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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+radials\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: DXyiwta@aol.com (DXyiwta@aol.com); Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:09:56 EDT; I read about the quest for radial wire. See my QST article on page 38 of the December 1995 issue and further to that, my articles in CQ Jan and Jun 1997. The diameter of the radial wire makes a treme; /archives//html/Topband/2002-09/msg00066.html (6,836 bytes)
2. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:35:35 -0400; I've never seen any measured data (where the correct parameters were measured) that indicated wire size is important to radial loss. The primary reason size is not important is easy to see, if we lo; /archives//html/Topband/2002-09/msg00073.html (9,430 bytes)
3. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: rudys@ordata.com (Rudy Severns); Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:54:11 -0700; Ah, some more interesting comments. My needs are quite immediate as I am working on the system daily. I will have about 100 radials per vertical, plus 200 or more connections out in the radial field; /archives//html/Topband/2002-09/msg00078.html (8,671 bytes)
4. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: DXyiwta@aol.com (DXyiwta@aol.com); Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:30:29 EDT; 73 de Tim, W9QQ -- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts -- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --; /archives//html/Topband/2002-09/msg00101.html (12,816 bytes)
5. Topband: radials (score: 1): Author: rudys@ordata.com (Rudy Severns); Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:24:48 -0700; Tom is correct and the basic ideas have been around for nearly 70 years. If you want to see where this all comes from, check out the article in QST for July 2000, pages 38-44. You can take the equati; /archives//html/Topband/2002-08/msg00125.html (6,464 bytes)
6. Topband: radials (score: 1): Author: k7tjr@pacifier.com (Lee K7TJR); Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:07:51 -0700; Anybody know what method the broadcast industry uses for determining the physical length of the radials used for vertical bc band antennas? I have been doing some most interesting research on the sur; /archives//html/Topband/2002-04/msg00030.html (6,403 bytes)
7. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: k9ot@mhtc.net (Paul DeWitte K9OT); Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:45:25 -0600; I would like to use some aluminum welding wire for radials in a portable setup. The wire is ,030 dia. Does anyone know how many feet is in a pound of this wire? It comes in one pound spools. Thanks 7; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00187.html (6,173 bytes)
8. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: w7iuv@earthlink.net (Larry Molitor); Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:55:15 +0000; Does anyone have any more information about this scheme or can give me references to research it? Thanks, Larry - W7IUV; /archives//html/Topband/2002-01/msg00267.html (6,276 bytes)
9. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: k6se@juno.com (k6se@juno.com); Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:27:37 -0700; The one-meter "rule of thumb" I mentioned was for radials under a 40-meter vertical. Double that for 80-meters and quadruple it for 160-meters. Using data from the table in chapter three of the ARRL; /archives//html/Topband/2001-10/msg00098.html (7,364 bytes)
10. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: facmop@erols.com (fred); Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 18:15:58 -0500; Thanks to everyone for the many ideas on radials. I'll give a summary on the method I used for this project. It is still winter here on the East Coast and the grass is still resting. I'll get busy wi; /archives//html/Topband/2000-02/msg00008.html (6,685 bytes)
11. Topband: Radials (score: 1): Author: facmop@erols.com (fred); Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:36:17 -0500; This may be a well worn subject, BUT has anybody figured a neat way to lay a lot of radials? The bent hangar every few feet causes problems with the lawn mower, especially when it gets very dry and t; /archives//html/Topband/2000-01/msg00000.html (6,209 bytes)
12. TopBand: RADIALS (score: 1): Author: w9vne@fuse.net (james danehy); Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:01:11 -0500; I have read quite a number of emails over the months in which a radial system is described as having a very limited number of 130 foot radials. The number of 1/4 wave radials indicated vary from a lo; /archives//html/Topband/1998-12/msg00154.html (8,434 bytes)
13. TopBand: RADIALS (score: 1): Author: kt4u@earthlink.net (J.V. Staples, Jr.); Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:54:27 -0500; Hi Jim, You are on the right track. Basic rule: If radials have to be short, have many. If you can have many, make them longer. Happy Holidays, JV -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.htm; /archives//html/Topband/1998-12/msg00156.html (7,235 bytes)
14. TopBand: RADIALS (score: 1): Author: otterstad@inet.uni2.dk (Ragnar Otterstad); Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:19:13 +0100; Many years ago I read a booklet written by a BBC engineer. He concluded that many short radials were better than few full size for medium wave broadcasting. I assume the same must apply to our 160m b; /archives//html/Topband/1998-12/msg00157.html (6,934 bytes)
15. TopBand: RADIALS (score: 1): Author: nx1g@top.monad.net (Craig Clark); Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:21:28 -0500; Pretty sure DeMaw came to the same conclusion in QST. All things considered 16 50' radials is a nice compromise. Also, don't forget Sherwood's use of Chicken wire (Ham Radio in the 70's) to couple to; /archives//html/Topband/1998-12/msg00158.html (8,109 bytes)
16. TopBand: Radials (score: 1): Author: ve3zi@hotmail.com (Roger P); Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:53:54 PDT; Hi All I really don't want to reopen the elevated -v- buried radials debate, but I am unsure as to how to proceed. I am just putting up a somewhat better vertical for 160. It is right next to a lanew; /archives//html/Topband/1998-09/msg00079.html (7,221 bytes)
17. TopBand: Radials (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:13:12 -0400; Hi Roger, What debate was that? If you have enough radials it doesn't make a bit of difference if they are buried or elevated, resonant or non-resonant. The only ill effect can be a reduction in effe; /archives//html/Topband/1998-09/msg00082.html (7,341 bytes)
18. TopBand: Radials (score: 1): Author: na0y@netscad.net (Ken Fattmann); Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:43:58 -0600; It is really amazing to continually read the ongoing discussion concerning ground radials, elevated radials. oblique radials, phantom radials, etc radials. Kinda sounds like Democrats and Republicans; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00153.html (6,916 bytes)
19. TopBand: Radials (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T A RUSSELL); Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:10:03 -0600; Hi Matt - Studies of field intensity vs. number and length of radials have been published (IRE June 1937). Basically, 16 ground radials is kind of a minimum for effective radiation. Going to 32 will; /archives//html/Topband/1998-01/msg00153.html (6,816 bytes)
20. TopBand: Radials (score: 1): Author: n9dx@michiana.org (Larry Higgins); Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:13:34 -0500; Here are a couple of questions which might stimulate some worthwhile discussion. Depending on the answers, they might also suggest some useful radial system design info. 1. It is well established tha; /archives//html/Topband/1997-02/msg00440.html (8,087 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]