Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+NVIS\s+antennas\s+Re\:\s+dumbing\s+down\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:24:41 -0700
Might well be, though, that a 18" or 2' high wire is much easier to deploy in a field situation, than trying to get a wire up 1/4 wavelength on 40 or 80? From a system standpoint, you might be willin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00553.html (13,770 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: W0UN -- John Brosnahan <shr@swtexas.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:50:55 -0500
I once put up an ionospheric sounding antenna in Puerto Rico that was a complex wire array to cover 2- 30 MHz and it was strung between two 100 ft towers that I had installed in a flooded field. The
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00556.html (11,562 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:59:54 -0400
who a antenna the easier to deploy wavelength on 40 or accept the lower likely to be near it) If that is the advantage he had in mind, the writer would have said that Jim. He plainly gets into nonse
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00557.html (11,212 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:18:14 -0700
Not that THIS author knew what he was talking about.. The original inventor of the 18" idea (which has been around for at least 5-10 years, I think) was the one who decided that it was a "reasonable
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00566.html (11,660 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: ersmar@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:33:55 +0000
TT: FWIW - Here's a possible source for the eighteen-inch-above-ground NVIS antenna fables: http://www.tactical-link.com/field_deployed_nvis.htm . 73 de Gene Smar AD3F _______________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00571.html (10,226 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:02:24 -0700
Interesting.. " NVIS was originally evaluated by U.S. Army Forces in Thailand during the Vietnam conflict in the mid-1960's " Yup.. that would be George Hagn's work, I suspect. I ran a quick NEC4 mod
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00587.html (11,128 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:52:12 -0400
"average earth" up (9 dBi) dBi If you look at Hagn's actual measured data you'll see over 30 mS or 50 mS/m soil (very good earth) FS drops several dB as antenna heights move below .05 wl. .05 wl wou
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00588.html (10,291 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: ersmar@comcast.net
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:41:13 +0000
TT: The distortion that is mentioned below and in (the poorly edited) QST article is actually alleged multi-path interference. The explanation I've read in a couple of sources is thus: When an NVIS a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00596.html (14,352 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:49:04 -0700
Perhaps. I did say it was a quick model. I suspect that the better the ground, the more pronounced the effect. Or, more properly, there's some ground properties which have an optimum match to the fi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00608.html (12,537 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: Gary <gaschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:52:13 -0400
doesn't "real Jim, I think he does mean "does not propagate on ground wave". Horizontal polarization will not support a ground wave signal. It gets shorted out by the earth. A vertically polarized si
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00618.html (9,402 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:10:55 -0400
over dB the better the Not "perhaps", that's exactly how it is over wide variations in soil. Over Georgia clay in my pastures the earth losses just suck the signal away from a low dipole. In rocky C
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00655.html (9,934 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:40:55 -0400
73, Tom W8JI -- Original Message -- From: "Gary" <gaschafer@comcast.net> To: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net> Cc: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; <ersmar@comcast.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com> S
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00656.html (11,530 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:22:13 -0700
Hmmm.. however, is it that the wave (launched by some mystery box) can't propagate over the dielectric boundary as horizontally polarized,OR, is it that a practical antenna can't launch a horizontal
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00660.html (12,007 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS antennas Re: dumbing down (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:44:09 -0400
box) can't propagate is it that a wave because it has Both. That _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Statio
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-07/msg00670.html (9,457 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu