Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Cost\s+effectivel\s+Tower\s+height\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Drax Felton <draxfelton@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:53:33 -0500
Isn't the a half wave high tower the general rule of thumb for a decent dx angle? After 60ft (1/2 wave on 20m) you need more guys with Rohn 25 and the work difficulty starts increasing rapidly. Sent
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00000.html (25,016 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Michael Goins <wmgoins@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:58:36 -0600
Pretty good information here: http://radio.n0gw.net/radio12.pdf Mike, k5wmg _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list Towe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00001.html (28,677 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:08:28 -0500
No, 1/2 wave is where a horizontally polarized antenna shows its first null directly overhead. 60 ft is 0.86 wave on 20 meters (14 MHz) - one wavelength is 70 feet. If I had to choose a single tower
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00002.html (28,723 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: "Gene Fuller" <w2lu@rochester.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:43:51 -0500
Optimum height for a tower is a classic case of "it all depends". What are your interests?, What's the geography like at your QTH?, Are there obstructions?, Are there zoning restrictions? , What's th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00003.html (33,690 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Michael Goins <wmgoins@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:46:06 -0600
Getting things together here to get the antenna/rotor, switchbox up on the tower and plan for the half square for the lower bands. I've had this in a file and wanted to share it. Good information abo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00004.html (36,655 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Hofmann <Andreas.Hofmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:47:03 +0000
I have received an overwhelming response to my questions. I should have mentioned a few more points/requirements: - single multiband beam 40 - 10. No stacks. I am running verticals and wires hanging
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00005.html (31,356 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:16:14 +0000
I think we sometimes concentrate too much on looking at antenna heights that will maximise gain at certain take-off angles, and forget about the nulls. Those deep elevation nulls can be "killers" if
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00016.html (34,729 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:11:25 -0600
You have to get HFTA. It's just that simple. You'll get a good picture of what your antennas need and it will help you avoid overkill, which helps avoid added costs. Too high an effective height can
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00018.html (36,019 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:21:10 -0700
In general, I agree with those comments and the unwanted nulls can be very large. I did exactly as G3TXQ recommends when I installed my tower and chose antenna heights for each band, but I'd like to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00044.html (11,737 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:40:32 -0700
I think ALL of that is great advice, at least partly because I pretty much did exactly that when I installed my system three years ago ;) I have an Optibeam OB16-3 tribander three feet above the top
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00063.html (39,503 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:24:13 -0700
I would agree that a 70 ft tower is a good option for most band if you do not want to go higher. I have the AN Wireless 70ft tower with a SteppIR at 71 ft and the Cushcraft XM240 about 12 to 14 ft ab
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00064.html (42,757 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Dievendorff" <dieven@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 06:49:35 -0800
Andreas, I started my planning at my current location with that same requirement: no guy wires. I had previously owned a US Towers 89' crankup, which worked well for many years. But I was changing an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00065.html (10,579 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Hofmann <Andreas.Hofmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:13:02 +0000
Hi I want to thank everyone on this alias to suggest running HFTA. I spent and couple of hours tonight and now realized that this was a very valuable exercise. Since I promised to report back some fi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00382.html (10,882 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: "larryjspammenot@teleport.com" <larryj@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:57:07 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
I looked over on Amazon.com for the latest ARRL Antenna Book, so I can get a copy of HFTA to run the numbers for my QTH. They usually have much better prices than the ARRL site. I recently ordered th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00385.html (13,318 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Frederick Vobbe <fvobbe@wlio.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:22:54 -0500
I notice there are several versions of the book. Is the program available in all versions? For example, the "ARRL Antenna Book 22nd Ed Softcover [Paperback]" doesn't say if you get a data CD with the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00386.html (8,812 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:58:07 -0800
I know for certain that the CD is included with soft cover editions of the 20th and 21st editions, and I suspect it is in the 22nd as well. Check the ARRL website to be sure Just make sure that you a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00387.html (9,250 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:19:47 -0800
wow, I will sell mine with a 50% discount for $500.00 hihi Bob K6UJ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@co
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00392.html (13,953 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:29:41 -0800
If anyone is interested I have this latest ARRL antenna book, 22nd edition in the hardback version. With CD. Brand new. Retail price is $59.95 It has not even been opened yet. I will sell for $40.00
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00393.html (9,909 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:19:14 -0500
Yes, the software is included with the latest edition. 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00395.html (9,738 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effectivel Tower height (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:53:23 -0500
That is not the latest edition. Note the printing date of 2007. They must think it's a collectors edition<:-)) I have a number of them, but not so sure I have the 2007 edition. Now if any one has a m
/archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00397.html (9,577 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu