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.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@adelphia.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:06:27 -0400; I'm not sure that my above statement applies in all areas of the world. Bob Brown, NM7M, has done some interesting work on 160m propagation that suggests that horizontal antennas might actually outpe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00358.html (9,993 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:07 -0500; Yes, that is a "special case" and has been theorized about in the literature...however, the general and more typical case is low angle based. Asserting the exception doesn't create the rule, it just; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00359.html (11,174 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:58:29 -0700; Except that Reg's program isn't necessarily a very good model of radials. He's modeling the radial field as a bunch of lossy transmission lines (which is sort of fine), but doesn't account for the tr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00361.html (11,524 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Dave Tipton <dave@lodave.org>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:16:43 -0700 (PDT); Well.. I have an old 5BTV (Hustler) that I'm going to put up this weekend... It is spec'd for 1/4 wave radials on each band, telling me that I need to have 3 on each band... MY question... If I were; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00362.html (11,916 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:41:46 -0500; 40 ought to work really well! <grin> Assuming you meant 8 on 40, I think you will be pleased with the result. 73, Keith NM5G --Original Message-- From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towert; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00363.html (12,141 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "AA6DX - Mark" <aa6dx@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:11:28 -0700; Well, heck .. start off with the premise that once you lay a waaaarrrrr on/in the ground, it is no longer resonant, in the first place! And, the computer programs for antenna modeling have not a clue; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00364.html (11,218 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:27 -0700; I believe that is for resonant radials, suspended some way above the ground. Lay down, as in put on the surface of the ground or close to it? If so, it doesn't matter what length they are... they're; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00365.html (10,604 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:40:14 -0400; One of my all time favorite antennas was an old vertical I dragged around with me all over the world during my Army days. It was an old HyGain 14AVQ and I mounted it on a 33' pushup mast with four sl; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00371.html (10,371 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:11:01 -0500; Dave, If you are going to lay the radials on the ground and the vertical is ground mounted, then I think you would be very happy with the moderate performance of 16 radials, 1/4 wave or so on the low; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00372.html (13,951 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Dave Tipton <dave@lodave.org>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT); Ok, I like this idea and it makes the most sense. I just picked up 500 feet of 500 foot spool with the lengths cut to 60 feet. I'll just snake em anywhere I can, and then pin em down with some Lawn s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00374.html (15,118 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:41:37 -0500; Dave, Do a neat trick with your antenna analyzer if it shows impedance: Before you put ANY radials down, measure the Z at the antenna (at it's resonant freq). Then put your 8 radials down, and remeas; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00375.html (16,528 bytes)
32. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:25:21 -0700 (PDT); Measuring the change in drive impedance to estimate ground loss can be misleading. You cannot simply assume that any impedance in excess of 36 ohms represents loss. You really need to measure the fie; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00376.html (9,245 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:55:30 -0400; Horizontal antennas, like dipoles, make great antennas, but they are affected by proximity to the ground. They have to be at least 1/4 wave above ground before the radiation pattern is anything but s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00378.html (10,509 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:02:57 -0400; Those figures seem big, but this is less than 1/2 wavelength high. It's like putting a 10m monobander at 15 feet! I've never heard of anyone with a 160m yagi at 500 feet. There's a couple of guys who; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00379.html (9,465 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:35:33 -0400; Are these radials ground-mounted or elevated? If they are groundmounted, don't try to cut the radials to any particular length for each band. Just put down 24 radials the same length as you would cut; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00380.html (9,404 bytes)
36. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:35:24 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** It's true I am not a serious DX chaser on those bands, but if I were I would certainly not stop with a single vertical. Four-squares and beverages are what the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00390.html (9,960 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:08:30 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** So you are saying that a dipole at less than 1/4 wavelength high has *only* straight up radiation? You might want to rethink that one. 73, Bill W6WRT _________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00391.html (9,686 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Joe Giacobello <k2xx@swva.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:58:11 -0400; It is my understanding that a hilltop and the proper terrain can make all the difference with a horizontal antenna. Another correspondent to this list compared a horizontal antenna on a 500' tower on; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00393.html (12,353 bytes)
39. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: HFDXJUNKIE@aol.com; Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:54:13 EDT; Inverted V here for 160, Apex at 55 ft, 36 inches off a crank up, ends about 15 ft above ground. 109/101 in 3 years. It sure works for what it is..25 bucks worth of material. The NA2P low band secret; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00396.html (7,792 bytes)
40. Re: [TowerTalk] re Radials (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:20:40 -0400; To make sure I have my facts straight, I've gone and modeled a 20m long dipole at heights of 10m, 20m and 30m at a frequency of 3.6 MHz (which is darn close to resonance at low heights). At 10m high,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-06/msg00407.html (11,586 bytes)

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