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.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:20:16 -0500; k9ay observed that vertical dipoles weren't very good antennas... When challenged by EI7BA, he observed that his 40m inverted vee @ 120' outperformed a vertical dipole with its top at the same height; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00311.html (8,685 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:14:11 +0000; The antenna is an "off-centre fed, capacity hatted, vertical dipole"... Try saying that after fifteen pints..{:o) John EI7BA _______________________________________________ __________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00312.html (10,118 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:27:45 +0000; Yes I am I am talking dipoles here..The dipoles have single wire capacity hats at either end, which is the most efficient way of loading them. The bottom capacity hat wire is 10ft over ground, and th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00313.html (10,617 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "DF3KV" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:43:57 +0100; A vertical dipole normally has a height of half the wave length, that means 82m on 160m. An inverted-V with its apex at 82m for sure will outperform the vertical dipole. You both are not talking abou; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00314.html (11,766 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:16:53 -0500; John, Why are you now feeding your vertical dipole asymmetrically? I see a center-fed element in one diagram, but it changes to a bottom feed at the end of your web page. Tnx! Paul, W9AC ___________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00315.html (9,014 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:01 +0000; Hi Paul... I originally fed at the centre of the vertical wire, but as I said on the web page, I moved the feed point because it's mechanically much simpler to feed at the bottom. The feed impedance; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00316.html (9,436 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:19:51 +0000; Hi Jim.. You're right of course.. Perhaps we can modify Jim K9YC's original statement and say that... A vertical dipole suspended at a point approximately one wavelength over ground is not as effecti; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00317.html (7,791 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:27:30 +0000; Hi Jim.. You're right of course.. Perhaps we can modify Jim K9YC's original statement and say that... A vertical dipole suspended at a point approximately one wavelength over ground is not as effecti; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00319.html (9,263 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:14:41 -0600; I don't think there is any relevance in comparing an inverted V to a vertical dipole. More important is the comparison between vertical monopoles and vertical dipoles. See this paper by Gandhi, Lazzi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00320.html (7,963 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:44:23 -0800; YES! AND it has gain in the horizontal plane. The ground reflection from a vertical dipole is FAR less beneficial than it is from a vertical monopole or horizontal dipole. 73, Jim K9YC ______________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00322.html (7,680 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:55:37 -0800; The relevance is a practical one. Let's say I have a rope in a pulley at 100 ft (or a tower that I can climb) and I want to support an antenna, and I have no other supports (or at least nothing high); /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00323.html (8,354 bytes)
32. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:23:41 -0600; Sorry the link I posted previously had a blank character that did not hotlink. This should work: http://www.ece.utah.edu/~ece3300/Labs/lab3/MONOPOLE%20ANTENNAS.pdf 73 Rob K5UJ _______________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00324.html (7,886 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical Dipoles (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:34:01 -0800; This is comparing a monopole over perfect ground to a dipole in free space. It is well known fact that is in virtually any text on antennas. It is irrelevant to us, because we are not talking about v; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00325.html (8,639 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:56:41 -0600; EI7BA wrote: Yes I am I am talking dipoles here..The dipoles have single wire capacity hats at either end, which is the most efficient way of loading them. The bottom capacity hat wire is 10ft over g; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00327.html (10,218 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Stu Ritter <ritter@privatei.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:14:32 -0700; I would like to thank everyone who has added information to this discussion. I would like to throw another question into the fray. Would it be possible to make the vertical dipole "Helically wound" a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00329.html (9,320 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: John Tait <johnei7ba@eircom.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:49:16 +0000; Jerry OM... It is NOT a loaded T.. I do know what a top loaded T is, as I have built a few.. This is a dipole.. Rudy built it.... I have built it.... others have built it....It works... Talk to Rudy; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00333.html (11,344 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: "David Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:00:59 -0500; I have two Mor-Gain 80/40 antennas I have up as mostly vertical dipoles. I need to get the one that I call my NE vertical up a few more feet. Its vertical to the coax feed point then slopes at 50 deg; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00335.html (10,124 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:25:11 +0000; It models fine for me: 120ft vertical radiator Bottom "capacity hat" 8ft off ground, 4 x 20ft horizontal wires + 4 perimeter wires Two top loading wires at 45 degrees, each 28ft long. All wires #14 c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00336.html (11,584 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:14:58 -0600; I read all those references before I commented, hoping to find a reason for the error. I am looking at the 160 meter version (not the 80 meter version), and as you described the top wire is 130 ft ti; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00339.html (9,958 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical dipoles (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:19:52 -0600; That's not the referenced antenna. Here is the referenced antenna. http://www.iol.ie/~bravo/low_band_antennae.htm#My%20TX%20Antennae Try modeling that one please. Jerry, K4SAV _______________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-11/msg00340.html (9,614 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]