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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+FCP\s+model\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

21. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:01:54 -0400; Hi Guy, A counterpoise that fully cancels its own fields, by definiton, cannot be a counterpoise. Following that logic, because it is true, the lowest loss counterpoise or counterpoise with lowest ex; /archives//html/Topband/2012-07/msg00438.html (14,900 bytes)
22. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:15:39 -0400; Guy, If one thing is 100% certain and beyond debate, it is this... If a counterpoise does not radiate and has no fields, it is not a counterpoise. That's just the way it is. The very thing that make; /archives//html/Topband/2012-07/msg00439.html (9,592 bytes)
23. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>; Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:01:15 -0400; For some folks a circle with an 80' radius completely contains their property. We have cases in point. The FCP is a 66 foot straight line that will fit on one edge of the property. That is a common F; /archives//html/Topband/2012-07/msg00440.html (11,257 bytes)
24. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: mstangelo@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:19:00 +0000 (UTC); I think a more relevant question should be "is there a better or simpler elavated radial arrangement that can fit into the 66 foot linear space that will radiate more effectively than the FCP design"; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00005.html (7,009 bytes)
25. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:32:34 -0400; are dozens of ways to accomplish the same thing. All have about the same result. There is no universal solution that makes every 50 foot backyard look the same, let alone look like 50 acres of flat; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00006.html (7,916 bytes)
26. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: DAVID CUTHBERT <telegrapher9@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:43:09 -0600; For a short vertical I prefer ground radials over an elevated counterpoise because the counterpoise height reduces the monopole length. _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... .; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00007.html (8,053 bytes)
27. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: Jim Hoge <knowkode@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:07:25 -0700 (PDT); Team Vertical has employed a gull wing style of raised radials that would eliminate your concerns. I'm not the expert here.... just mentioning another alternative. Jim W5QM __________________________; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00008.html (7,903 bytes)
28. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:49:13 -0700; That's my implementation, more or less. My feedpoint is about two feet above the ground, the radials rise quickly from that level, pulled up at the far end by an anchor in a tree, at a midpoint by a; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00010.html (9,741 bytes)
29. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:51:44 -0400; I think it was Christian that published that method in the 80's. I didnt do A:B tests but I started at 12' and went to 20' at a roughly 45 degree angle for the rest of the run. Performance at 1200W w; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00011.html (9,366 bytes)
30. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: <donovanf@starpower.net>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:53:04 -0400 (EDT); Hi Jim, Unfortunately there's no free lunch. The slope of the "gull wing" elevated radials shortens the effective height of the vertical radiator. To achieve resonance, the length of the vertical mus; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00012.html (8,688 bytes)
31. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:56:15 -0400; The only lunch is in the ground if you want to heat worms Frank, at least in this area. With high conductivity ground then the radials might not need elevating. On a rock pile elevating beats laying; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00013.html (10,473 bytes)
32. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:59:46 -0700; I'm fairly skeptical of gull wing radials. We know that if the radial wire started at the feed point and ran vertically parallel to the antenna a few inches away, that the effective length of the ant; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00014.html (8,571 bytes)
33. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: Charlie Young <weeksmgr@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:26:58 -0500; I can model the inverted L and get good results, but the wire length for the radials always ends up in the model being 10' to 15' longer than in the real world. I started out making the radials 130'; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00016.html (9,560 bytes)
34. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:58:41 -0400; No, but they can use loading coils which is better than linear loading. I found that out years ago with 40M yagis Carl KM1H -- Original Message -- From: <mstangelo@comcast.net> To: <richard@karlquist; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00017.html (9,208 bytes)
35. Re: Topband: FCP model (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:57:22 -0400; Let me throw this out for comments. I think I found a valid test for the theory the FCP does not radiate, and thus does not have ground loss. My countering statement was it cannot be a counterpoise,; /archives//html/Topband/2012-08/msg00018.html (11,268 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 35
Page: [1] [2]