (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:52:55 -0700
[Steve Katz] Hi Steve. My work has nothing whatever to do with ham radio, I'm in the computer industry; however I've been a ham a long time and have a good memory, I guess! Dow-Key is very much in b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00292.html (8,261 bytes)

223. [Towertalk] cable TV hardline (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:05:37 -0700
All kinds of stuff works on 160m, or on the HF bands in general. I just hope no "VHF-UHF'ers" are reading this and figure they can do the same thing... I've never been able to measure any attenuation
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00299.html (12,591 bytes)

224. [Towertalk] cable TV hardline (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:44:30 -0700
[Steve Katz] 9913 and variants of it only have about 2.7 dB/100' loss on 432 MHz. CATV hardline probably cuts that to about 2.0 dB, not a huge advantage. I probably wouldn't bother with the hardline
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00300.html (10,143 bytes)

225. [Towertalk] Re: remote antenna switch (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:17:17 -0700
[Steve Katz] Yes, they do. The Transco M series have 100 dB isolation; I've actually measured it to be better than that, up through 432 MHz. It falls to about 100 dB at 1.2 GHz. It's a true coaxial
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00361.html (11,773 bytes)

226. [Towertalk] Crank Up Tower on Roof of a RV (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:40:07 -0700
You probably wouldn't want to "pull back and swing up" very often. For an occasional operation, maybe. I'd prefer a multi-section very short tower (11') permanently affixed in the vertical position,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00363.html (8,740 bytes)

227. [Towertalk] Rohn Tower?? (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:54:07 -0700
Sounds like old Rohn #6G tower to me. That preceded Rohn 25G and is not as strong because it lacks the webbing and has only horizontal cross-braces. It also has to be pretty old. Last #6 tower sectio
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00397.html (8,272 bytes)

228. [Towertalk] Brackets for Sidemounting "fixed" antennas (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:06:37 -0700
Mike, why can't you use the normal boom-to-mast bracket that the beam comes with, but use a tower leg for the "mast?" That's what I do... WB2WIK/6 "If everything seems under control, you're just not
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00427.html (11,371 bytes)

229. [Towertalk] Mounting fixed antennas (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:02:02 -0700
Hi Bill et al... Of course, I've been there, and done that, too (small tower leg, large plate and U-bolts) but all I do is shim the tower leg with steel angle iron. That not only increases its "diame
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00431.html (9,233 bytes)

230. [Towertalk] Mounting fixed antennas (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:57:05 -0700
[Steve Katz] Hi Pete. I agree I wouldn't use one leg of a Rohn 25G to support a 60' long 20m beam; but, then, I wouldn't use a 25G to support this on top with a thrust bearing, either. Common sense
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00436.html (9,213 bytes)

231. [Towertalk] Brackets for Sidemounting "fixed" antennas (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:23:22 -0700
[Steve Katz] As I posted twice yesterday, I use 2" angle iron (steel) shims, placed 180 degrees opposing each other, between the round tower leg and the boom-to-mast plate. This provides the correct
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00463.html (17,715 bytes)

232. [Towertalk] Brackets for Sidemounting "fixed" antennas (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:45:29 -0700
[Steve Katz] Hi Steve, I agree with you. That's why I posted yesterday I wouldn't consider a 60' monobander clamped to the leg of a 25G; although I have side-mounted a 36' monobander to a single leg
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00469.html (10,367 bytes)

233. [Towertalk] Ladderline near tower (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:36:27 -0700
PVC tubing to stand off the line from the tower at the top, bottom and a few places in between seems to work. 12" spacing should be sufficient for 600 Ohm open-wire, a bit less should suffice for lad
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00672.html (8,845 bytes)

234. [Towertalk] TX-472 Crank-up Problem (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:00:05 -0700
Fred, what makes you think the problem is anything other than an aging drive belt? I'd simply replace the belt (a 5 min job, on the ground) and see if anything's wrong after that. -WB2WIK/6 "If every
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00705.html (8,908 bytes)

235. [Towertalk] Burying Coax in Conduit Trench (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:14:40 -0700
[Steve Katz] The biggest problem there is that 9913 isn't very flexible, so one must be very careful during the "pull" process (getting the feedlines through the pipe) to assure the cable isn't bent
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00760.html (11,081 bytes)

236. [Towertalk] Burying Coax in Conduit Trench (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:00:36 -0700
[Steve Katz] Hi Sherman! Two problems with the "overhead" approach (although the first one doesn't bother me at all): (1) Not recommended for lightning protection. If you get a strike, the energy wi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00761.html (17,214 bytes)

237. [Towertalk] Burying Coax in Conduit Trench (score: 1)
Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:28:22 -0700
Hi Sherman, I've never had a problem with lightning, either, to tell you the truth. Here in the Los Angeles area, lightning is somewhere between "rare" and "nonexistent," so I don't even think about
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00763.html (24,529 bytes)

238. RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] MOV's (score: 1)
Author: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:31:54 -0700
There is a way to measure MOV degradation, for sure, but the device must be off-line. MOVs used doped grains of zinc (or other) oxide in series to build up breakdown voltage (since a single doped gra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-08/msg00871.html (10,368 bytes)

239. RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] sheet metal roof (score: 1)
Author: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:32:44 -0700
Depending on how big that metal roof is, I'd be more concerned with losing antenna gain than with SWR...if the roof's big enough, it will become your "earth" and send a lot of signal up at a higher a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-09/msg00576.html (9,100 bytes)

240. RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] OWL? (score: 1)
Author: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:41:21 -0700
_______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any ques
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-09/msg00596.html (9,129 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu