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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+optimum\s+vertical\s+height\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] optimum vertical height (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 16:25:20 -0700; Or length, really... Say you have a vertical that can be any arbitrary length, and you have a (presumed perfect lossless) tuner at the base of the vertical. What length should one choose, if you want; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-05/msg00534.html (7,388 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical height (score: 1): Author: Dan <n5ar@air-pipe.com>; Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:53:55 -0700; Jim, obviously you are quite knowledgeable about antennas and have mentioned most of the factors to be considered. You did not mention the importance of the available ground system. If you have a los; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-05/msg00537.html (10,167 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical height (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:55:59 -0700; For the purposes of discussion, assume some non-perfect ground (and, in any case, the "salt water marsh" for great vertical performance is more in the far field for ground reflection, than in the "cl; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-05/msg00540.html (9,956 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical height (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:16:31 -0400; If you are willing to settle for the top end being 20 meters then 43' is just a little long as a 5/8ths wave. I can't model it, but I'd guess there are probably some lobes that would work on 15 and 1; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-05/msg00541.html (12,062 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]