Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Antennaware\]\s+center\s+loading\s+versus\s+ground\s+loading\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "Art Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:48:02 -0600
I live on a fairly small lot and use a Hy-Gain AV640 for 40 through 10 and currently have no antenna for 80 or 160. My backyard is about 90 x 70 but has some ill-placed and ill-shaped trees for eithe
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00010.html (7,964 bytes)

2. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:00:34 -0500
The real problem in the picture that you paint is that the break point for center loading is just that, a structural weakness for something as tall as 60-70 feet. The center loading is in the way for
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00011.html (9,800 bytes)

3. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: DAVID CUTHBERT <telegrapher9@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:22:14 -0700
A two band vertical can be built without a trap. The 80 meters vertical is full sized. On top of that sits a coil and a top hat for 160 meters. For proper decoupling the coil (inductance) needs to be
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00012.html (10,614 bytes)

4. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "Art Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:43:58 -0600
Dave, Thanks for the feedback. You are doing what I thought could be done, but I was not sure how high the inductive reactance would have to be at 3.5 to 4.0 to ?terminate? the antenna at that spot f
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00013.html (10,609 bytes)

5. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "Gary K9GS" <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:41:21 -0600
I have been contemplating an antenna design to cover 40, 80, 160M. Basically ~32 ft of aluminum tubing/mast, a trap, then more tubing/mast to ~60 ft (possibly using a capacity hat to tune on 80M) and
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00014.html (9,976 bytes)

6. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "aa4nn" <aa4nn@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:23:52 -0500
HI Gary, All you need do is emulate the Battle Creek Special. You can google to get specifics. The BCS uses only one wire to top load for 160m and only one wire to top load for 80m. Excellent antenna
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00015.html (11,065 bytes)

7. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: DAVID CUTHBERT <telegrapher9@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:55:54 -0700
Gary, The Battlecreek is a good antenna. However, It looks like a lot of work though to get the tubing lengths correct before and after the 40 meter trap as well as to tune the 160 meter wire. Here i
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00016.html (14,692 bytes)

8. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: DAVID CUTHBERT <telegrapher9@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:57:13 -0700
Or I should say Art we can write an article or we can all participate. I wrote an article on a 38' 160 meter vertical some years back for AntenneX. Since then I've written 25 or 30 articles for Anten
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00017.html (15,624 bytes)

9. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "Art Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:34:21 -0600
Dave, Sounds promising...and making more sense than my idea of using irrigation pipe. First off, since you obviously understand more about this than I do, thank you. Second, you might enjoy this calc
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-01/msg00018.html (16,610 bytes)

10. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:31:15 -0800
The unloaded Q of the inductor should have a very minor effect on the bandwidth and efficiency of WX7G's 67 foot antenna on 160m. The series resistance of a 70uH coil with Q=400 is only about 2 ohms.
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-02/msg00000.html (16,564 bytes)

11. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "Art Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:04:49 -0600
Thanks for the reply Terry. Well I'd wondered about the effect of the losses. I modeled a smaller resistance in the coil, but was doing it incorrectly, based on the wire length and gauge. I know ante
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-02/msg00001.html (18,582 bytes)

12. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:01:16 -0500
Depends on whether your main goal is to work people easier, or it's an intellectual pastime. Frankly modeling and EZNEC are a great pastime what you do about the dirt. 73, Guy. ______________________
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-02/msg00002.html (20,928 bytes)

13. Re: [Antennaware] center loading versus ground loading (score: 1)
Author: "Art Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:00:28 -0600
Absolutely agree about the dirt and even on my small lot hope to have at least 3600 feet pushed into the top-rock (we don't have top soil in the Ozarks). Friendly neighbors...so some will go under th
/archives//html/Antennaware/2010-02/msg00003.html (22,256 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu