Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:btippett@alum.mit.edu: 175 ]

Total 175 documents matching your query.

41. [TowerTalk] Optimum Stacking Distance (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 16:32:46 +0100
K3KO: Yes and no...I did use N6BV's Terrain Analysis but primarily to help me learn how to use the stacks...i.e. best takeoff angles vs azimuth vs time of day. For each contest, I usually make a char
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-07/msg00610.html (9,885 bytes)

42. [TowerTalk] The best stacking distance for long-boom yagis- 0.5 wavelength!! (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:48:10 +0100
Hello Tonno, Jiri et al! I was curious about your statements: What are you trying to maximize for contesting? Several years ago I was of the opinion that poor F/B was actually desirable for contests,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-07/msg00635.html (10,182 bytes)

43. [TowerTalk] Petrezewski (sp?) array .. (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:17 +0100
W8JI: If I recall correctly, the feedlines must be open-circuit (OC) because ~3/8 wavelength OC adds inductance to make the undriven elements look like parasitic reflectors in the system. I guess the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-04/msg00113.html (10,071 bytes)

44. [TowerTalk] Petrezewski (sp?) array .. (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:43:55 +0100
N4ZR: The tower and unbroken metal guys all MAY affect the pattern. If you don't detune the tower and use nonresonant guys, no telling what the pattern will look like unless you model it accurately b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-04/msg00119.html (10,061 bytes)

45. [TowerTalk] TT problem (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:02:10 +0100
K7LXC: My curses on the Microsoft software guy who set HTML as the default setting in Outlook. Here's how to fix it: In Outlook, at the top click Tools, then Options, then Send. Under "Mail sending f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-04/msg00144.html (7,908 bytes)

46. [TowerTalk] KLM Balun Phasing Marks (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:42:02 +0100
Wow! Talk about long delayed echoes...I posted that question on Oct 11 2000 ( http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/200010/msg00195.html ) Being in a hurry to get my antennas back up for the CQWW SS
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-04/msg00249.html (9,290 bytes)

47. [TowerTalk] Re: Northeast snowstorm (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 23:42:49 +0000
K1IR: "The big one is coming...which way should I point the antennas?" Icing is one factor which W6QHS is probably not familiar with. If you expect icing, the elements should be aligned with tips int
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00111.html (7,336 bytes)

48. [TowerTalk] Re: W-I-D-E Arrays (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:55:09 +0000
VE6JY: I did a simple model of this. I used one dipole versus 4 collinear dipoles at 0.5 wave spacing (which is what the ARRL Antenna Book shows to be about optimum for max gain). Results: 1 Dipole 4
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00314.html (7,249 bytes)

49. [TowerTalk] Re: Vertical array applications (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:51:07 +0000
K3BU: Hi Yuri! Nice job from the beach! Just for the record, here are the actual numbers for the CQ WW CW on 10: W4ZV 2009 37 138 31 1,021,825 PVRC N2EE/4 1675 36 128 792,284 I modeled a 4-square ver
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00427.html (8,308 bytes)

50. [TowerTalk] Decoupling Shunt-fed Tower (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:35:01 +0000
NOAH's experience with his 40M 4-square using 1/2 wave dipoles gots me thinking about doing the same thing for 80M from the 180' tower I shunt feed for 160...but I want to totally decouple the 80M wi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-03/msg00443.html (7,572 bytes)

51. [TowerTalk] Debunking the gain claims (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:21:43 +0000
W8JI: Maybe a bit more...the photo on the July 80 CQ Cover (at http://members.aol.com/ve3bmv/Razors.htm ) shows two Razors with the TH-6 half-way between. Give a single Razor a 3 dB advantage (>3dB g
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00272.html (7,915 bytes)

52. [TowerTalk] Debunking the gain claims (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:06:42 +0000
Just for curiosity, I checked N6BV's designs (using K6STI's YO) for the following two 15 meter Yagis: 5 elements - 24' boom - Free space gain 9.38 dBi 7 elements - 60' boom - Free space gain 12.26 dB
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00273.html (7,682 bytes)

53. [TowerTalk] Re: tt (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:50:55 +0000
See http://www.cebik.com/quad5.html (It is 5 elements...not 3) About half way down the page see "5-Element 20 Meter Quads and Yagi - Free Space Gain". The 5 el Quad on a 40' boom peaks at about 10.4
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00288.html (8,635 bytes)

54. [TowerTalk] Re: Yagi's (score: 1)
Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:17:10 +0000
KB9MZ (via K3BU): I just wanted to give a plug for K6STI's Global Yagi Optimizer program YO7. An article about it was in the July CQ (page 30). There was an incorrect figure (Fig. 4) which was correc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00373.html (9,343 bytes)

55. Re: [TowerTalk] KLM 5el 20m monobander - High SWR (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:31:43 -0400
VA7NT wrote: A friend of mine has a pair of KLM 5el 20meter monobanders which are resonant around 14,300 with an SWR over 2 to 1 in the CW portion of the band. Something is seriously wrong with that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-10/msg00316.html (8,431 bytes)

56. [TowerTalk] SteppIR's (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:50:19 -0500
K2HK wrote: Being able to fine tune the individual antennas from the shack when fed in phase is another advantage. It is possible to compensate for interactions found in the real world in contrast to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-11/msg00156.html (7,693 bytes)

57. Re: [TowerTalk] K6STI YO / AO Programs? (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:59:36 -0500
years ago when I learned of his programs. When he did finally return my messages he explained that he did in fact stop advertising his programs because of pirating. I did eventually buy one program f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-11/msg00279.html (10,780 bytes)

58. Re: [TowerTalk] Combining antennas (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:32:02 -0500
suggests they basically behave like separate antennas then. Pete, my experience has been fairly good with pointing my 10m 3-stack at mostly orthogonal angles, but sometimes you get some very strange
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00061.html (8,268 bytes)

59. Re: [TowerTalk] Combining antennas (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:15:56 -0500
stacking, at the Dayton Antenna Forum and elsewhere, was that the stack was always equal or better than any individual antenna. I think this was for two-stacks, like 50/100' on 20, 45/90' on 15 and 3
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00065.html (9,634 bytes)

60. Re: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightning, and protection (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:08:10 -0500
known as W0ZV), and myself is that lots of grounded elements on a tower greatly reduces the number of lightning strokes. John, so I don't have to repeat myself every year when this same topic comes u
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00523.html (8,964 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu