Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+160m\s+Inverted\s+L\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+160m\s+Inverted\s+L\s*$/: 56 ]

Total 56 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:41:06 -0800; Interesting. Recently I tried to shorten my 80 meter dipole by wrapping the end . It is bare wire, and when I calculated how much I'd have to wrap, it actually moved it up a lot farther than I antici; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00292.html (9,029 bytes)
42. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>; Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:15:33 -0600; Exactly what I said. Thanks for reading the entire thought instead of just the first sentence and jumping to the wrong conclusion again as the others did. 73, Jim change of __________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00310.html (10,728 bytes)
43. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "Bruce Meier" <bemeier@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:14:03 -0500; I don't think bare wire is required. My current temporary antenna for 75 / 80 is an inverted V that, depending on SSB / CW, I simply change the length of the antenna by wrapping the Home Depot #14 st; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00318.html (8,855 bytes)
44. [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: ny6dx@aim.com; Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:01:18 -0500; After 2 weeks of testing I have found the following out about this antenna. 1. If you use #12 insulated wire and use the 246/Fmhz your antenna is too long. 2. If you cut the antenna for a good swr it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00618.html (8,437 bytes)
45. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m inverted l (score: 1): Author: "AB2E Darrell" <ab2e@hotmail.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:12:25 -0500; Greetings OM, I'm wondering if you used tuned radials? I had a similar problem at my old QTH when I put up a 160m inverted L, prior to tuning the radials. I used the formula found in the Butternut te; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00620.html (10,157 bytes)
46. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1): Author: <wa3afs@inav.net>; Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:11:03 +0000; From My experience with 3 different sets of 160M coaxial inverted Ls, I found that in general the higher the vertical component, the better the antenna will perform for dx. My first and 3rd sets (I u; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00861.html (8,457 bytes)
47. [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Barry Kirkwood" <barry.kirkwood@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:20:38 +0000; FWIW: Talking the 160m problem: The subject of counterpoises, ground planes etc is a subject in itself. My 02c worth: There are two main questions:(a) How to configure the antenna/earth/radial etc sy; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00878.html (8,559 bytes)
48. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:49:11 -0400; My take on the subject from many years of 80/160M operation at different locations is as follows: Superb to very good ground such as a salt water marsh, a fresh water swamp with plenty of dead vegata; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00880.html (12,480 bytes)
49. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:43:22 -0700; It's important to understand that the function of radials is to act as a return for antenna current and increase the EFFICIENCY. They do NOT lower the angle of radiation -- that happens with actual E; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00884.html (8,090 bytes)
50. [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:14:05 +0000; I read a broadcasting industry study last year (I'm sorry but I stink at remembering sources so I can't cite it unfortunately other than to say I think it was in IEEE transactions on broadcasting) th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00888.html (8,651 bytes)
51. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: Tim Duffy K3LR <k3lr@k3lr.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:21:37 -0500; Anyone who is concerned with the difference in antenna efficiency with respect to elevated radials VS. ground mounted radials (assuming you have a choice) should re-read Frank, W3LPL's excellent post; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00889.html (14,598 bytes)
52. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:59:07 -0400; Frank has the good fortune of having decent ground conductivity, not all of us have that luxury. Carl KM1H _______________________________________________ ____________________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00895.html (17,141 bytes)
53. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:07:11 -0400; I dont need to Google anything. I suggest that you do the reading on what happens to the near field elevation pattern as a function of ground resistance. If you need assistance consult with a broadca; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00897.html (9,959 bytes)
54. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: Tim Duffy K3LR <k3lr@k3lr.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:18:09 -0500; Better ground conductivity would help the raise the efficiency of an antenna using a raised radial installation (with 4 radials 15 feet off the ground for 1.8 MHz) more than one using ground mounted; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00899.html (18,529 bytes)
55. Re: [TowerTalk] 160m Inverted L (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:46:22 -0400; I dont remember the details from NEC, Dean Straw, N6BV, did the modeling when he lived in the next town. All I can say was that going elevated made a huge performance improvement. Carl KM1H _________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00903.html (21,343 bytes)
56. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M inverted L (score: 1): Author: Larry DiGioia N8KU <towertalk@longwire.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:42:48 -0400; Here is the REAL answer: See "Does the Ratio of Vertical Wire to Horizontal Wire Make a Difference in Performance?" in the document, "Straightening Out the Inverted-L" at http://www.cebik.com/fdim/fd; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00951.html (11,146 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 56
Page: [1] [2] [3]