Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160M\s+Short\s+Verticals\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160M\s+Short\s+Verticals\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: k2pc@adelphia.net (Charlie Corp); Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:04:50 -0400; Since everyone is talking about Capacitive Loading: I have been using a vertical, 27.5 foot high with a Cap Hat ( 6 foot Square) and a loading coil at 22' up. I have 30, 25' radials. This has been th; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00143.html (7,514 bytes)
2. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:35:30 -0400; Good idea for limited space, but we should remember this. When the antenna has a large hat capacitance, compared to the distributed capacitance of the structure, there is no reason at all to put the; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00145.html (8,120 bytes)
3. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: k2pc@adelphia.net (Charlie Corp); Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:45:36 -0400; Yes, I know that now, that is why I thanked you. But at the time I built the antenna I also had 30M in mind, the coil acting as a choke , giving me a 30m vertical also. It also allows me to operate 1; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00146.html (7,310 bytes)
4. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: john.w1fv@telocity.com (John Kaufmann); Date: 29 Aug 2001 15:04:31 -0700; TopBanders, Here's another solution for improving the efficiency of short verticals that doesn't seem to be widely known. Add a second (or even a third) identical short vertical in very close proximi; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00148.html (9,137 bytes)
5. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:27:47 -0400; Hi John, If the book says that, it is not correct. Originally proposed in 1920, you can find this system analyzed in Jasik's "Antenna Engineering Handbook" 1st edition page 19-9. Ground loss remain c; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00149.html (9,748 bytes)
6. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: john.w1fv@telocity.com (John Kaufmann); Date: 30 Aug 2001 09:08:51 -0700; Basically I agree: there is only improvement with the multiple in-phase verticals when the original ground system *is* smaller than optimum. That was implied in the original premise about losses star; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00150.html (8,693 bytes)
7. Topband: 160M Short Verticals (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:05:12 -0400; Hi John, The point I tried to make is that each individual ground system has to be smaller than optimum, and *isolated*, with no way to connect them for a multi-drop system to help. In other words, i; /archives//html/Topband/2001-08/msg00154.html (8,287 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]