Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Loop\s+vs\s+Dipole\.\.\.I\'m\s+original\s+\"asker\"\s*$/: 34 ]

Total 34 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:53:55 -0700
Hi Richards One thing you always have to remember, any antenna in the air is much better than one on your computer screen :-) 73 Tom W7WHY " _______________________________________________ __________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00627.html (9,912 bytes)

22. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:21:49 -0400
EXCELLENT REPLY -- Your ideas are mirrored in some other replies I have received off list. In fact, I am working on a plan like that as an option. I think I can install a 50 foot mast, braced against
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00633.html (12,344 bytes)

23. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:28:41 -0400
Actually... now that I think of it... you are the second guy to mention the possibility of adverse interaction among my antenna elements. I say this to be sure I acknowledge the other valuable input
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00634.html (9,960 bytes)

24. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Gene Smar <ersmar@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:18:34 -0500 (CDT)
Richards: I just re-read what I wrote in my last e-mail. I must have been asleep. The correct term for the antenna I'm suggesting is flat-top, not top-hat. You won't find correct references in the Ha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00637.html (12,323 bytes)

25. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:24:36 -0400
Yes... I figured that... but I kinda liked the term, anyway. Sounds sort of dressy. And, besides, a top hat has a flat top. So, maybe not so far off, eh? ;-) Thanks for the clarification, but I figur
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00638.html (9,148 bytes)

26. [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Bill Ogden <ogden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:34:49 -0400
The interaction between various wire antennas may be more than "minor". I have a half-sloper on a tower (a two-wire version, for 160, 80, 40). The tower becomes the primary half of the antenna and sh
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00643.html (9,883 bytes)

27. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Gene Smar <ersmar@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:58:16 -0500 (CDT)
Bill et al: <snip> I doubt that you could both shunt-feed the tower and use it for a half-sloper antenna -- that would make some really odd interaction. <snip> ** A suggestion: If you are just gettin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00644.html (10,376 bytes)

28. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:03:18 -0700
I strongly agree. If you follow the link on my qrz.com listing, you'll eventually find details of how I worked the lower 48, most of Canada, and about 15 countries on 160 from my Chicago city lot in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00649.html (10,540 bytes)

29. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:50:48 -0400
My single wire half-sloper is attached to a 20 foot mast, with like 7 radials and works poorly, but does make contacts on occasion. From Michigan I have been to Conn, Tenn, Ohio, Canada, Indiana, Ill
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00657.html (11,324 bytes)

30. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:52:50 -0400
Are you using an amplifier? ////////////// THANKS - Richards - K8JHR ///////////// == I've worked 49 states (still looking for KL7) and over 50 countries on 160M with either an inverted L or my prese
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00658.html (8,968 bytes)

31. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:50:01 -0400
" I wonder WHY NOT worry about trying to cover the bands with good antennas?" Because it's very easy to make ham radio *frustrating* instead of *fun* if you try to do too many bands in a small space
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00671.html (13,532 bytes)

32. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:03:03 -0400
thank you for the encouragement, and words of wisdom. Nice web pages, especially the one on the flag antenna design, as it is well laid out, has good explanatory text, and the illustrations are helpf
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00675.html (11,948 bytes)

33. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:52:00 -0400
Hi Jim -- I apologize, but I did not find the description of that particular antenna you had in Chicago. Could you give me a better clue to its location? Sidebar: -- working in the sound reinforcemen
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00677.html (9,430 bytes)

34. Re: [TowerTalk] Loop vs Dipole...I'm original "asker" (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:45:32 -0700
Sorry -- I forgot I had changed that link a few months ago. Here it is. http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K9YC/k9yc160TopLoad.htm 73, Jim _______________________________________________ __________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-06/msg00679.html (9,127 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu