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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+dipole\s+height\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Dipole Height (score: 1): Author: Billg@warwick.net (Bill Gerhold); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:48:22 -0500; For the first time in about 2 years, I measured the resonant frequency of my 160 meter dipole. I was surprised at the results but not completely. When I put the dipole up, I did not have an antenna a; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00104.html (6,830 bytes)
2. Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:38:22 -0700 (PDT); Hi it's an interesting discussion about the dipoles. I want to put up an inverted vee dipole for 160. I can put the apex at 15,30,45 or 60m and have >90 degree apex angle. The ground is very good and; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00366.html (6,523 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:01:40 -0400; 15 and 60M and run comparisons for awhile. In areas where countries are tightly packed a dipole may be a good choice. Carl KM1H Hi it's an interesting discussion about the dipoles. I want to put up a; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00367.html (7,293 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:13:19 -0700; I had full size 160M dipoles (not inverted vees) up at 9 meters and 18 meters for about six months and did a lot of A/B'ing of them. On receive, there was never any difference in audible S/N ratio. T; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00368.html (7,308 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "N4IS" <n4is@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:34:13 -0400; Hi Rick I had full size 160M dipoles (not inverted vees) up at 9 meters and 18 meters for about six months and did a lot of A/B'ing of them. On receive, there was never any difference in audible S/N; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00369.html (8,579 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:08:51 -0400; Hi it's an interesting discussion about the dipoles. I want to put up an inverted vee dipole for 160. I can put the apex at 15,30,45 or 60m and have magnetic equator. >>> I'm sure what works here is; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00370.html (9,185 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:33:23 -0700; I am well aware of this, which is why I put relays at the feed points to open up the dipole that was not in use. An isolated pair of 1/4 wave wires has virtually no effect on a nearby dipole. Rick N6; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00371.html (8,106 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: Jim Bennett <w6jhb@mac.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:02:44 -0700; I can second that - I was trying to get an 80 meter inverter L with FCP working this past spring and the measurements I got with my MFJ-259B were really whacky. Working with K2AV we realized that my; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00372.html (8,845 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "James Wolf" <jbwolf@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:22:21 -0400; dipole has very or none directivity, so low RDF or directivity does not improve signal noise. In general, this is the case, but it is not always true. Consider that you can have an antenna with a hi; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00373.html (8,288 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:18:30 -0400; RDF is the key point to improve signal noise, not gain. Vertical or low dipole has very or none directivity, so low RDF or directivity does not improve signal noise. In general, this is the case, but; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00374.html (10,075 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "N4IS" <n4is@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:54:41 -0400; Jim high RDF number with significant lobes off the back that are only 10 dB down from the main signal << There is no high RDF with lobes 10 db down, or one or another, not both at the same time. Rega; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00378.html (7,877 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "ZR" <zr@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:40:45 -0400; I believe the original query was about transmitting effectiveness which is where the 15M and 60M heights of the original poster were suggested. Carl KM1H RDF is the key point to improve signal noise,; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00382.html (11,062 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:38:23 -0500; James Wolf wrote: In general, this is the case, but it is not always true. Consider that you can have an antenna with a high RDF number, but at the same time has a pattern where rear lobe positions f; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00388.html (9,566 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:52:20 -0500; Sorry, I gave the number for a 1/2 wavelength Beverage not a one wavelength. The one wavelength Beverage is 8.6 dB and the 1/2 wavelength Beverage is 7.9 dB. Jerry, K4SAV ___________________________; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00389.html (8,268 bytes)
15. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:12:12 -0400; That's very true. Consider the K9AY. The RDF is about 7.7. Compare that to a 1 wavelength Beverage which is about 7.9 dB. The K9AY has a deep null in the 180 degree direction at the right elevation a; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00390.html (9,445 bytes)
16. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:32:08 -0500; I guess it's too early in the morning. I also misquoted the 1/2 wavelength Beverage RDF number. W8JI has a table with RDF numbers here: http://www.w8ji.com/receiving.htm Another example of surprising; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00391.html (8,452 bytes)
17. Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Lee K7TJR" <k7tjr@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:58:05 -0700; There is a third figure of merit name for small receiving arrays that came out of Syracuse University Research Corporation in 1967. It was called SNIF for Signal to Noise Improvement Factor. A term a; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00392.html (8,688 bytes)
18. Re: Topband: dipole height (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:57:31 -0700; This is why anecdotal reports of great receiving antennas should be taken with a grain of salt. If the user had a dominant noise source in one direction, a receiving antenna with modest RDF, but with; /archives//html/Topband/2012-10/msg00400.html (10,002 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]