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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+DRIVEN\s+VERSUS\s+PARASITIC\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] DRIVEN VERSUS PARASITIC (score: 1): Author: "K4PI" <k4pi@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:01:15 -0000; I need some opinions on a direction to go with an array I have built. It is a 4 square for 160 M using 90 ft vertical T's with 45 ft top hats supported by a center 140 ft tower. At present it is bein; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00041.html (7,708 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] DRIVEN VERSUS PARASITIC (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@adelphia.net>; Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:10:20 -0500; One thing that doesn't seem to be considered when planning this type of array is the ground loss resistance. This appears in series with the element and may prevent enough current flow to enable the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00043.html (8,866 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] DRIVEN VERSUS PARASITIC (score: 1): Author: Dennis OConnor <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:38:17 -0800 (PST); Hmmm, the supposition that driving the array will make up for an inadequate ground system does not stand up to critical thought... Any 1/4 wave vertical array requires that the ground mirror the othe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00045.html (8,200 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] DRIVEN VERSUS PARASITIC (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:43:50 -0800; I wouldn't expect this... There's two factors you might consider: 1) The loss resistance of the element (which is independent of whether it's parasitically excited or not). For all intents and purpos; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00051.html (10,011 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]