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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Re\:\s+Optimum\s+Stacking\s+Distance\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Re: Optimum Stacking Distance (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:32:35 +0200; Formula you are looking for might be: y X= -- 2sin(Z/2) where X= optimal stacking distance Y= lambda (boom lenght) Z= 3 dB beamwith angle This is from work by DL6WU This is alo used Stacking dist= 57; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-07/msg00595.html (11,309 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Re: Optimum Stacking Distance (score: 1): Author: Jan.E.Holm@telia.se (Jan.E.Holm@telia.se); Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:16:13 +0200; Yes, as SM2CEW points out these formulas are overruled these days, this stuff is probably 20 years old by now. However, using these formulas might not produce a 100% optimum array but I dont think it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-07/msg00597.html (12,810 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]