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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+re\s+Radials\s*$/: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:29:18 +0000; It depends on whether or not you either bury them, lay them flat on the ground or elevate them a significant distance in terms of wavelength. If you bury them or lay them on the ground the 40 meter 1; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00244.html (7,960 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Dave Tipton <dave@lodave.org>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:46:31 -0700 (PDT); Last weekend, at Hamcom, I was talking to one of the guys at Force 12, and he pretty much confirmed what you said. (My question was "Why 20 foot radials on 160Meters? How's that gonna work?" Where it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00247.html (9,020 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Newby, Wayne D." <newbywd@ornl.gov>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:51:12 -0400; If you go to the Davis RF web site you can buy #16 copper ground radial wire for $39 per 1000 feet. I used over 6000 feet of it on my Hy-Tower. They are real nice people to deal with. http://www.davi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00249.html (8,573 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:56:23 -0700; Yes indeedy.. copper prices have shot through the roof. Starts to make aluminum electric fence wire look more attractive. 60% of the conductivity of copper, but less than half the price, so just lay; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00251.html (8,498 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:13:21 -0500; But....aluminum in a lot of soil types will disintegrate in a couple of years, so best to know the soil characteristics before making the effort to lay a bunch of aluminum down. 68 bucks for a 1000'; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00252.html (9,725 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:22:48 -0400; For past Field Days, I've used old telephone cable. Mark the cable for each band's radial length, open the cable and cut one of the conductors for that band. When I used open wire I usually made the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00253.html (8,703 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:47:05 +0000; the davis RF price for #16 looks pretty good by current pricing however I am a bit leery of the physical robustness of #16. WOR reportedly tried aluminum at one time and it didn't work out for some r; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00262.html (12,699 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Newby, Wayne D." <newbywd@ornl.gov>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:06:00 -0400; I understand where you are coming from on the robustness of the #16. Originally I was concerned too. However this is the second vertical I have used it on and had the wire down for several years with; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00264.html (13,288 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Gene Bigham" <jbigham2@kc.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:49:27 -0500; I did not use nails, but large staples that are available from the Wal Mart and others, these are aluminum I think and about 6 to 8 inches long, they hold the wire down until the sod grows over in le; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00290.html (7,782 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:45:30 -0400; I don't think that 4 or 5 20 foot radials are going to be a terribly effective groundplane for a 160m vertical.... Even if you bury them. True, the far ends of the wire do less and less "work" of a g; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00339.html (8,974 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:52:44 -0500; Actually, they can be MUCH shorter than .22 wl, as long as you have enough of them. Many more shorter is quite a bit better than many fewer longer. There are free programs by G4FGQ, RADIAL2 is the na; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00346.html (12,347 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:11:12 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** I've never understood the fascination with verticals for the low bands. If you put up a dipole or inverted vee, you get 100% efficiency, lower receive noise, u; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00348.html (9,192 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:44:21 -0700; I have A/B'ed verticals vs inverted vees on many bands. On 160M, a 90 ft vertical will beat a 90 ft high inverted vee by 10 to 20 dB, even on local signals. On 80, an inverted vee becomes competitiv; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00349.html (9,994 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: bob finger <finger@goeaston.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:44:35 -0400; Bill: You are probably not a dx hound. Lowering the angle is EVERYTHING to many of us. I agree dipoles at less than 1/2 wave high are excellent for close in work and when the dx arrival angles are hi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00350.html (9,368 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:54:45 -0400; It depends entirely on what your goals are on the low bands. DX is primarily a low angle mode ... the low dipole may have more gain at its maximum point but unless the dipole is more than 1/4 wave ab; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00351.html (9,401 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: ersmar@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:12:30 +0000; TT: I suppose the bottom line here is: On the low bands, one can never have too many antennas. 73 de Gene Smar AD3F _______________________________________________ ___________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00353.html (9,716 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:21:59 +0200; Hi Bill, My dipoles on all three low bands are at 100 feet. The only band where dx is great with the dipole is 40m. On 80m the dipole usually is same strength as the vertical to the US East cost, to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00354.html (10,296 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Richard M. Gillingham" <rmoodyg@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:24:47 -0400; My fascination with them for the low bands is that I haven't the space for a wire that long... Perhaps for 40, but not for 80, and certainly not for 160.. And the radial field is a compromise too, fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00355.html (10,927 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:44:03 -0500; Bill, If you don't understand the fascination, then you are not a DX chaser on those bands, in which case you have no use for a vertical (other than convenience or quick temp setup) If you seriously; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00356.html (11,899 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@adelphia.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:55:00 -0400; I beg to differ. Signals often come in at high angles during sunset and sunrise. My friend K1UO worked JT1 on 160m at his local sunset using an inverted V with apex at 60ft during such an opening! Th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00357.html (9,227 bytes)

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