Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Mosley\s+Antenna\s+Question\s*$/: 105 ]

Total 105 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Ryan" <mryan001@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:54:31 -0500
Over the years I have heard stories of unexplained failures with Mosley antennas which were equally unexplained as having to do with the selection of certain coax cables. One recent incident was with
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00260.html (7,163 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: David Gallatin via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:12:28 +0000 (UTC)
I can confirm the validity, I think I came across the reason once but forgot since then. I just got the 213 they said use, figuring they know what works best on their antennas.  73, David, AA9G ex W5
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00262.html (8,743 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Doug Scribner" <dscribner@twc.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:20:30 -0500
Mike, I have a TA-53M @ 43 feet on a small 2nd tower. I used a ferrite bead choke and RG-8X...about 60 feet. Of course I don't know what the pattern looks like, but the SWR curves come close to match
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00263.html (9,131 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:49:17 -0500
antennas which were equally unexplained as having to do with the selection of certain coax cables. One recent incident was with a local here that had trouble getting a PRO 67 to ?cooperate? only wit
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00268.html (8,000 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Cox, Norman R." <nrc@mst.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:02:59 +0000
I can't exactly remember, but I think the main difference in RG-213 and RG-8 is that one has definite MIL standards and the other (RG-8 I think) had more-or-less standards, but varied by manufacturer
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00269.html (9,742 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Ryan" <mryan001@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:23 -0500
Norm, You could be spot here....some of the newer low loss cables were probably not around when some of these antennas came to market, so the suggestion was for RG-8 or 213. But I would suspect that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00270.html (10,941 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:31:58 -0800
k9yc.com/Coax-Stubs.pdf While RG-numbers are tied to VERY old specs, they no longer mean much in today's world. About the only thing they tell us is the nominal Zo and the approximate size. 73, Jim K
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00271.html (8,426 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: David Blake via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:11:24 +0000 (UTC)
I've had outstanding results with Mosley antennas, especially the PRO67B.  With my PRO which was up from 1994 until I moved in 2010 I never had a problem or complaint.  DX results were excellent.  I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00272.html (11,320 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:25:36 -0700
I had a similar setup (except mine was a PRO-57A) and had similar excellent results. Without specific data I can only conclude that some folks have had some bad experiences therefore all their antenn
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00273.html (12,043 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:30:48 -0500
I can tell you one reason to spec RG213 over LMR400 to feed your Mosley tribander, or any other tribander for that matter. Your SWR will look better than it really is due the excessive loss of RG213
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00274.html (8,784 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:07:12 -0500
I too have had Mosley antennas over the years (TA33 and TA36) and in both cases I noticed a significant improvement in performance when I replaced the TA33 with a Cushcraft A4 and the TA36 with a HyG
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00280.html (12,568 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:14:45 -0500
I cannot comment regarding the Mosley antenna however working a lot of countries is not a measure of antenna performance. An accurate computer model or a test range would be. John KK9A I've had outst
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00281.html (9,641 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Baughn" <baughn@centurylink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:10:25 -0500
What do you suppose hams did before computers and test ranges? All they had was their knowledge, their antennas, and their radios. In 1925 Loren Windom 8GZ worked Australia with just over 1/2 a watt.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00282.html (11,150 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:37:51 -0800
There are some misconceptions here that are the result of advertising. Loss below about 500 MHz is entirely due to the resistance of the conductors at the frequency of interest. The dielectric does n
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00283.html (9,383 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: TexasRF--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:16:26 -0500
True, the loss is related to conductor resistance. But, in a given size 50 ohm cable, such as the .405" diameter sizes, RG213, LMR400, 9913 etc., the dielectric constant dictates the center conductor
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00284.html (10,188 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:55:03 -0800
Right -- except that I'd rewrite slightly by saying that "a low density foam dielectric ALLOWS a much larger center conductor for the same diameter cable. " So, indirectly the dielectric does contrib
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00285.html (9,265 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:06:31 -0500
I too have had Mosley antennas over the years (TA33 and TA36) and in both cases I noticed a significant improvement in performance when I replaced the TA33 with a Cushcraft A4 and the TA36 with a HyG
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00287.html (13,312 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:01:45 -0600
Listen to what Steve and Joe are saying, they are consistently right about antennas. ...or read the book "HF Tribander Performance" by K7LXC and N0AX. There are any number of antennas that are availa
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00288.html (15,401 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:44:52 -0800
On Tue,2/17/2015 3:06 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: K7LXC will not "talk his book" but I will say that multiple unbiased antenna range tests - including those reported in the K7LXC/N0AX "Tribander Test
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00289.html (10,798 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question (score: 1)
Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:19:36 -0600
N6BT wrote an article in the July 2000 issue of QST called "Everything Works" You do not need an efficient antenna to work DX and without a way to compare it to other antennas you have no way to meas
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-02/msg00290.html (9,745 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu