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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Elevated\s+Vertical\s*$/: 46 ]

Total 46 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:49:54 -0400; Howard asked about mounting an 18avq on top of a 50' tower... Tim replied... "If you slope the radials, that will lower the impedance a bit, for a full size 1/4 wave ground plane it will match 50 ohm; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00289.html (8,593 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:30:12 -0400; You are correct ... it will also vary based on the height of the tower (of course). Where the tower is "short," or near 1/2 wave electrically, it will represent a low impedance connection and conside; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00293.html (8,079 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "joe sloss" <k7mks@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:39:51 -0700; Am contemplating a single 40m vertical w/ 4 elevated radials about 8-10 feet above ground. Is radial length critical or will "ballpark" do? Comments welcomed from those who have used such an antenna; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00092.html (6,653 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Dennis O'Connor" <k8do@mailblocks.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:55:18 -0400; Joe, the way I do elevated radials is to tune them slightly lower than the operating frequency... This is easily done... Put up the first two and drive them as a dipole and tune to the desired freque; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00111.html (7,071 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:55:23 -0400; I always resorted to "that looks about right" and it usually works<:-)) at least for radials. I am going to have to try a set under the Hy-Gain AV-640 which supposedly doesn't require radials when gr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00118.html (9,058 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:47:21 -0400; slightly lower than the operating frequency... This is easily done... Put up the first two and drive them as a dipole and tune to the desired frequency... Make the other two the same length... The o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00119.html (8,748 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: Bob Nielsen <nielsen@oz.net>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:08:43 -0700; I am using a AV-640 at ~14 ft without any radials. Subjectively, the performance exceeds my expectations on all bands (OK, it took several tries to bag K7C on 20 with 500 watts). When conditions were; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00120.html (10,668 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:05:25 -0400; How would you go about this with an antenna like the AV-640 which has a built in tuning network that is grouneded. Isolate the entire antenna from the tower, feed it through a choke, and atach the r; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00122.html (9,955 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: Bob Nielsen <nielsen@oz.net>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:06:08 -0700; It's been several years since I installed my AV-640, but I recall that the matching unit already has a common-mode choke at the input. Bob, N7XY _______________________________________________ See: h; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00123.html (8,676 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "larryj@teleport.com" <larryj@teleport.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 18:39:54 -0400; How about something like a Butternut Vertical antenna, which has a length of 75 ohm coax between the antenna base and the 52 ohm feedline? Do you make the choke coil out of the 75 ohm coax at the ant; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00124.html (10,847 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 18:56:01 -0400; through point feedline AV-640 which has a entire antenna from to the bottom of driven into the To be truly unbalanced a system should have equal and opposite currents flowing into the shield and cen; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00125.html (11,645 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:26:24 -0700; Interestingly, this is one of the test cases for NEC3/NEC4.. They had experimental data similar to your observation, NEC2 didn't show it, and they wanted to make sure the revised version did. I would; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00129.html (10,016 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Punderson, IV, James" <jpunderson@k12usa.com>; Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:09:46 -0400; Speaking of creating a touchy elevated vertical antenna system with a small number of radials... I am currently experimenting with an elevated vertical made with a Steppir vertical antenna with a mo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00139.html (9,496 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 19:28:49 -0400; <snip> Would you then create a group of 1/4 wave radials tied together at the center, but floating above ground as the antenna is grounded to the tower? The antenna has its own matching and isolation; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00220.html (10,201 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:16:26 -0400; together at the grounded to the tower? When speaking of radials, I was talking about traditional Marconi antennas, but I do have an AV640 as a backup antenna myself. I'm going to assume all AV640's; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00228.html (10,428 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>; Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 02:35:25 -0400; Thanks Tom, This AV640 is on a 32 foot Aluminum tower on the west end of the shop that is tied into a ground system. There is about 75 to 80 feet of LMR-400 that runs through conduit from just behind; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00240.html (12,507 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:23:56 -0800; Hi All I just put up an elevated 40 meter vertical. The feedpoint is around 15 feet or so up and I have 8 radials on it right now. I cut the radials the same length of the vertical section. I have a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00545.html (7,363 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: n8de@thepoint.net; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:30:19 -0500; If you're measuring the SWR at the SHACK end of the coax, the numbers mean only that the feedline, radials, and vertical element look 'good' to the meter. You might try to measure the IMPEDANCE at th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00548.html (8,035 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: Ken <wa8jxm@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:08:58 -0500; A low SWR does not indicate resonance. Resonance does not necessarily provide a low SWR. A true quarter wave resonant vertical over a perfect ground plane has a feed impedance of about 30 ohms and th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00550.html (8,246 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Elevated vertical (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com; Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:54:43 -0500 (EST); Hi Ken, the statement "low swr does not indicate resonance" is a bit narrow. Perhaps "does not unnecessarily indicate resonance" would be more accurate. If the feedline has a high loss, the swr would; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00567.html (9,443 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]