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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Folded\s+dipole\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: "WA3GIN" <wa3gin@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:45:50 -0400; OK, I don't use EZNEC...I guess its too EZ. I have installed a NVIS 40m dipole at 15ft above the sandy loam soil where I live. I also have a 40m dipole aboutg 300ft away at 65ft and also a 1/4 wave c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00512.html (9,781 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:50:13 -0400; The gain at a 90 degree take off angle isn't a very reliable indicator of NVIS performance! 40-75 degrees is more useful. Having done very controlled testing of different antennas and different heigh; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00513.html (11,569 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: "DF3KV" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:09:04 +0200; Hi Dave, You might use the forecast Software by W6EL to find out about the propagation angles. There is advanced function which shows the number of hops and the take off angle to your target area. A; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00517.html (11,019 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: Andy <ai.egrps@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:14:22 -0400; Here are a few reasons I've seen for using a lower NVIS antenna: Yes, the antenna gain goes down so there is less signal. But there is also less noise and interference, and in many cases the noise dr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00518.html (9,864 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:54:16 -0500; Andy wrote: Yes, the antenna gain goes down so there is less signal. But there is also less noise and interference, and in many cases the noise drops faster when the antenna is lowered, such that the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00522.html (11,479 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:31:41 -0700; VOACAP has the ability to import an antenna pattern. I believe 4nec2 will generate the file in the right format, so you model your antenna, generate the pattern, then use that in your propagation mod; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00531.html (9,674 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:03:39 -0700; If I wanted the SWR bandwidth improvement of a folded dipole (nice for 80/75M and 10M), I would simply build an ordinary dipole, but making the conductors fatter by building a 2-wire or 3-wire dipole; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00538.html (9,086 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] Folded dipole (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:14:38 +0100; Jim, Quite so! In the measurements and modelling I've done on folded dipoles, nearly all the VSWR bandwidth enhancement (around 97% of it) can be attributed to the "fatter" conductor; the contributio; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00539.html (9,708 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 28
Page: [1] [2]