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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Cage\s+dipole\s+alternatives\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: Rick Stealey <rstealey@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:28:28 +0000; If anyone would like to discuss other forms of broadband antennas and ways to build or model them please join in. I believe, although I'm not 100% sure, that discussions of all forms of antennas are; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00414.html (10,455 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:58:51 -0500; Rick Interesting alternative. I have a question about the concept. As I understand it, the "cage" concept needs for the wires to be close enough to act as one *large* conductor. How close fits this c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00429.html (11,842 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:42:57 -0400; The "cage" is pretty much a regular dipole with a large length to diameter (l/d) ratio as given in the hand book. It's also a very old design and can be found in early literature. It "to me" is an en; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00430.html (15,352 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: Rick Stealey <rstealey@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:20:29 +0000; If anyone wants my antenna model files of a 4 wire cage and a pair of dipoles let me know. Use k2xt@arrl.net to request, since this will come to my main email account. My models were written for 4NEC; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00432.html (10,851 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:46:35 -0500; Thanks, RogerNow you have me headed for the books. (Earlier than I'd expected to) Bill-W4BSG PS did you mean"small l/d ", not "large" ? _______________________________________________ _______________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00435.html (10,340 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:32:21 -0400; The ARRL antenna book shows a 2:1 SWR bandwidth of less than 300 KHz for an 80m cage dipole with a 6 inch spreader diameter. DX Blaster claims 400 KHz bandwidth for their 80m cage dipole. I am not su; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00446.html (10,465 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:15:51 -0700; If measured at the transmitter, losses in the feedline will significantly reduce the apparent SWR (and increase the apparent SWR bandwidth). I use the word "apparent" because the SWR at the antenna d; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00461.html (7,730 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:17:06 -0400; W4HV informed me that DX Blaster 80m cage dipole uses 1 meter spreaders. These spreaders are much larger than the cage dipole example in the ARRL Antenna book so the 400 KHz bandwidth claim is very p; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00469.html (8,074 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:29:15 -0500; I don't think the bandwidth he claims is in question. It's the gain claims. An earlier visit to his site showed spreaders for sale. They are not there now. I wonder why, and if they would sell some,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00470.html (8,030 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]