Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+New\s+and\s+Improved\s+Terminology\s+\(NVIS\s+origins\)\s*$/: 96 ]

Total 96 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:19:56 -0500
Whoa.... I would need a much bigger yard for those ! A local ham did that for me when I was researching vertical antennas.... but I think I will re-visit the issue with him and discover what might ha
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00116.html (15,231 bytes)

42. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:36:52 -0500
Do you claim your vertical dipole works better than a quarter wave with four good, properly tuned/cut elevated radials? Reason I ask is that my aluminum rotatable dipole project has technical problem
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00117.html (11,830 bytes)

43. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "Denton" <denton@oregontrail.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:43:37 -0800
I had both a 32 ft vertical dipole and the same vertical dipole converted over to a 40 meter 1/4 wave ground plane with 4 elevated radials. In my case the performance very close to the same on 40 met
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00118.html (12,842 bytes)

44. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "N4PY2" <n4py2@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:06:07 -0500
Years ago I had a vertical dipole for 40 meters and a raised vertical with 3 radials 10 feet above the ground. The raised vertical was about 6 DB better than the vertical dipole for European stations
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00119.html (14,454 bytes)

45. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:28:15 -0600
I have a long answer prepared, but I want to sleep on it and proof it a dozen more times before I send it. 73, Jerry, K0CQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@c
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00120.html (14,499 bytes)

46. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:14:19 -1000
How high above ground was the dipole? How long was the dipole? A half wavelength? DE N6KB _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.conte
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00121.html (11,218 bytes)

47. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 03:01:03 -0500
Ken's question is important. What I have seen (but not measured) is that if I raise the bottom of the vertical dipole about 4 ft. off the ground, it seems to work better than when the bottom is sitti
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00122.html (12,422 bytes)

48. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:06:33 +0000
James, I don't know who Mr. Gordo is, but those comments directly contradict the ARRL Antenna Book and the evidence from EZNEC. I've posted the EZNEC elevation patterns here: http://www.karinya.net/g
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00123.html (14,721 bytes)

49. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: geoffrey mendelson <geoffreymendelson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:41:17 +0200
Gordon West, WB6NOA, one of the most prolific producers of ham radio study material in the US. http://www.gordonwestradioschool.com/ I doubt that there is a ham licensed since the 1970's in the US th
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00124.html (11,997 bytes)

50. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:34:26 +0000
That sounds like my XYL - she's also right even when she's wrong! 73, Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00125.html (12,315 bytes)

51. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:12:38 +0000
I guess "Gordo" never read any of the Antenna Engineering textbooks! The Handbook of Antenna Design Vol 2, Alan Rudge: "The radial ground system and the ground surrounding it, within a radial distanc
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00126.html (12,455 bytes)

52. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:26:39 +0000
ARRL Extra Class License Manual, Page 9-8 Effects of Ground and Ground Systems: "There is little you can do to improve the far-field, low-angle radiation pattern of a vertically polarized antenna if
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00127.html (12,197 bytes)

53. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: geoffrey mendelson <geoffreymendelson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:11:03 +0200
<http://www.ncvec.org/page.php?id=351> Here is the actual question pool. You are welcome, if you wish, to read through it and see which questions pertain to the subject, and if they do, does the quot
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00128.html (11,904 bytes)

54. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:46:21 +0000
The most directly relevant question is E9C15: What strongly affects the shape of the far-field, low-angle elevation pattern of a vertically polarized antenna? A. The conductivity and dielectric const
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00129.html (12,773 bytes)

55. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "N4PY2" <n4py2@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:16:34 -0500
The vertical dipole was about 5 feet above the ground at the bottom. The vertical dipole was 66 feet long. All vertical antennas require some kind of ground plane to be efficient, even vertical dipol
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00130.html (12,199 bytes)

56. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:08:07 -0500
She must be related to my XYL, Steve! That sounds like my XYL - she's also right even when she's wrong! 73, Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@cont
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00131.html (13,242 bytes)

57. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:12:34 -0600 (CST)
Now how can both of you be married to my ex? She must be related to my XYL, Steve! That sounds like my XYL - she's also right even when she's wrong! 73, Steve G3TXQ __________________________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00132.html (11,580 bytes)

58. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:14:27 -0500
Carl, although you statement is perfectly correct, it can mislead one to believe that the vertical dipole depends "as much" on the ground as the quarter wave vertical does, and that is way way wrong.
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00133.html (13,623 bytes)

59. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: "N4PY2" <n4py2@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:20:22 -0500
That's true. But the best solution is to use raised radials a few feet above the ground (I used 10 feet). Just 3 raised radials has been show to make the antenna as efficient as 10 to 30 ground radia
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00134.html (14,968 bytes)

60. Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins) (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:45:00 -0500
Excellent exegesis from all contributors. Go figure... there is nothing sacred... you just never know who you can trust any more ! A good ham friend of mine just bristled when I once said something n
/archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00135.html (14,708 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu