- 1. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:54:31 -0500
- RickWhy introduce this into this thread? The models you mention do not resemble the Cage dipole, so why? There is enough distortion of the claims and references (eg, vertical 1/4 wave) already. To re
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00407.html (12,552 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:32:38 -0500
- Rick- I"m sorry I sounded so strident, but this subject has progressively wandered astray. The subject started about a particular cage being hyped as having 5db gain over a reference Dipole AS TESTED
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00426.html (13,822 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
- 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)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:58:51 -0500
- Rick Interesting alternative. I have a question about the concept. As I understand it, the "cage" concept needs for the wires to be close enough to act as one *large* conductor. How close fits this c
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00429.html (11,842 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:46:35 -0500
- Thanks, RogerNow you have me headed for the books. (Earlier than I'd expected to) Bill-W4BSG PS did you mean"small l/d ", not "large" ? _______________________________________________ _______________
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00435.html (10,340 bytes)
- 6. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternatives (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:29:15 -0500
- I don't think the bandwidth he claims is in question. It's the gain claims. An earlier visit to his site showed spreaders for sale. They are not there now. I wonder why, and if they would sell some,
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00470.html (8,030 bytes)
- 7. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole alternative (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Aycock" <baycock@centurytel.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:26:42 -0500
- RickI have been reviewing some of the better posts, and I came across this (below.) If the "double hump" you refer to is in reference to the figure in the ARRL antenna book, that is only achieved by
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00492.html (11,879 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu