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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Vertical\s+vs\s+Beam\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: John Geiger <aa5jg@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:39:52 -0700 (PDT); I have a question for the group about experiences with different antennas: I was looking at a recent issue of CQ at the local bookstore tonight (it wasn't the April issue) and in a column dealing wit; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00018.html (6,923 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "David J Windisch" <davidjw@cinci.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 05:03:35 -0400; John and uncounted others, Get the free evaluation version of EZNEC, study how to model a bit, take the ARRL antenna course, have a go with HFTA, and see for yourself. Move to an unrestricted area, p; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00019.html (8,057 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:17:18 -0400; Well. Shoot, John. It really kinda depends, on your goals, your financial resources, and available real estate, target bands and target contact locations, and MORE... but my research tells me THE ANT; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00020.html (13,982 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:22:58 -0500; Whenever these statements that say a vertically polarized (single element) antenna is just as good as some sort of yagi (usually 2 elements and horizontal) appear, they almost always leave out one or; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00021.html (8,323 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:03:26 -0500; AA5JG wrote: I was looking at a recent issue of CQ at the local bookstore tonight (it wasn't the April issue) and in a column dealing with semi stealth antennas, they mentioned that a 3/8 or 1/2 vert; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00022.html (10,199 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:37:37 -0400; I agree with K4SAV - with only one minor exception... considering typical urban lot sizes, for many ham I think the cross-over band is 40 meters. Getting an 80 meter dipole up high enough, and long e; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00025.html (8,346 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:10:27 -0400; It seems like most every one is thinking along the same lines...IE...Gain when often, and particularly so on the lower bands, front to back and front to side may be as, or even more important than ga; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00029.html (10,482 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:10:28 -0600; On the high bands the beams usually win out over my verticals but not always. I think much of it has to do with the incoming angle of the signal. The verticals are always noisier. I wish I had the mo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00030.html (10,678 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:35:03 -0400; Again, it depends on height. EZNEC and similar software will show the dipole (in its favored direction) will equal the vertical at around 50 feet in transmit. In receive the dipole will generally be; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00033.html (11,299 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:42:06 -0500; The dipole, at 300 ft. on 160 doesn't beat the 1/4 w. vertical because even 300 feet on 160 isn't high enough. That's like around 35 feet high for a dipole on 20 meters. High enough to make plenty of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00035.html (9,257 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:35:23 -0700; I've studied this a bit, and about a year ago turned it into an applications note, and then a presentation at several hamfests. The app note is http://audiosystemsgroup.com/ComparingVerticalsandDipol; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00040.html (10,188 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:51:07 -0700; No steak dinner needed, but check out http://www.freewebs.com/hypower/ Barry's longer loaded antennas (typically 60-70% of full size) work VERY well. The Limited Space antennna PPT includes NEC model; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00044.html (9,315 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:48:37 -0400; OK -- I will check them out. Maybe their 20/40/80 combination (85 feet) might fit in somehow... or the 100 foot 40/80/160 might if I fold down the ends a bit (maybe ten percent each side...) What I n; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00052.html (9,359 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:51:42 -0700; I do NOT recommend the 20/40/80 -- I helped a neighbor install one, and the 20M coil is causing more trouble than its worth. Go for the 80/40 _______________________________________________ _________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00053.html (9,071 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:54:47 -0400; OK -- got it. I am, however, not figuring or finding what you mean by the "PTT " and what "app notes" you made reference to in your previous post. I am not finding them on the vendor's site... are th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00054.html (9,101 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:01:20 -0700; I posted links to app notes and a power point file in an early email in this thread. They are mine, not the vendor's. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ ____________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00056.html (8,903 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Paul@N4LCD.com; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:11:10 -0400; Jim, Do you have any presentations on horizontal loops that are one wavelength at the lowest required frequency? 73, Paul N4LCD _______________________________________________ ______________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00062.html (8,945 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:47:34 -0700; No. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/li; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00067.html (9,022 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: N6FD <n6fd@mchsi.com>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:44:22 -0700; I managed to get one onto my 110X60 lot with some effort. It looks more like a "S" than straight, but gets me on the air. I feed it as an offset dipole to get on a number of bands. I also have a pair; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00075.html (9,708 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:56:12 -0800; I have been following this thread with great interest. I'm curious how many of the guys who have responded have ever built and/or used a 1/2 wave vertical,,, other than me..... One guy said:""1/2 wav; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00076.html (10,848 bytes)

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