Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n3ox@n3ox.net: 305 ]

Total 305 documents matching your query.

221. Re: [TowerTalk] DX Engineering 66-Foot Vertical? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:56:00 -0400
I ordered some slitted tubing from DXE and the finish on the end is very nice; perfectly square even slots all around; no burrs. I'm sure the prepackaged verticals are the same, but I don't have one
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00596.html (9,695 bytes)

222. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:41:07 -0400
How can it be claimed as multiband? Look, the 43 foot vertical craze is a bunch of BS, and there are no manufacturers, in my opinion, who are innocent of putting marketing above good antenna enginee
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00676.html (10,128 bytes)

223. Re: [TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:43:35 -0400
In what range of takeoff angles? I get something like @6 degrees elevation, a single quarter wave vertical with negligible ground loss looking out on saltwater beats a 90 foot high dipole by 3dB, pr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00041.html (7,567 bytes)

224. Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs Beam (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:41:46 -0400
I did. I use it every time I'm on 40m. If it had zero current flowing into the base, no power would be radiated :-) I'll have to check again to make sure, but I'm pretty sure disconnecting the groun
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00098.html (11,292 bytes)

225. Re: [TowerTalk] EZNEC- needs improvement (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:46:24 -0400
EZNEC is not wrong just because it doesn't take into account propagation. EZNEC tells you what the far field gain of various antennas is at various elevation angles. That's it. You need other tools
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00099.html (8,495 bytes)

226. Re: [TowerTalk] Gizmotchy's (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:52:14 -0400
Anything that's not elliptically/circularly polarized is just linearly polarized, and the "ratio" of vertical to horizontal response just depends on the tilt of the elements with respect to horizont
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00253.html (8,638 bytes)

227. Re: [TowerTalk] Gizmotchy's (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:12:22 -0400
Polarization rotation always seems fast enough that it's hard to keep up. Technically, it could matter, but it's very possible for it to cycle a time or two while you call. If the rotation is slow,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00276.html (10,192 bytes)

228. [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:11:59 -0400
About a month ago (4 March), I posted about a newly hatched business plan of mine and referred to a cage dipole that sold for $350 and had 5dBd claimed gain. There was possibly an implication in my p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00297.html (8,599 bytes)

229. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:18:22 -0400
Whoops, probably did it again. I'm bad at this tiptoeing around in forums stuff. Please read this as "It is my opinion that" any such antenna is impossible. Apologies again. 73 Dan __________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00301.html (7,814 bytes)

230. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:54:46 -0400
exhibit a positive dBd number. And many do. There is no snake oil in that. Really? Do you know of a product that would allow me to mount my comparison dipole in free space for tests? To use dBd to r
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00371.html (9,481 bytes)

231. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:15:56 -0400
The only ones? What about dBq ... vs. quad loop? If dBd just means dBi + 2.1dB, it is completely trivial and should be never used again. I don't think it means that, or at least that is not how I wo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00396.html (10,752 bytes)

232. Re: [TowerTalk] Cage dipole revisited. (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:30:04 -0400
According to the website, that will not work: "Okay those with antenna modeling program will differ because their program will not allow all the parameters to be taken into account...So with actual
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00415.html (9,926 bytes)

233. Re: [TowerTalk] polarization change (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:43:19 -0400
polarization for HF antennas close to the ground is pretty funky and has Not to mention the fact that you don't have to make much of a rotation to get a lot of improvement due to the strong angular
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00534.html (8,300 bytes)

234. Re: [TowerTalk] Hardline ? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:46:07 -0400
situations, which is what most guys have. Alternating-impedance series-section transformers like the "Twelfth Wave" transformer can be pretty broad. http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/twelfth/twelfth
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00569.html (9,396 bytes)

235. Re: [TowerTalk] Ladderline - what are the facts??/ (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:49:56 -0400
It's either luck or maybe he would just have a much better signal if he didn't do that. There is no reason why that should work well. I get good signal reports out of Europe on 160m and my current b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00622.html (8,612 bytes)

236. Re: [TowerTalk] Ladderline. What Kind ? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:14:02 -0400
Kip, Most hams use open wire line to feed antennas of no particular impedance. Very few people have antennas that are resonant and 450 ohm input resistance, but lots of people use 450 ohm window lin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00683.html (9,386 bytes)

237. Re: [TowerTalk] trees as antennas (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:41:33 -0400
Here's one online: http://w5jgv.com/tree_antenna/index.htm _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00738.html (7,207 bytes)

238. Re: [TowerTalk] trees as antennas (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:02:03 -0400
Like Jerry said... Delete tree. Compare. But then you'd have to find out the bad news about how poorly your tree was working... _______________________________________________ _______________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00758.html (8,258 bytes)

239. Re: [TowerTalk] [RFI] where to buy FairRite? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:10:30 -0400
Baluns don't have power ratings. They have voltage, current, and temperature ratings. But the ham market demands a power rating and so we get used to talking in power ratings, even though it doesn't
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00780.html (7,858 bytes)

240. Re: [TowerTalk] [RFI] where to buy FairRite? (score: 1)
Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:11:14 -0400
By the way, the same can be said for tuners. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://li
/archives//html/Towertalk/2009-04/msg00781.html (7,167 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu