- 21. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: "David Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:03:03 -0400
- I remember working the Dx contests with my shiney (then) new 71 footer and locals would beat me to Canal Zone (now HP1)with towers at 40 to 50 feet. You don't need to be at 100 feet to get burned thi
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-07/msg00577.html (9,375 bytes)
- 22. Re: [TowerTalk] How high is enough (score: 1)
- Author: <john@kk9a.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:06:22 -0500
- Perhaps W3LPL can elaborate. 100ft is probably a perfect height for 20m however on 10m there is an almost 30dB null at 10 degrees. I seem to remember somewhere, possibly in the early pvrc contest col
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-07/msg00579.html (12,049 bytes)
- 23. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: "Rick Kiessig" <kiessig@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:32:29 +1200
- If you can manage it, the ideal scenario is two (or more) beams on the same tower, with switching and phasing that allows you to run them in phase, out of phase, or separately. That gives you the fle
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-07/msg00581.html (9,540 bytes)
- 24. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:07:53 -0700
- Not only are the optimum takeoff/arrival angles that are built into the "Figure of Merit" calculation in HFTA based upon averages, they are based upon monthly averages computed from VOACAP over an en
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-07/msg00583.html (10,128 bytes)
- 25. Re: [TowerTalk] How high is enough (score: 1)
- Author: "chetmoore" <chetmoore@cox.net>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:51:28 -0400
- I have operated at K4CG, W3PP and NR4M and all that is being said about a lower antenna for 10 and 15 is true, I have used bip and bop And as I recall, Franks statement was for a one tower station. W
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-07/msg00586.html (13,859 bytes)
- 26. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:36:38 -0700
- It has been mentioned that if you could only put up 1 tower, that 100 foot would be ideal. Why not higher ? I helped with the design of a 190 foot rotatable tower for a buddy just south of me. Yagis
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00004.html (8,852 bytes)
- 27. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: Steve Dyer <w1srd@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
- I suspect that's why ~70 feet is the sweet spot for crank-ups. Get's you a 1/2 wave on 40 and full wave on 20. The big question is always, what is the incremental gain for the $$ spent/extra effort o
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00008.html (10,669 bytes)
- 28. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: Drax Felton <draxfelton@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:56:59 -0400
- When I looked into crank ups it doubled the price to go from 90 to 120 ft That last 30 feet is mightily expensive compared to the benefit. Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00010.html (12,310 bytes)
- 29. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: "Dick Dievendorff" <dieven@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:15:37 -0700
- That sort of "the next step is awfully expensive" applies to a whole lot of things in life, though. Squeezing that next couple of dB gets more and more expensive as you move up... Dick, K6KR --Origin
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00012.html (13,298 bytes)
- 30. Re: [TowerTalk] How High is enough (score: 1)
- Author: "Gene Fuller" <w2lu@rochester.rr.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:45:55 -0400
- All kinds of good possibilities with 70 feet. Great height for 10-20 m. Works for 80 m quarterwave slopers. Not bad for 160 meter inverted L. Good for a 40 m bent vertical dipole array or with a husk
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00015.html (13,170 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu