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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Radial\s+Length\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: "Don Josephs" <djosephs@beecreek.net>; Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:53:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time); Folks de K5DEJ Is there a formula for determining the radial length, i.e. other than 468/f MHz ??? I am trying to get a High Sierra 1800 Pro to resonate on my Motor Home and have not been successful,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00466.html (7,646 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:03:38 -0700; There isn't a formula that will work for you. Your motor home is a big metal object in the reactive near field and will screw up whatever you calculate. (unless you're really ambitious and want to bu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00468.html (9,185 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: <paul@w8aef.com>; Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:16:17 -0000; The biggest problem I have seen with antennas on motor homes is they are mounted such that the antenna itself is too close to the motor home frame. You gotta get the antenna away from the frame, eith; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00469.html (10,932 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: Frank Latos <flatos@duosys.com>; Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:23:16 -0700; I have essentially the same antenna. My installation (on a full-size pickup truck) works well on 80, 40, and 30 meters with a 4:1 "un-un" transformer for impedance matching. I used the "5-ratio un-u; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00472.html (8,087 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: "Dudley Chapman" <chief@thechief.com>; Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:18:21 -0400; Don, An HF whip on a motor home is similar to one on any vehicle. Since the vehicle capacitively couples to the ground, it is similar to a ground mounted vertical with radials lying on or very near t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00481.html (10,487 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:06:33 -0400; other than 468/f resonate on my Motor Having been through the mobile exercise several times, I suspect you probably either have the antenna mounted against the vertical sheetmetal, wiring, ladders,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00485.html (9,224 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial Length (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:06:54 -0400; other than 468/f resonate on my Motor Having been through the mobile exercise several times, I suspect you probably either have the antenna mounted against the vertical sheetmetal, wiring, ladders,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-06/msg00486.html (9,047 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:20:13 -0700; Howdy again I was just out laying some radials and I remembered something I read somewhere. What I read was that radials only have to be as long as the antenna. The one I put up is about 109 feet lon; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00230.html (7,203 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Larry Banks" <larryb.w1dyj@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:49:02 -0400; The length of your radials is a function of the number of them. The ARRL Antenna Book has a lot of very good information about this. 73, Larry W1DYJ _______________________________________________ __; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00231.html (8,112 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:00:10 -0700; Thanks Larry. I don't have the antenna book, but I do have the LBDX'ing book here. Of course, the recommended length there is 125 feet. I have about 40 radials from 30 to 60 feet (used to be where on; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00234.html (8,119 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:42:20 -0800; A good place to read about this is on N6LF's website. He wrote some of the stuff in the Antenna Book on the topic. 73, Jim _______________________________________________ ____________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00236.html (7,239 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:58:23 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Well, yes and no. If the radials are laid directly on the earth, length is much less critical than if they were up in the air, as in a counterpoise. The missing; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00238.html (7,501 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Alex Malyava" <alex.k2bb@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:34:21 -0400; there is an article (in russian - http://dl2kq.de/ant/3-33.htm) on DL2KQ website with MMANA/NEC2 computer analysis of vertical of various length like 1/8, 1/4 and 5/8 with radials like 1/10, 1/4 and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00248.html (9,281 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: <donovanf@starpower.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:22:06 -0400 (EDT); W8JI posted a classic reply to this question nearly ten years ago. Not coincidentally, sixty 1/4 wavelength radials have since become the defacto standard among serious 160 meter DXers. Here's a brie; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00249.html (14,089 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Larry Banks" <larryb.w1dyj@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:41:40 -0400; Just to close the loop an all of this great info, I will paraphrase from the ARRL Antenna Book, (c) 2007, 21st edition, page 3-9 which matches up pretty well with all of these comments: -- Practical; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00250.html (17,262 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Robert Carroll" <w2wg@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:23:26 -0400; The general sense of the discussions I have read is that the intent of the radials is not to provide a near perfect reflecting surface under the antenna, but to provide a ground return with as little; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00252.html (18,624 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: "Larry Banks" <larryb.w1dyj@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:33:52 -0400; My understanding is that the linear distance between radials determines ground resistance which needs to be minimized.. This is why more radials continue to be useful when they are longer. The shorte; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00253.html (21,987 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:43:18 -0500; It is interesting to compare Cebik's calculations for gain versus number of radials with that which W8JI measured. Cebik calculated that the gain difference between 4 radials and 64 radials was 1.2 d; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00254.html (13,966 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:47:49 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- The difference is no doubt due to differences in ground conductivity. If you live over highly conductive ground, the number of radials would have less impact. Ov; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00256.html (8,515 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial length (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:38:52 -0500; -- Poor ground does make the difference larger, but to account for a gain difference of 5.5 dB in NEC, the ground quality at W8JI would have to be poorer that that in downtown New York City in the mi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-03/msg00259.html (9,318 bytes)

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