Mail Archive Search: <+from:K3BU@aol.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:K3BU@aol.com: 92 ]

Total 92 documents matching your query.

21. TopBand: Antennas, Angles (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 12:08:09 EDT; <<de W8JI: When I compared a dipole at 160 feet to a 3/8 wl vertical with a GOOD ground system, the dipole NEVER beat the vertical at any time. Most contacts reported the vertical two S units or more; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00004.html (8,620 bytes)
22. TopBand: Gads, weird science again (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:53:15 EDT; << 1.) There isn't one of us who can measure polarity or wave angle on 160. It's all just a guess with plenty of opinions and no proof of anything. Because of that, we have no proof the problem is ro; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00051.html (10,143 bytes)
23. TopBand: z measurements (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:21:31 EDT; << I believe that this is a topband topic. I'd like to make impedance measurements on verticals to be used in an array. No luck with MFJ AEA instruments due to overload from bc stations. >> I used th; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00075.html (7,840 bytes)
24. TopBand: Balloon Full Wave Antenna for 160M (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:46:23 EDT; << Some good information about how to set up a balloon supported antenna system. The two balloon full wave antenna looks like an effective system - but more complicated to deploy than a 1/4 wave sing; /archives//html/Topband/1998-07/msg00116.html (9,797 bytes)
25. TopBand: Simple, Cheap, 160 antenna (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:15:13 EDT; << If you have an 80M or 40M dipole, you already have the beginnings af a workable 160 M antenna. Take your dipole and tie together the feedline at the rig end. This will work with balanced feeders o; /archives//html/Topband/1998-07/msg00124.html (7,709 bytes)
26. TopBand: Balloon Full Wave Antenna for 160M (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:15:11 EDT; (This is why quarter wave verticals play best - widest vertical angle coverage)< << de K0AH: If this is true, why do the stations located on the edge of an ocean (some of which you have operated from; /archives//html/Topband/1998-07/msg00125.html (9,700 bytes)
27. TopBand: OK1RI on his 160 Delta Loops (long) (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:56:30 EDT; During my last operation in WPX SSB on 160 m I have noticed very solid and strong signal from OK1RI on 160. He was in all band cat., but when he was on 160, it really stood out. I knew they were fool; /archives//html/Topband/1998-04/msg00044.html (12,917 bytes)
28. TopBand: Weak signal/noise reception (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:50:59 EDT; Just a small contribution to the art of noise fighting - weak signal reception: During the last WPX SSB contest while on 160, I had two receivers (TS870 and IC781) going at the times into two ears an; /archives//html/Topband/1998-04/msg00073.html (7,684 bytes)
29. TopBand: RX noise figure and gain (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:53:14 EDT; << I have never found it necessary to use a preamp on a Beverage, from the standpoint of noise figure. I have always heard the noise level go up when attaching the Beverage to the receiver. >> Preamp; /archives//html/Topband/1998-04/msg00136.html (8,211 bytes)
30. TopBand: FO0FI Sked w/VE1ZZ (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:16:42 EDT; << Can someone pass the word to VE1ZZ?? >> Done already, Jack will be hunting for him and possibly badly needed YJ and 3D2 (can someone pass to them that VE1 is way ahead in sunrise, now around 0920?; /archives//html/Topband/1998-04/msg00173.html (6,809 bytes)
31. TopBand: Mobile 160 CQ SSB test (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:41:19 EST; << Anyone else got tales of great accomplishment on 160 to share? >> On the mobile on 160 note: Being a little turned off by the constant frequency Hogs - CQers and "window operators" in 160 m CQ SSB; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00033.html (9,095 bytes)
32. TopBand: KZ5MM Noisy Beverage (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:21:04 EST; My 5 cents on antenna interaction: be, for the lack of better term, an "aura" or envelope of antenna's function, that is close to it's radiation (or "RF suction" on RX) pattern. The resonance of the; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00108.html (11,402 bytes)
33. TopBand: Low band signals in the NYC tunnels. (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:04:51 EST; << The 160 meter skin depth (distance where current drops to 37% of the value traveling in the conductor) is about 30 meters in poor soil, ten meters in good soil, and about a foot in salt water. Cur; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00137.html (7,967 bytes)
34. TopBand: Topbander Adage (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:26:53 EST; << After briefly chasing DX on 160m SSB this past weekend, I think Rush should add "You've gotta love TORTURE!" Gee, but it's fun, ain't it? >> ... and for 160 m contesting - make that to the power o; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00152.html (7,241 bytes)
35. TopBand: Low band signals in the NYC tunnels. (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:48:46 EST; QSL on retransmission of AM band signals in the NYC tunnels. Last few days I paid attention to various signals in the am band and it appears that original signals of stations that are not retransmitt; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00181.html (7,565 bytes)
36. TopBand: TS870 mods (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:48:47 EST; Hello Top-o-hill Banders! I did some more goofing around with 870 mods. I did the intermod mod, it helped (fun with "invisible" SMT resistors!), but I must have neglected gain adjustment by pot ahead; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00182.html (8,372 bytes)
37. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:13:20 EST; << Ground level (far field) field strength measurements are perfectly adequate to verify and compare the performance of these systems. The screen density affects only the radiation efficiency of the; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00203.html (11,220 bytes)
38. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:37:39 EST; << I'm glad to see that we're finally causing the discussion to be steered in what I think is the right direction. That is what can PRACTICALLY be done by an amateur at his existing site. >> I think; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00244.html (10,309 bytes)
39. TopBand: IC-746 (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:27:42 EST; New 160 rig on the horizon. Just got JA-CQ magazine and saw advertising and photos of guts of new Icom 746 transceiver. It has 160 , HF, 6m (100W) and 2 m (50 or 100W) Looks like big brother to 706.; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00258.html (7,075 bytes)
40. TopBand: Elevated Radials (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU); Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:14:16 EST; << Is a 0-degree launch angle all that we're concerned with? I suppose for the really long-haul DX it is. >> Not on 160-!!!! This myth about lower - lowest angle being better for DX is "propagated" f; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00288.html (9,532 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]