Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Monopole\s+Elev\s+Pattern\s+w\.r\.t\.\s+Earth\s+Conductivity\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

21. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:37:22 -0500
I didn't remember W8LT's 5/8 wave balloon verticals. But I do recall your telling me about your neighbor's inverted-L nearly always being about the same strength as your old 120' tower in Ohio on 160
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00307.html (10,833 bytes)

22. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:58:27 -0400
I used or tried to use a 308 foot self supporting base insulated Blau-Knox in the late 70's and early 80's (Picture on QRZ.com) and although I could not do A-B tests I found it horrible and that was
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00308.html (13,323 bytes)

23. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:34:57 -0400
What do you think about 120' vs 190' ? Ever do any tests like that? I wonder if it would be an idea to try these ideas on 40m. That way it could be tested with much antennas small enough multiple peo
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00309.html (10,667 bytes)

24. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Fry" <rfry@adams.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:33:27 -0500
The tall vertical tower was definitely worse compared to shorter verticals, and had almost no short skip signal around Georgia. I had isolation chokes for lights and a base insulator, but that 300+ f
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00310.html (9,852 bytes)

25. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:48:02 -0500
We know the radius of the earth and have a good idea of the takeoff angle from a given monopole height. The unknown variable (to me, anyway) is the approximate height of the reflecting layer in the i
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00311.html (9,064 bytes)

26. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Fry" <rfry@adams.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:04:55 -0500
What is your (or anybody's) definition/understanding of the term "takeoff angle?" R. Fry _______________________________________________ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00312.html (9,345 bytes)

27. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:12:05 -0400
If we knew those, then we could calculate the location and distance of the signal hops. That might give us some insight as to why some people have found a taller monopole to be worse than a shorter o
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00313.html (10,769 bytes)

28. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:13:47 -0400
What is your (or anybody's) definition/understanding of the term "takeoff angle?" Take off angle is the thing the fellow who wrote EZNEC wished no one used because he knew it would get abused and mis
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00314.html (9,377 bytes)

29. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:17:23 -0500
Maybe I just abused/misused the term "takeoff angle" myself. :-) 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _______________________________________________ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00315.html (9,283 bytes)

30. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:22:54 -0400
Herb's experience below echoes mine at my house here in GA and at BC stations in the Midwest. Others besides Herb have reported the same. I used or tried to use a 308 foot self supporting base insula
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00316.html (14,524 bytes)

31. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Charlie Young <weeksmgr@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:46:09 -0500
Paul, W9AC said: <As I recall, HFTA software has an ionospheric module that calculates the predictability of arrival angle as a function of frequency, time of day, season, etc. Learning that program
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00318.html (12,015 bytes)

32. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Mike Armstrong <armstrmj@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:58:44 -0700
Guys, I am probably completely off the wall here. But given all the talk about a 300 foot vertical not working well on 160 and a very high dipole not working well on 160 leads me to a very unscientif
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00323.html (12,971 bytes)

33. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Mike Armstrong <armstrmj@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:08:19 -0700
Dang Tom..... I just sent out a more wordy version of what you just said. This is getting strange. Not sure why it hasn't been disseminated yet (my email), but I swear I sent it just moments before y
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00325.html (11,830 bytes)

34. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Gary and Kathleen Pearse <pearse@gci.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:16:32 -0800
My 160 aerial next season may be a top loaded vert that can be laid over from the base. After fiddling with an "L" at 64N latitude, I'm curious about which portion of the L is best as propagation and
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00326.html (11,195 bytes)

35. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Mike Armstrong <armstrmj@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 06:48:20 -0700
Rik, I think your suggestion is part of the point of this discussion. Modeling things at higher frequencies, like 40 meters, wouldn't apply to how 160 works...... IF what we are saying is true or has
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00331.html (11,976 bytes)

36. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: cris blak <cyo3fff@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Why we are talking about A B test knowing that the ionospheric signal is fading up and down at least 10dB!? This can be verified by anybody having a stable carrier as a receiving signal and monitor
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00332.html (12,020 bytes)

37. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Shoppa, Tim" <tshoppa@wmata.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:33:41 +0000
OK I'm confused. All the AM radio stations registered with FCC publish curves showing 2.5, 0.5, and 0.15 mV/m contours. I'm assuming these are field strengths on the ground e.g. low angles. http://ra
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00333.html (11,258 bytes)

38. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:54:41 -0400
Qualitative or Quantitative...Let me get this straight. If I call CQ and the band is open to Europe on 160 and nobody replies after a couple of hours with my TX antenna #1 with no replies and after s
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00335.html (13,208 bytes)

39. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:51:06 -0400
Qualitative or Quantitative...Let me get this straight. If I call CQ and the band is open to Europe on 160 and nobody replies after a couple of hours with my TX antenna #1 with no replies and after s
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00342.html (11,420 bytes)

40. Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:02:18 -0400
Why we are talking about A B test knowing that the ionospheric signal is fading up and down at least 10dB!? This can be verified by anybody having a stable carrier as a receiving signal and monitor i
/archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00344.html (12,760 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu