Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+precipitation\s+static\s+\&\s+folded\s+verticals\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: eric@k3na.org (Eric Scace)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:09:14 +0300
I'm looking for specific information which compares the level of precipitation static on folded vs unfolded antennas (preferably verticals). Is anyone aware of published literature which, for example
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00586.html (8,573 bytes)

2. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:41:21 -0500
Hi Eric, You won't find any data on this, because there isn't any reason to take the data in the first place. Precipitation static is caused by corona discharges from the antenna or from other struct
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00590.html (10,509 bytes)

3. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: k1ir@designet.com (Jim Idelson)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:27:30 -0500
Tom, How effective are those top-of-the-mast "porcupine" discharge devices, in your experience? Is it worth a trip up the tower, removing big Yagis and lowering the mast, to install one? A lot of was
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00591.html (11,419 bytes)

4. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:28:02 -0500
Interesting! Should I infer from this that it would probably be good practice to form the ends of wire dipoles into smoothly curved loops and perhaps also used insulated wire, in the interest of lowe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00593.html (9,307 bytes)

5. FW: [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: jirka@jimaz.cz (Jiøí Sanda)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:49:17 -0800
Hi, not exactly true. My observation: 20m - two Yagis on two towers - one @52m the other @24m. The "static" is always worse on the high one. Here I agree with Tom. Sometimes it helps to listen on 20m
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00594.html (10,578 bytes)

6. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:23:01 EST
Depends on who you talk to. Many users and manufacturers of them point out dramatic improvements by using them. Others say that they don't work and aren't worth installing. I tend to think "it couldn
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00599.html (9,157 bytes)

7. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: eric@k3na.org (Eric Scace)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:20:52 +0300
I'm looking for specific information which compares the level of precipitation static on folded vs unfolded antennas (preferably verticals). Is anyone aware of published literature which, for example
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00605.html (9,373 bytes)

8. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:56:45 EST
the The only thing that seems to help shielding from "precipitation static" is the higher antenna or structure (umbrella effect). I.e. in stacked beams situation, the top beam would have s9+20 noise,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00606.html (10,044 bytes)

9. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:07:36 -0500
Hi Jim, In most of not all cases, the "charge" you are dealing with is mostly contained in a cloud or cloud cover. (It can be a cloud of dust also, I suppose.) You can NOT bleed off that charge with
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00607.html (11,458 bytes)

10. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: n5nug@ix.netcom.com (N5NUG)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:36:13 -0600
Below is my experience with two different antenna designs using only ham equipment for data collection and reference over a period of about six months of day and night comparisons (June-November 1993
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00608.html (12,555 bytes)

11. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:56:06 EST
... It appears that two different antennas were compared, with different radiation patterns. One quarter wave (monopole) vs. top loaded folded vertical that was resonant around 2.4 MHz. Folded vertic
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00609.html (10,710 bytes)

12. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: n5nug@ix.netcom.com (N5NUG)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:00:39 -0600
The folded top loaded vertical was resonant at 7 Mhz with the folded skirt system coupled to the feed line through a series capacitor. The structure's natural resonant for a (30 ohm +/-) feed point w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00612.html (12,419 bytes)

13. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:39:45 EST
By using series capacitor you are basically matching (longer) radiator to your feedline, but the longer radiator has different radiation pattern - more compressed to horizon and narrower lobe(s) - di
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00615.html (9,822 bytes)

14. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:33:24 -0500
Hi Ed, This was mainly about precipitation static, but your comments appear to be about noise in general including precipitation static. Remember what causes precipitation static. It is a corona disc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00628.html (12,154 bytes)

15. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: n5nug@ix.netcom.com (N5NUG)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:43:08 -0600
Hello Tom: Thanks for your input. Yes, the original question was about precipitation static. I have never had much of a problem with precipitation static. Only a lightning strike once about 6 years a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00630.html (11,322 bytes)

16. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:09:54 -0500
Hi Ed, I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately the conclusions only apply to the antennas mounted at you QTH, and nowhere else. In that environment, you could have induction field (either electric o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00632.html (11,891 bytes)

17. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: wa3gin@erols.com (David Jordan)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:15:09 -0500
My subjective experience with precipitation static... Down on the farm the average noise level is between "S" zero and "S" one. When a rain or snow storm moves toward the my location the noise level
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00636.html (10,568 bytes)

18. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:47:38 -0500
Hi Dave, I observe the same effect, except I have low-height directional receiving antennas that are up to 1/2 mile from my transmitting antennas. Not in my experience, or the experience of others. 1
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00637.html (11,716 bytes)

19. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: wa3gin@erols.com (David Jordan)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:14:46 -0500
Hi Tom, Yes, I'm hearing white noise build-up rather than sizzle...my antennas are relatively low for 160m (50-60ft). Storms usually coming from the same direction so can't talk to that...also the st
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00638.html (9,240 bytes)

20. [TowerTalk] precipitation static & folded verticals (score: 1)
Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:39:48 -0500
Hi, Tom, et al, Precisely. And that is my observation as well. It is this exact thing that convinces me that the real mechanism for the snow static is still not really nailed down. If the phenomenon
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00642.html (10,675 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu