Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Shadowing\s+of\s+small\s+antennas\s+by\s+larger\s+ones\?\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:19:33 +0100
Hi Guy, in a multiband array using a single boom it's not an easy task to find out where to place planar and different bands elements without affecting negatively the antenna performances on one or m
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00002.html (11,869 bytes)

2. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: jirka@jimaz.cz (Ji anda)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:36:31 +0100
73 ! Jiri OK1RI Hi Guy, in a multiband array using a single boom it's not an easy task to find out where to place planar and different bands elements without affecting negatively the antenna performa
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00003.html (12,681 bytes)

3. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: wesandlinda@triconet.org (N7WS)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:40:35 +0000
I sent this earlier but unfortunately only to Pete and not the group. Here it is again. Yes, the linear loading modeling is problematic. However, for this experiment I believe that installing equival
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00008.html (11,088 bytes)

4. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:46:47 -0500
In GENERAL, of course, I have NO argument with your statement of PRINCIPLE, nor have I posted such. But "shadowing" as used by various posters in this thread is an obsolete term that does not intuiti
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00012.html (15,375 bytes)

5. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: alwilliams@olywa.net (Al Williams)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:46:53 -0800
I have long wondered why the reflector on a yagi is longer than the driven element and why the directors are shorter. Also why do multiple directors increase the gain but multiple reflectors do not?
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00014.html (8,903 bytes)

6. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:25:43 -0600
What makes you think that a 40M SPLIT DIPOLE, Linearly Loaded, will exhibit a resonance on 15M? That may be true for a CONTINUOUS, SELF resonant full size 40M element (that is gamma or T-matched) but
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00015.html (10,276 bytes)

7. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:59:43 -0500
I'm at work, so don't have my diagrams to look at, but I seem to recall that the 40N series DE has an inductor at the center for impedance matching, so it really ISN'T a split dipole. The conundrum y
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00018.html (11,840 bytes)

8. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:37:55 -0600
SNIP it has The simplistic answer is: Reflectors REFLECT (very little signal continues past them to the rear so additional reflectors offer little additional benefit) Directors DIRECT (they focus the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00027.html (9,583 bytes)

9. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: ve3tu@rac.ca (Steve)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 05:13:49 +0000
Good point Tom, I purchased EZNEC to see if metal guy cables would effect the radiation pattern for a 3 stack for 20m on a 150 ft. tower. I modeled a single beam then a beam with a boom touching the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00028.html (10,067 bytes)

10. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: aunwin@fgi.net (art unwin)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:04:22 -0600
This is incorrect when speaking of multi (high density) elements or optimum elements per array wavelength. When you have multiple directors then multiple reflectors DO assist the gain as well as INCR
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00030.html (9,862 bytes)

11. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:07:06 -0500
I don't know about perfect... but I modeled my entire station, including guys insulated from the tower and grounded at their outer ends, and a 2-high stack with the bottom antenna inside the first se
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00032.html (10,042 bytes)

12. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:25:56 -0500
Not going in circles for me. Proof? It's not like this is an unvalidated/unmodeled antenna from a fly-by-night company, though we unfortunately do have some manufacturers of that ilk. For general pur
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00002.html (10,711 bytes)

13. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:30:55 -0500
Mechanical and wind-load considerations aside, is there a significant gain/pattern problem with placing a significantly larger antenna above a smaller one on the same tower? For example, consider a F
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00716.html (9,022 bytes)

14. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: k6ll@juno.com (Dave Hachadorian)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:32:39 -0700
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:30:55 -0500 Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> writes: Since the far-field pattern is made up of equal parts of direct ray and ground-reflected ray, it seems to me that it wouldn
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00718.html (9,361 bytes)

15. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:38:51 -0500
That implies ground loss is zero and the near field effect of a large structure near the antenna will have no effect. We can be certain there is some ground loss and that a large antenna mounted nea
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00720.html (9,818 bytes)

16. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: jirka@jimaz.cz (Ji anda)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:43:06 +0100
The effect of large antenna close to a smaller one is always HUGE. Try to model it and you will see. The effect can be eliminated by changing the sizes of the given antennas, the results are often un
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00722.html (11,580 bytes)

17. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:40:23 -0500
To: <towertalk@contesting.com> No, not ALWAYS. Definitely CAN be huge. In the case of the F12 x40N series of antennas, the linear loading produces an antenna that is not resonant at 15 meters, as op
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00723.html (10,816 bytes)

18. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: jirka@jimaz.cz (Ji&oslash;&iacute; Sanda)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:35:42 +0100
Hi, I agree. 1. Accuracy of modeling. Even with NEC2 or MININEC you get some results and you get probably lower impedances than the reality but the radiation pattern is probably more-less correct. 2.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00725.html (11,893 bytes)

19. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:36:31 -0500
The example you quote, C19 and 340N, is probably an exception that proves the rule. In general I agree with W8JI's assessment. These two antennas, though, carry time spent in *developing* an independ
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00726.html (10,871 bytes)

20. [TowerTalk] Shadowing of small antennas by larger ones? (score: 1)
Author: eugenejensen@nyc.rr.com (Eugene Jensen)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:38:17 -0500
Force 12 C-19XR tribander, with a Force 12 240N 40-meter antenna with 12 feet between them. How do think that would play out. I'm following this with a lot of interest as in the spring I was planning
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00727.html (9,630 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu