Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+43ft\s+Vertical\s+Feeding\s+Question\s+and\s+Balun\s+type\,\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] 43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun type, (score: 1)
Author: "Rob Atkinson" <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:49:33 -0600
I've wondered before what the deal is with 43 foot verticals. By that I mean, it seems suddenly I started seeing 43 feet mentioned all over the place for an "all band vertical." Is 43 feet some magic
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00498.html (7,948 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] 43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun type, (score: 1)
Author: "Art Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:29:57 -0600
OK, so what happens if we modify the N3OX approach. I have a Hy-Gain AV640 as my only antenna, and have it mounted on a 20', foldover "tower." See, there's a tower to this. SEriously, 4" diameter up
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00499.html (10,914 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] 43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun type, (score: 1)
Author: <donovanf@starpower.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:51:38 -0500 (EST)
Rob, A 43 foot vertical is 5/8 wavelength on 20 meters. With appropriate radial and matching systems it can be an excellent antenna on 80 through 20 meters, and a fairly good antenna on 160 and 17 me
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00500.html (9,370 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] 43ft Vertical Feeding Question and Balun type, (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:26:21 -0500
If you work it right, you should be able to get a good parallel vertical going that way. I've seen it done a few times with fairly long standoffs to the sides. It would be tough to do with wires wra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00502.html (12,304 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu