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.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 02:19:40 +0200; I used a half wave vertical on 40m above 130 radials 15-30m long. This vertical was tested for half a year against a straight dipol at 30m. There was not any path where the vertical came near the per; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00078.html (12,915 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:52:29 -0400; While the current maxima may be 1/4 wave above ground the high E field end of the 1/2 wave vertical (or vertical dipole) is very close to the ground. As a result a 1/2 wave vertical sustains substan; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00082.html (13,958 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:21:03 -0400; My experience has been as follows: I have a half-sloper hanging off a 64 foot self-supporter for 80 meters. This acts as a vertical. I have an inverted vee about 250 feet away on a 48 foot tower. Mos; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00086.html (11,321 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:06:50 -0800; info only: The hy-gain vertical I was referring to in this posting is the hy-gain DX77.... 73 MAL N7MAL BULLHEAD CITY, AZ http://www.n7mal.com Everyone in the world is entitled to be burdened by my o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00096.html (11,807 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:41:46 -0400; I did. I use it every time I'm on 40m. If it had zero current flowing into the base, no power would be radiated :-) I'll have to check again to make sure, but I'm pretty sure disconnecting the groun; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00098.html (11,292 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:00:43 -0700; WWV uses 1/2 wave verticals: http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/stations/wwv.html http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/271.pdf Interesting design with the 9 wire skirt. They mention in the old QST articl; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00102.html (11,009 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <billaycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:36:54 -0500; As far as the subject of 1/2 wave verticals goes, the WWV site leaves out a LOT! 1. Where is the feed point? 2. what is the feed point impedance? 3. Are the lower ends of the "guys" grounded? 4. Why; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00111.html (9,768 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Hargrave" <w5ifp@gvtc.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:09:59 -0800; Bill, I have used this type antenna for several years. It is a very common VHF/UHF antenna because of its simplicity. It makes a great 17 meter antenna and is easy to construct without a lot of real; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00114.html (11,250 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:24:27 -0400; One can see the answers to most of these questions in the picture here: http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/images/radiostations/wwvh-large/wwvh5.jpg All of the verticals are similar in construction ... note; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00116.html (11,462 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <billaycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:38:07 -0500; Jim I have used that type. In fact-- my first non-ducky 2M antenna was made on an SO238 panel mount, hung from the ceiling light fixture in the shack. However there is confusion about the difference; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00118.html (13,272 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Bill Axelrod" <bill@axelrods.org>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:42:43 -0500; Now that we are sharing on-the-air comparisons, here's mine from my last QTH on a WV mountainside: Antennas: 40 and 30 meter - two element yagi at 80ft (24M) 20 thru 10 meters - 3 elements at 73' (~2; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00119.html (15,610 bytes)
32. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Hargrave" <w5ifp@gvtc.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:39:23 -0800; Hi Bill, Well, I have one of those in my barn hanging over the workbench. It has a coat hanger wire coming down from each of the four mounting holes. Its real easy to get the correct angle to provide; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00123.html (14,231 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:50:52 -0400; Ah...er... RIGHT -- Found Them !!! Thanks for the nudge. == Richards - K8JHR == _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00131.html (9,605 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:25:25 -0700; The article says 50 ohms. No, the article indicates they are insulated Makes for a neat installation, but I can't imagine that it makes any difference to performance whatsoever. One interesting thing; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00145.html (10,649 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <billaycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:45:16 -0500; MikeThanks, much. It is interesting that, as far as I can recall, yours is the first reference (Directly) to the QST article. I had forgotten it (Senior moment?) I must go back and re-read. About the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00152.html (12,539 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:59:14 -0400; The radials were added at WWVH after field strength testing showed that the half wave verticals failed to produce the expected field strength due to e-field losses in the ground below the bottom end; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00160.html (15,687 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:06:36 +0000; Subject should be 'Vertical AND Beam', or 'belt and suspenders', come to think of it, they are horizontal and vertical as well... in any case, having both is better than having to pick one or the oth; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00161.html (9,097 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>; Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:07:25 -0500; I can support what David says about this. I have both a 40m Telrex full-sized single element mounted horizontal at 67 feet and a (nearly) vertical wire dipole with the top approximately 60 feet. They; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00165.html (9,767 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:56:03 -0700; Certainly -- if you have the real estate and bank account to support it. Few of us are that lucky. I was a ham for 50 years before I got to that point. 73, Jim Brown K9YC ____________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00177.html (9,061 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:17:43 -0700; I'll jump in here. I recently got my MonstIR Yagi operational. I expected an improvement vs my old antennas (inverted vees and verticals). What surprised me is how big the improvement is on 30 and 40; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00188.html (9,586 bytes)

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