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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Inverted\s+L\s+improvement\s+question\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

21. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: <n4is@n4is.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 11:21:50 -0500; Wes you're right The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio. The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the improvement on signal to noise ratio i; /archives//html/Topband/2018-12/msg00294.html (12,300 bytes)
22. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Cecil Acuff <chacuff@cableone.net>; Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 10:31:56 -0600; I would have kept mine if I had seen that kind of performance. Either I have a very low noise floor, I had degraded performance of the RX antenna for some reason or I was doing something wrong. When; /archives//html/Topband/2018-12/msg00295.html (13,527 bytes)
23. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:07:16 -0500; Apologies to all for delay in response. Losses related to ground and close dielectric materials remain the single monster gorilla in the room for improving TX performance of vertical antennas. Settin; /archives//html/Topband/2019-01/msg00007.html (12,981 bytes)
24. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:28:31 -0800; Guy, I need some more db's on Tx. For Rx I hear much better than heard into EU from Seattle area. It's a hard path and easy to believe EU QRN/QRM is the main culprit. Your "loss list" is a great list; /archives//html/Topband/2019-01/msg00008.html (16,455 bytes)
25. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:59:58 -0600; Your fundamental problem is a lack of understanding of how a monopole works, specifically a base fed vertical with a ground system. Anyone who tries to use a ground system that converges on a point; /archives//html/Topband/2019-01/msg00010.html (8,321 bytes)
26. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:42:11 -0500; Hi, Grant. Your original was posted to the reflector as well, and I'll let this go there as well. 3:1 current imbalance, whether scalar or not, is grotesquely large with 8 evenly spaced elevated equa; /archives//html/Topband/2019-01/msg00011.html (26,508 bytes)
27. Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Dick Bingham <dick.bingham@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:45:18 -0800; Hello Guy (and the group) I just finished reading your reply/observations on 160-Meter verticals - L's, etc - and wonder what your thoughts may be for the so-called "Half-Square" antenna (H-S) where; /archives//html/Topband/2019-01/msg00013.html (8,619 bytes)
28. Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:53:23 -0500; Given caveats stated below, the short answer is I'd bet with odds it wouldn't make much difference. Long answer: One of the benefits of an end-fed half-wave L on 80 meters is the hi Z feed, toleratin; /archives//html/Topband/2019-01/msg00023.html (12,172 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 28
Page: [1] [2]