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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Holy\s+SteppIR\!\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:49:38 -0500; Forgive me if this has been posted before, but I thought it might be interesting. This .jpg reportedly documents installation of a 6 bay array of 4-el steppIR's at K9LTN's. That's a horizontally phas; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00499.html (6,863 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:17:46 EST; A link to this array was posted by one of the FCG boys last week. Very impressive setup. However, I wonder how effective it will be. At that height, I think the angle of radiation would be extremely; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00500.html (7,636 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "StellarCAT" <RXDesign@ssvecnet.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:41:51 -0700; agreed... no disrespect to this guy but this is WAY too high (if the top is at 220' as the cover page shows). Had he placed it so the bottom antenna was at say 45 - 55' then it would have been a kill; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00503.html (8,154 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:19:53 -0800; This will be a good antenna for catching marginal very low-angle openings. In that area, this thing will rip. Okay for a DXer, but probably not so good for contesting. In any case, it would be fun to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00504.html (7,908 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Clay Curtiss W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:45:00 -0800; I did some quick NEC-2 simulations to determine the gain and take-off angle of K9LTN's impressive array. Not knowing his exact dimensions, I used 45' vertical spacing and 55' horizontal spacing, with; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00505.html (9,355 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:25:42 -0500; This looks like a case of more money that planning... The antennas are much too high to be effective. With the elevation control they might be useful for EME on 10 meters (18.9 dBi gain in free space; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00508.html (8,976 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:24:10 -0800; Interesting, Clay. I went back and looked at the pictures more carefully and indeed it looks like he has elevation control as well as azimuth. As you point out, this will allow him to adjust the take; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00509.html (8,830 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "StellarCAT" <RXDesign@ssvecnet.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:07:45 -0700; adjusting the vertical tilt of an antenna does nothing to raise (or even change) the radiation angle... or at least this was the conclusion W2PV came to in his book. g. -- Interesting, Clay. I went b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00518.html (8,086 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:42:23 -0800; That is not always true, otherwise there would be no point in putting elevation rotators on VHF/UHF antennas arrays used for space communications. Granted you can't ignore the ground reflections, but; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00524.html (9,010 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:02:30 -0800; Yeah, that sounds about right. Below that level, the vertical pattern nulls shouldn't be affected too much (if at all) by the "tilt". 73, Mike......................................... _______________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00531.html (8,663 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich" <W4TV@subich.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:26:24 -0500; Mike, The lobe/null structure of this array is such that the elevation would need to be well above 20 degrees before the ground reflection disappeared. The arrival angle statistics in the ARRL Antenn; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00534.html (8,989 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:15:46 -0800; Bear in mind that with all those elements independently adjustable, there's no reason why he can't form a beam at any arbitrary angle. Considering just one stack, it's essentially 9 independently adj; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00535.html (9,297 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "StellarCAT" <RXDesign@ssvecnet.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:20:23 -0700; huh? He can adjust the frequency but not the radiation angle. This is strictly a function of height above ground for the major lobe. Or are you saying he has a coax phasing line that is adjustable? T; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00536.html (9,905 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:23:17 -0800; I would imagine that he can synthesize almost any sort of pattern he wants. It's not just a matter of stacking Yagis and doing the BIP/BOP thing. He can theoretically tune the upper and lower antenna; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00537.html (9,509 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:46 -0800; To a first order (and in such a complex system, this might not be valid), the overall pattern would be the multiplication of the antenna's pattern with the pattern of an isotrope at the same height a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00538.html (9,522 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:46:54 -0800; Assuming you didn't phase the elements to create a null at the ground..? With a SteppIR, there's no requirement that the antennas in the stack will be radiating at the same phase. You can arbitrarily; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00540.html (10,090 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:51:17 -0800; Changing the resonant frequency changes the feedpoint impedance at the working frequency. A fairly small change in the length of the element could easily change the radiated phase by 45 degrees (all; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00541.html (9,267 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:35:01 -0800; Yes, that's absolutely right, Jim. I am guilty of thinking "in the box". If you remove the straight jacket of the conventional Yagi with fixed tuning/phasing, and exploit the large design space allow; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00548.html (10,971 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:25:14 -0800; It is a mindboggling problem, but one that a few hours of modeling and experimentation could probably answer. You'd certainly not want to try and do this with EZNEC or 4NEC2 or one of the graphical f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00551.html (12,203 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Holy SteppIR! (score: 1): Author: "Clay Curtiss W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:32:08 -0800; My simulations indicate that as you adjust the array elevation above 5 degrees the vertical lobe begins to broaden. At about 16 degrees elevation, the vertical 3 db beamwidth is 24 degrees (from 3 to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-12/msg00556.html (11,006 bytes)

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