Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+80\s+m\s+rotatable\s+dipole\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+80\s+m\s+rotatable\s+dipole\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 80 m rotatable dipole (score: 1): Author: "Gregg Seidl" <k9kl@centurytel.net>; Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:37:20 -0600; Thinking about a rotatable dipole for 75/80 meters.I could put it up at 85-90 feet.Worth the trouble at that height?I have Rohn 45 tower with about 12 square feet of antenna load on it now (4 times 4; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00356.html (7,230 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 m rotatable dipole (score: 1): Author: "D. Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:44:40 -0500; At that height - I would suggest a vertical antenna, and use the 432 stack as a capacitance hat...would work much better, with lower angle of radiation (good for DX) than a dipole. My 0.02 worth... S; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00357.html (7,889 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 m rotatable dipole (score: 1): Author: "Clay Curtiss W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>; Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:48:02 -0800; about get The answer depends on what you're using now and what your other possibilities are. For some interesting reading on low-band antennas see: www.w8ji.com/receiving.htm www.w8ji.com/receiving_; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00358.html (8,157 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 m rotatable dipole (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:07:58 -0800 (PST); What the models don't tell you is that noise tends to be vertically polarized and thus the dipole will generally receive better than the vertical, no matter what the models say. OTOH, I haven't seen; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-02/msg00359.html (7,804 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]