Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Aperture\s+and\s+stacking\s+distance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Aperture\s+and\s+stacking\s+distance\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Aperture and stacking distance (score: 1): Author: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:36:17 -0800; I ran across something which appears to give a quantitative answer to how far apart to stack beams, whether for the same or different bands. It involves working out the "radius of effective aperture"; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00081.html (7,875 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Aperture and stacking distance (score: 1): Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:54:48 +0000; This is one of those old approximate concepts which gives a useful general understanding, but it is no substitute for modern modeling techniques. For a general discussion, see: http://www.ifwtech.co.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00082.html (10,394 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Aperture and stacking distance (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:23:43 -0800; Well.. not totally hogwash, but confuses two entirely different problems. Effective Aperture is a way to represent antenna gain and/or directivity (depending on where you keep track of efficiency). T; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00083.html (9,219 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Aperture and stacking distance (score: 1): Author: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>; Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:54:38 -0800; Hey, thanks very much guys. I got really suspicious of the method when it told me an adequate stacking distance for two 70 cm beams with 10 dBd gain was 0.04 ft. I was looking for the quick answer bu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00123.html (7,975 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]