Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ EH: 355 ]

Total 355 documents matching your query.

81. [TowerTalk] 2 element 20m beam resonates too high in band (score: 2)
Author: Doug Snowden <dougn4ij@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 21:28:51 -0500
I am curious about this: I am experimenting with a 2 element beam for 20 meters. It is driven element - director arrangement. I haveit near the ground with the director near the ground and the driven
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-05/msg00745.html (7,373 bytes)

82. Re: [TowerTalk] Coax Question (score: 2)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:47:15 -0700
Or a run of the mill 240VAC line and a boost/buck transformer to make up the voltage drop at the load end. There are other reasons why one might want a back to back transformer approach (galvanic iso
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-04/msg00428.html (13,161 bytes)

83. Re: [TowerTalk] "Faraday shield for coax and control lines" (score: 2)
Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:37:06 -0400
Finally out of the closet, eh, Dave? I'd imagine the SPG discussions here may take on a somewhat tone, in the wake of your post. Jim/N2EA Note, I play the part of an amateur on here, but in real life
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-08/msg00157.html (15,834 bytes)

84. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning avoidance (score: 2)
Author: "Michael Ryan" <mryan001@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:23:26 -0400
It also helps to PRAY a little, eh Bill? - Mike, K4CVL Palmetto, FL I lived in FL for 32 years before moving to central FL and had ever increasing sized towers starting with a 64 footer andc finally
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-06/msg00503.html (9,656 bytes)

85. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 2)
Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:48:09 -0500
DanAs far as I remember, every "fairy book" scheme antenna (CF, EH, etc) has made this claim. Whenever I see it, I assume it is related to an RF Ponzi scheme, and prepare to laugh. The kicker in this
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00428.html (11,303 bytes)

86. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: Les Kalmus <w2lk@bk-lk.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:24:23 -0400
What is the difference between 6061-T6 and 6063? Les W2LK _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.c
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00651.html (9,453 bytes)

87. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:10:29 -0800
The DX Engineering vertical is made out of 6063 aluminum, which is much less expensive. John KK9A I just got pricing from Bethlehem Aluminum for a nesting tubular vertical. .125" wall, 6061-T6, in di
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00650.html (8,533 bytes)

88. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:34:38 -0400
I am very pleased with my DXE tilt base. Works as advertised. Just make sure you pay attention to the Inside/Outside diameters of the pipe you mount it on. I had to drill it out to accommodate a 2" g
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00646.html (8,599 bytes)

89. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: Greg - AB7R <ab7r@cablespeed.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:31:03 -0400
Gulf Alpha antennas also make a very nice one that is VERY hefty and a great design. I think I also paid $100 for it. I particularly like its built-in stop block so that when you are raising the ante
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00645.html (10,289 bytes)

90. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:18:27 -0400
Good point, Arne. I was looking for first-order estimates of price, not final design. Tubing is priced by the pound. So using thinner wall would save some money. .058 wall seems a tad light to me, by
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00644.html (9,994 bytes)

91. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:52:03 +0000
If you are looking for a Tilt-Over mount for your Vertical, ZeroFive makes a very nice one for $100. I bought one to use with my MA-160V and it works just great. 73, Dick, W1KSZ _____________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00643.html (8,165 bytes)

92. Re: [TowerTalk] 67' vertical (score: 2)
Author: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:20:51 -0400
I just got pricing from Bethlehem Aluminum for a nesting tubular vertical. .125" wall, 6061-T6, in diameters from 2.25 to 1.00, 12' lengths ran around $225 plus tax. That's without any clamps, cleanu
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00641.html (7,554 bytes)

93. Re: [TowerTalk] QEX article - got it (score: 2)
Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:19:59 -0400
Maybe someone could enlighten me on how mounting a boom on either side of a mast cancels any torque?? 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ ___________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00231.html (9,675 bytes)

94. Re: [TowerTalk] QEX article - got it (score: 2)
Author: Terry <terry@kk6t.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:18:49 -0700
Interestingly enough.....this shows up in the Towertalk archives from 2002: http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2002-07/msg00134.html 73 de Terry KK6T _____________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00230.html (9,603 bytes)

95. Re: [TowerTalk] QEX article - got it (score: 2)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:01:02 EDT
<<GRIN>> Okay, you remember an obscure article written 15 years ago - hi. interested, as I am sure, others are as well. Well, Dick has been a prolific writer of technical ham radio articles. The one
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00229.html (8,318 bytes)

96. Re: [TowerTalk] QEX article - got it (score: 2)
Author: "WA6RKN" <WA6RKN@ARRL.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:39:25 -0700
Ahhh....CRS setting in, eh wot?! <<GRIN>> Any chance you could post where you found the info. I am very interested, as I am sure, others are as well. Joe Wolfe WA6RKN ________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00228.html (6,999 bytes)

97. Re: [TowerTalk] cage dipole (score: 2)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:32:02 +0100
Talking about the DX blaster I just found this: Re: [hex-beam] Re: New file uploaded to hex-beam Eh OM if da reflector be resonant hit ain't a weflector..HuhUHuh!!!LOL!...Really it isn't Relectors ar
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00081.html (8,769 bytes)

98. Re: [TowerTalk] Isotron Antennas (score: 2)
Author: Tom Cox <tomcox@iquest.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:12:13 -0600
The consensus on the antenneX antenna discussion lists, and in several articles in the magazine (www.antennex.com) is that the Isotron and similar devices (the EH, the CFA, etc.) are, at best, a mean
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00020.html (16,225 bytes)

99. [TowerTalk] perturbing phase on array with towers (score: 2)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:48:52 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
Just ran some quick NEC4 models. 4 10 meter tall verticals at (10,0),(0,10),(-10,0),(0,-10) meters (x,y coordinates). A 2 meter tall probe at (0,0) excited with 1 volt. Just looking at the current at
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00454.html (8,816 bytes)

100. Re: [TowerTalk] F Now Mast Insertion Depth (score: 2)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:14:17 -0500
Yep - antennas always seem to involve compromises.... but in this case MY WIFE has issued an edict concerning holes in the roof. I am luckier than most hams - that is the ONLY stipulation she has eve
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00428.html (8,825 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu