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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Vertical\s+dipoles\s*$/: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 00:04:53 -0500; Hi Eric, This is gone so deep into your specific antenna, my points to the people considering an HF J-pole are probably missed. My points are.. 1.) It is easy to "mess up" a J-pole, because it is a *; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-01/msg00029.html (8,439 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson); Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:24:04 -0700 (MST); Hi Tom, Yes, I realize that _all_ of my comments apply specifically to the antenna I was describing and _only_ that antenna. They are not intended to be interpereted as "J-poles are generally wonderf; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-01/msg00046.html (14,120 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: tleaf@hotmail.com (Ted Leaf); Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:05:21 PST; Jim KH6M in his post is considering vertical dipoles. There has be been a previous post of success using a wire J-Pole. My understanding is (correct me if I am wrong) that a J-Pole is not much affect; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00458.html (7,855 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:44:39 -0500; Hi Ted. A J-pole is not as ground independent as one might think or read. It is an end-fed 1/2 wl antenna , fed by a 1/4 wl stub. Because the end impedance of a 1/2 wl is not infinite, but rather som; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00460.html (8,621 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson); Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:19:16 -0700 (MST); Hi Ted, It was probably my post about our J-pole in the CQWW160CW a few years back that you are referring to. To answer your question; _ALL_ antennas are much affected by their height above ground. T; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00484.html (9,068 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson); Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:57:45 -0700 (MST); Hi Tom, To: <towertalk@contesting.com> We did not observe any telltale indications of an excessive feedline radiation problem with the one we used on 160 a few years back. And we were looking for thi; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00485.html (10,115 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:02:34 -0500; Hi Eric, Respectfully Eric, it depends on how you "looked". The antenna doesn't work "bad", it just doesn't work the way most people or models predict. First the terms. The top 1/2 sticking straight; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00498.html (12,704 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: alsopb@gloryroad.net (alsopb); Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:37:20 +0000; I guess I'm missing something. Is there any benefit of any kind (especially on the HF bands) to using a J-pole? It strikes me it is an intellectual persuit without any real world benefits. de Brian/K; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00501.html (7,552 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson); Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:01:48 -0700 (MST); To: <towertalk@contesting.com> We were looking explicitly for RF current flowing on the outside of the coax feedline shield. We were admittedly not using a hypersensitive method to quantify it. But i; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00507.html (17,539 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson); Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:28:12 -0700 (MST); Hi Brian, It depends on what you call a benefit. For us there was a HUGE benefit in being able to locate a full sized halfwave vertical radiator at a particular point fairly high in the air and feed; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-12/msg00510.html (9,172 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Stu Ritter <ritter@privatei.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:01:03 -0700; Can anyone provide some references for constructing/feeding vertical dipoles for the low bands? Thanks in advance, Stu N0LEF _______________________________________________ __________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00294.html (7,153 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:23:12 -0800; Take a look at N6LF's website, which shows an interesting method. Then look at http://audiosystemsgroup.com/NCDXACoaxChokesPPT.pdf which shows my variation of that method using ferrite chokes. 73, Ji; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00296.html (7,323 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Michael Goins <wmgoins@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:43:29 -0600; Good information, but not necessarily for a regular vertical dipole center-fed with coax or feeders as it would essentially be a dipole set on end and fed in ther middle with the coax (or feeders) co; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00297.html (8,479 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:58:29 -0800; dipole Michael, This IS a "regular vertical dipole," it behaves exactly the same as if it were a horizontal dipole and coax turned on its side, except that it needs only one support, not two. Rudy's; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00300.html (9,049 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:16:24 -0700; The antenna described by K9YC is in fact fed at the center as can be verified by its feedpoint impedance, which is essentially the same as any other dipole. 73, Dave AB7E ____________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00301.html (10,226 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "David J. Sourdis" <hk1kxa@hotmail.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:08:28 -0500; http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump2.cgi?ID=7466 David HK1KXA EC5KXA _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00304.html (8,600 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:22:21 +0000; Hi Jim.. I'd have to disagree with that statement. I have both vertical dipoles and inverted Vs for 80 and 160m. The Verticals are separated from the Vs by about 500 yds, so they don't "see" each oth; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00306.html (9,369 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Ian Hill - K8MM <ihk8mm@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:29:19 -0500; Ian - K8MM _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00308.html (9,848 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:08:36 -0800; I'm missing a lot in your email. First, you say you're talking about a vertical dipole for 160M, and that the highest point is 55 ft. How can that be? A half wave on 160M is 80M, which is about 260 f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00309.html (9,108 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:45:08 -0800; Hold on a minute -- I think we are talking about very different antennas. :) I have a top-loaded vertical (some would call it a monopole) for 160M that works a treat, but it is not a DIPOLE. It's an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00310.html (8,917 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]