Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Vertical\s+Dipoles\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Vertical\s+Dipoles\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:41:44 +0000; Anyone interested in more information about vertical dipoles should take a look at what Cebik has to say. As always, he has excellent information that is accurate and to the point: http://www.cebik.c; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00343.html (7,186 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Bob Cunnings" <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:12:04 -0600; Since I have limited space for antennas, I was inspired by exactly that Cebik article to build a vertical doublet cut for 20 meters, and am quite pleased with the result. I used a 33' MJF telescoping; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00349.html (9,485 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:33:53 -0700; Thanks Rob, hadn't seen this one yet. Just one addition to what L.B. wrote. If you extend the vertical dipole to 2x 6m lengths (instead of the 2x 5m lengths as L.B. describes), the antenna also works; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00355.html (8,598 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:41:29 -0700; Here is a tip, Bob. Take so spray paint and spray the top half of the fiberglass mast skyblue or light grey. Then people won't even see it! My vertical dipole is made of a substance called Titanex wh; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00357.html (10,562 bytes)
5. [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:31:45 -0400; There is another alternative to center-fed vertical dipoles It is not very difficult to end feed dipoles which are much simpler mechanically. There's a good collection of information here: http://web; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00365.html (8,895 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:48:21 -0700; Bill, you really have to be "a believer" to use these antennas if they really work like the first two sentences of that link claim: "The end-fed halfwave antenna is among my favorite for field operat; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00367.html (10,545 bytes)
7. [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:15:39 -0400; Bill, you really have to be "a believer" to use these antennas if they really work like the first two sentences of that link claim: "The end-fed halfwave antenna is among my favorite for field operat; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00368.html (8,175 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:05:28 -0700; YES, correct, you still "should" use the counterpoise. I guess it might work without one but it's certainly better to have one. That's the one thing that keep steering me back to the center-fed. Havi; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00370.html (9,198 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Bwana Bob <wb2vuf@qsl.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:07:10 -0400; You do need a tuner with a 1/2 wave end fed wire, but it is possible to connect the wire directly to the tuner output. A counterpoise is still required, but it can be much shorter than the counterpoi; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00374.html (9,602 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:53:38 -1000; With respect to the Cebik article: I agree that this is excellent information. However there is not much discussion about feedline current balance, and the effect of the ground being much closer to o; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00375.html (9,276 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "gary" <ghoffman@spacetech.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:55:44 -0400; One certainly needs a tuner if one is going to connect the 50 ohm output of a modern solid state rig to the high impedance at the end of a half wave antenna. Of course this is done all the time. I re; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00378.html (11,412 bytes)
12. [TenTec] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: "NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:03:39 -0700; Ken, you're placing too much emphasis on theory and perhaps not enough on practice. Though that's your privilege and most of us are anxious to learn more theory, but I think we should also be encoura; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00379.html (10,953 bytes)
13. [TenTec] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:51:40 +0000; my hunch is that ground proximety on one side of a vert. dipole may do some unbalancing but it probably isn't significant unless the pipe making the bottom half is sticking down in salt water : ) oka; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-07/msg00387.html (11,826 bytes)
14. [TenTec] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Roger Rippy <svtincup@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 12:10:46 -0800 (PST); I am currently using the Force 12 XK40 Sigma and it has been in constant usuage for about 4 years. It works very well for my location and situation.I first started using wire vertical dipoles while o; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00206.html (7,081 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:34:40 -0500; Rip, I'm not sure I would call those a VD. Looks more like a base loaded vertical with two elevated radials. Seems like a good idea, though, because it gets the feedpoint close to the ground, and fee; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00211.html (9,011 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:47:55 -0500; 2nd take after reading Toms Home Page. It looks like these antennas are only slightly (negligibly) worse that the "I" version. I don't believe Tom would misrepresent his product when he comparing it; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00212.html (8,302 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:40:40 -0500; They once answered ME on that ! They said not to do it. Not that it would not work well... but that it would not work better and it was not worth the effort. == James -K8JHR == base 15' or even 30' h; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00229.html (7,675 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 06:41:09 -0500; Well it isn't so much for a better signal as it is for getting the two tubes out of the way. You can't have an antenna that close to the ground where there are kids and pets playing. They once answer; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00231.html (8,598 bytes)
19. [TenTec] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: Roger Rippy <svtincup@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 06:19:31 -0800 (PST); Thanks for the feedback Rick (DJ0IP). I cannot shed any personal light on performance characteristics of the Force 12 other than my operating experiences. My QTH is in a tough spot with a canal behin; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00232.html (8,017 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:05:03 -0500; True. And it would interfere with my wife's riding lawn mower ! == K8JHR == -- _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/ma; /archives//html/TenTec/2011-01/msg00250.html (8,173 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]