Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+Antenna\s+improvements\s+$Was\:\s+NAQP$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+Antenna\s+improvements\s+$Was\:\s+NAQP$\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: aa4lr at arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:22:32 -0400; Why do you want to raise the vertical? on 80m / 160m, the five feet likely won't make much difference. The key to verticals seems to be the radial field. If you can put down a bunch of ground-mounted; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00097.html (9,725 bytes)
2. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: w4ctk at farmerstel.com (Carlton and/or Lana Floyd); Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:26:56 -0500; I once enhanced the performance of a Moseley vertical by strewing 150 pounds of copper sulfate around it...gave the grass an interesting color, too. The XYL did not appreciate it much.; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00098.html (10,787 bytes)
3. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: k9ay at k9ay.com (K9AY); Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:21:44 -0500; de AA4LR ... -- For a multiband vertical you can do radials on the ground, which makes an untuned counterpoise -- or you can use tuned radials, which have improved performance when elevated. For on-; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00099.html (9,281 bytes)
4. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: dbmcalpine at earthlink.net (Dennis McAlpine); Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:37:03 -0400 (GMT-04:00); Interesting idea. I can just see going into some store and asking for 150 pounds of copper sulfate to help my antenna work better. Bet the ARB would love that too. But, I have been told to put lime a; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00100.html (11,435 bytes)
5. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: aa4lr at arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:45:50 -0400; There was a key study sited by W8JI on TowerTalk several years ago. The AMBC guys had actually investigated using a few elevated radials rather than a standard ground-mounted radial system. BC statio; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00106.html (9,340 bytes)
6. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: dbmcalpine at earthlink.net (Dennis McAlpine); Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:25:42 -0400 (EDT); Tnx, Bill. After reading your comments, I went back to ON4UN's book on LF operating. He cited a study by A. Chrisman that concluded that four elevated radials were the equivalent of 120 buried radial; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00107.html (10,626 bytes)
7. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: halken at comcast.net (Hal Kennedy); Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:09:16 -0400; Chrisman also did a study of that very question Dennis. The results were published in NCJ about a year ago. There are two factors at work - ground conductivity (efficiency) and the strength of the re; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00109.html (14,022 bytes)
8. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: aa4lr at arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:26:00 -0400; How was this study performed? Did they actually build the antennas and make field strength measurements? That's what got me with the study that W8JI cited -- the models suggested the elevated radials; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00124.html (8,978 bytes)
9. [SECC] Antenna improvements (Was: NAQP) (score: 1): Author: k9ay at k9ay.com (K9AY); Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:30:13 -0500; This was modeling study, and results have been amended by the experiences of people who built them. Some could find little or no difference, others found the elevated radials were terrible. The pert; /archives//html/SECC/2007-08/msg00134.html (7,771 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]