Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+80m\s+antenna\s+suggestion\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: Jim <jlboockh@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:18:18 -0600
I cannot find N4KG's article in the May, 1994 QST. Is there a chance you remembered the date wrong? Jim N4AL aa4nu@ix.netcom.com wrote: I am looking for an antenna for all purpose but mostly on DXing
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00342.html (10,093 bytes)

22. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: don daso <k4za@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:37:00 -0500
It's been reprinted in ON4UN's latest Low Band DXing book, btw... vy 73 de Don K4ZA ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00343.html (8,219 bytes)

23. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Don K5AQ" <donhall@myriad.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:41:11 -0600
Jim, Try June, 1994, p.45. 73 Don K5AQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00344.html (8,648 bytes)

24. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Billy Cox" <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:57:49 -0600
I pulled the date off of the ARRL site ... <on page 5 of 9 when you search for N4KG> "ARRLWeb: ARRL Periodicals Index Search ... QST 45 Simple, Effective Elevated Ground-Plane Antennas Keywords: ANT
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00345.html (9,469 bytes)

25. RE: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Westerman" <Rick@dj0ip.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:49:13 +0100
My turn on this "Never-Ending Story". There has been lots of good suggestions made and a few questionable ones. The trade-off of signal strength and mechanical stability for bandwidth is what kept me
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00350.html (9,738 bytes)

26. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: tongaloa <tongaloa@alltel.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:40:47 -0500
Alfred Lorona wrote: Why physically complicate an antenna more than need be? Practically every antenna other than a simple dipole (or inverted V) involves construction and installation problems beyon
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00357.html (10,268 bytes)

27. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:56:48 -0600
I would agree. Just remember, typically a larger antenna will out-perform a smaller antenna. Thus a full wave loop, having more wire in the air, should out-perform a 1/2 wave dipole. 73 Bob, K4TAX an
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00359.html (10,831 bytes)

28. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: Sinisa Hristov <shristov@ptt.yu>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:02:53 -0500
A longer piece of wire can only outperform a 1/2 wave dipole (or a 3/8 wave dipol) in a very limited range of directions, at expense of underperforming in all the other directions. That's elementary
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00365.html (9,831 bytes)

29. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: ac5e@comcast.net
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:59:49 +0000
NOOOO, Bob, not quite. A low dipole is essentially an omnidirectional antenna, typically with extremely good efficency. A large loop is directional, "beaming" more of its applied energy in two direct
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00368.html (11,039 bytes)

30. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: edoc <kd4e@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:12:40 -0500
I would agree. Just remember, typically a larger antenna will out-perform a smaller antenna. Thus a full wave loop, having more wire in the air, should out-perform a 1/2 wave dipole. 73 Bob, K4TAX I
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00370.html (10,272 bytes)

31. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Billy Cox" <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:30:18 -0600
Agree ... Good summary ... Disagree ... Example? Try and use a 20m yagi ... on 10m ... while the 20m yagi is 2x larger ... it's performance will be much less. Summary ... To quote N4KG ... "bigger a
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00371.html (8,445 bytes)

32. RE: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Westerman" <Rick@dj0ip.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:49:31 +0100
This reply is directed to Pete (AC5E) and cc everyone else following this thread. Sorry Pete, for the first time in my 5 months on this reflector, I fully disagree with you. In fact, in my opinion, y
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00373.html (11,551 bytes)

33. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:33:51 -1000
Unfortunately, about 10 years ago, the German (Deutsche) Amateur Radio Club (DARC) changed the field day contest rules and now only allow one elevated mast. That killed the loop for us since it typic
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00375.html (9,112 bytes)

34. RE: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: ac5e@comcast.net
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:06:53 +0000
Rick, your observations generally agree with mine on NVIS antennas of any sort; whether dipole, inverted V, or loop, over very reflective ground. The experiment I observed used roughly 100,000 square
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00379.html (9,918 bytes)

35. Re: [TenTec] 80m antenna suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "JAMES HANLON" <knjhanlon@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:39:26 -0700
Rick, You got me interested, so I fired up EZNEC and tried analyzing an antenna such as you describe. I modeled it as having four sides, each 66 feet long, and 30 feet above a "medium" ground (conduc
/archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00381.html (11,842 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 35
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu