Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:olinger@bellsouth.net: 438 ]

Total 438 documents matching your query.

181. Re: Topband: Fence "ground screen" instead of wire radials? (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:38:41 -0400
Before tackling the last question, it needs to be pointed out that 60 evenly spaced 1/4 wave radials on the ground, and many (most) antenna wags would say that placing chicken wire should not make an
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00064.html (21,360 bytes)

182. Re: Topband: BCB interference on 160 (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:20:48 -0400
The problem would be that you need to trap out the BC signals BEFORE they reach the tuning diodes. In the good ole days with signals that were no more powerful than now, a small antenna, a coil, capa
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00080.html (8,769 bytes)

183. Topband: Band is back in NC (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:22:54 -0400
It's baaaaccckkkk.... Band is back in NC. Worked Don, G3JMJ through the QRN at 0450Z. 449 and buried under QRN peaks 9+20. Base noise only S5 at 150 Hz bandwidth. Listened later, signal getting loude
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00086.html (7,100 bytes)

184. Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:03:52 -0400
This is an answer to an off reflector conversation, relating to a "too long" electrical length over radials reducing performance. I am writing to the list since the subject and it's objection occur i
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00087.html (12,965 bytes)

185. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:05:17 -0400
This is a lot mushier for buried radials, but the simple case for elevated radials is that the standing waves are set by the distance of the end of the radials from the radial feed, just like it is o
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00096.html (10,577 bytes)

186. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:17:58 -0400
I share the frustration over the very minimal amount of data out there. However... Erection of a 260 foot vertical in a testing environment fairly well requires the facilities of a large antenna rang
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00109.html (19,000 bytes)

187. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:43:51 -0400
See http://www.fybush.com/sites/2005/site-051028.html For 1530 kHz, that's a PAIR of two vertical halfwaves in phase. 50 kW gives 3545.89 mV/m. Note the relative lack of neighbors, and therefore lack
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00118.html (10,382 bytes)

188. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:37:12 -0400
Apologize for earlier half-done post. Spastic hit on send key. See http://www.fybush.com/sites/2005/site-051028.html for a Franklin and a nice article. For 1530 kHz, that's a *pair* of two vertical h
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00119.html (11,789 bytes)

189. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:22:14 -0400
I don't really know for sure. But from modeling it and the article, I suspect not. He only talks about lack of 50 kW capable low Z strapping down to a radial field. He doesn't specifically say *no* g
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00121.html (14,230 bytes)

190. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:00:48 -0400
Using an accumulation of remote beacon network measurements is probably the most reliable, and the only sky-wave measurement available to us for real, unbiased measurements for ham testing of this so
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00122.html (14,402 bytes)

191. Re: Topband: Effect of current max not at base of vertical. (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:30:52 -0400
EZNEC's "fresh water" selection shows a conductivity of .001 (very unconductive). So it's talking about Great Lakes fresh water away from urban polution. Question would be how conductive the swamp wa
/archives//html/Topband/2011-09/msg00127.html (11,312 bytes)

192. Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:33:28 -0400
Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live with, not having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable advantage. If one does not have "dense" and uniform radia
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00097.html (9,341 bytes)

193. Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:45:46 -0400
Sorry, have a misconstrued topic sentence below, probably from not finishing an edit of the sentence from a double negative. You can see that the topic sentence is at odds with the details. Thanks to
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00107.html (10,597 bytes)

194. Re: Topband: BOG termination (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:33:09 -0400
An alternate procedure to the cut and prune to 1140 kHz method, if one does not have an analyzer that goes down there, is to lay down a measured 151 ft (46m) as a DOG. This will usually measure somew
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00128.html (11,700 bytes)

195. Re: Topband: RG-6 Coax again (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:31:02 -0400
Part of the discombobbled nature of this RG6 discourse might have to do with a lack of detail on failure modes, dissipation, etc. With a long run, say 200 feet, running 1.5 K, and let's say dissipati
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00151.html (10,972 bytes)

196. Re: Topband: Ground loss query (re inverted L, antenna radiation resistance, & Jerry Sevick) (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:48:22 -0400
Too simple a formulation of issues. The loss is ground induction, by *whatever* means. You appear to be thinking that the radials are the only source of induced current loss in the ground. The vertic
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00157.html (12,501 bytes)

197. Re: Topband: Ground loss query (re inverted L, antenna radiation resistance, & Jerry Sevick) (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:27:47 -0400
This IS true for some hams, because their counterpoise situation is quite lossy. It would definitely not be true over a commercial dense radial system that was in good repair. It's very easy to measu
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00162.html (10,814 bytes)

198. Re: Topband: bottom fed antenna causing broad band signal? (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:31:55 -0400
Among the possibilities, and the first you should rule out, is that since his improvement may have really improved his signal strength at your place, and since coils are not at all a common culprit f
/archives//html/Topband/2011-10/msg00195.html (9,442 bytes)

199. Re: Topband: Using a DX-Engineering 80m vertical as part of an inverted L on 160? (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 19:10:38 -0400
Part of the mechanical problem of this is that two back guys to the top of the vertical, and then the wire pulling away horizontal, exert a downward compression force on the vertical, to the tune of
/archives//html/Topband/2011-11/msg00009.html (9,090 bytes)

200. Topband: Hindering factors in the science of back yard 160m vertical installations (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 11:24:19 -0400
The Short Version. I'm not sure there are any list moderators that would tolerate the long version. It's a book. If you already have a dense, uniform 160m radial system, you know what you have. If yo
/archives//html/Topband/2011-11/msg00016.html (20,662 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu