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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Fw\:\s+ground\s+radial\s+project\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: "Sam Andrews" <sandrews@aristotle.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:18:20 -0600; A very interesting thread with much input from knowledgeable folks. I believe much of the commentary in the ARRL Antenna Book comes from research done by Jerry Sevick, W2FMI in the late 60s and early; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00209.html (12,507 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:26:42 -0800; "optimum" in what sense. N6LF did a very extensive set of measurements and models over the past couple years which goes a long way towards saying that 120 radials is way past the point of diminishing; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00211.html (8,986 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:54:33 +0000; Jim, Agreed! If folk would look carefully at the Brown/Lewis/Epstein paper they would see that it's not so different from Rudy Severn's work. Figure 30 in their paper plots received field strength ag; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00212.html (7,866 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: "Gene Fuller" <w2lu@rochester.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:18:49 -0500; Is the loss equal for all vertical radiation angles ? _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com h; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00220.html (9,208 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:26:09 +0000; I would expect it to be. With ground radial fields of these sorts of dimensions you are primarily affecting the Near Field efficiency, not the elevation angle. To substantially affect the elevation a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00222.html (10,599 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:41:24 -0500; Another reason is to maintain radiation efficiency as the ground system degrades over time due to soil acidity. So, while it appears diminishing returns sets in around 60 radials, it's a lot more co; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00224.html (8,922 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:43:13 +0100; Yes. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00229.html (10,199 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Fw: ground radial project (score: 1): Author: Randy <randy@gte.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:35:51 -0500; Laport's book can be freely downloaded here: http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClass=0&fSearch=radio+engineering%2C+laport&fSubmitSearch=Go&showingSubPanels=&fSort=relevance_desc (or *htt; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-01/msg00230.html (9,952 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]