Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160m\s+vertical\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+160m\s+vertical\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 160m vertical (score: 1): Author: aa6dx@pacbell.net (AA6DX); Date: Sun Aug 3 15:21:07 2003; It may have SOME effect, but the main thing is to lay down plenty of radials. In my experience, and opinion, the length of radials in or on the ground is not as important as the number of them! A rad; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-08/msg00052.html (7,751 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] 160m vertical (score: 1): Author: cr@isys.ca (CR); Date: Mon Aug 4 00:00:30 2003; Hi Peter I don't think it will have any significant effect on the pattern, but will reduce the efficiency by some amount. 'some' will depend on how many and how long the radials are in the bad direct; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-08/msg00055.html (6,857 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] 160m vertical (score: 1): Author: eric@k3na.org (Eric Scace K3NA); Date: Sun Aug 3 16:29:03 2003; The effect varies depending on ground conductivity, but will be relatively slight. Do what you can, get on the air, and have fun. 73, -- Eric K3NA I've just put up a 160m vertical but I can not put r; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-08/msg00057.html (7,851 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] 160m vertical (score: 1): Author: sm2cew@telia.com (Peter Sundberg); Date: Sun Aug 3 14:54:18 2003; I've just put up a 160m vertical but I can not put radials in all directions. At best I can cover about 240 degrees with full size radials, in the other directions it is only possible to put down a f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-08/msg00058.html (6,905 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m vertical (score: 1): Author: <jacobsen_5@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:36:19 -0500; Jim was looking for info for a load coil for a 160 vert; at sometime in my not to distant past (it's that short term memory thingie)I stumbled on this site; http://ecosse.org/jack/radio/software/load; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00880.html (7,275 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m vertical (score: 1): Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:44:15 +0000; for 160 essentially, the more height/loading the better (up to a point, around 190 degrees, beyond which you start getting all kinds of high angle lobes, but not too many hams have insulated base fed; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00887.html (8,529 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: AB5MM <ab5mm@9plus.net>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:40:06 -0500; Thank all of you for the answers and suggestions so far in this hair pulling project called "Matching at 160m Vertical". Larry N8KU, John KK9A, Carl KM1H, Bob W5AH, Rodger KI4NFQ, Frank W3LPL, Arlan; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00576.html (7,662 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:16:08 +0000; Instead of watching swr try watching for a zero in the X. remember, the impedance should be around 35-40 ohms so expect a minimum swr of about 1.4:1 at resonance. Also, what is the bottom insulator?; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00580.html (10,330 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: "Tod -MN" <tod@k0to.us>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:20:01 -0500; As a matter of information I will pass along an equation for calculation of 'equivalent diameter' for triangular towers. Somewhere I got the following formula for a cylindrical equivalent for triangu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00581.html (11,905 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:54:22 -0400; When using the GDO run 1 or 2 elevated radials to complete the 1/2 wave circuit. Attach them to the vertical with 1-2 loops around the GDO coil. Guys insulated at or close to the tower will have litt; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00586.html (9,674 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: AB5MM <ab5mm@9plus.net>; Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:43:31 -0500; There seems to be a bit of confusion as to the tower height and the tower insulator location. It's probably in the way I explained it in the first post. Sorry about that. A. Starting at ground level; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00850.html (10,097 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:21:30 +0000; Into what lengths are the guys broken?? David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: http://www.k1ttt.net AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net ______________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00007.html (11,673 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:12:07 -0500; Instead of asking what does it take to match this, the question should be, why does this not already give a good match. Using your updated information, and assuming some kind of guy wire system that; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00010.html (13,031 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:23:08 -0400; I agree that this antenna should be usable with no matching. I would expect an SWR around of less than 1.5:1, depending on your ground loss. I have used a 1/4 wire 160m vertical hung from my tower gu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00031.html (13,680 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: AB5MM <ab5mm@9plus.net>; Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:28:46 -0500; I can't believe you guys are still hanging in there with us on this tower/antenna project. We think we may see some light at the end of the tunnel. (yeah I know, it's probably a train) You know how '; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00050.html (8,924 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:28:14 -0700; Steve, Here a few comments based on some general observations and the EZNEC+ 5.0 model of your tower that I built... That 4'3" base of your tower is definitely part of the antenna, so it, and the 4"; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00053.html (9,525 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: <donovanf@starpower.net>; Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:23:11 -0400 (EDT); To confirm Terry's model, my 160M 4-square uses 122.5 foot military towers similar in cross section to Rohn 45. The towers are mounted on 12 inch base insulators intended for AM broadcast stations. 6; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00054.html (12,113 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:22:36 -0700; I agree. I came to the same conclusions on the basis of what I read, and did a quick NEC model that confirmed the results others recently posted. Any decent antenna tuner ought to load it. My Ten Tec; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00056.html (8,139 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:07:48 -0500; ...."I used a single 8 pf insulator at the junction with the top guy sections and grounded the far end. "..... I'm not sure this is correct. Steve said he said the top wire had 3 insulators. The next; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00059.html (14,105 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Vertical (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:22:58 -0500; Oops, I lost one of my insulators on the numbers I gave. The resonant point is now 1.97 MHz SWR=1.18 (R=42). It's interesting that the coupling to the broken up guys made the resonant frequency go up; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00060.html (14,886 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]