Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w3ahl@att.net: 76 ]

Total 76 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] lp V stepIR (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:06:19 -0500
Gene, Once you go beyond 13 elements or so, a "formula" LPDA isn't too bad. But the 8-10 element versions definitely benefit from optimization to improve gain, F/B ratio and SWR in the ham bands. The
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00619.html (11,726 bytes)

22. Re: [TowerTalk] log modeling and reality (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:13:51 -0500
I helped a local ham build a T-8 last fall and it still has a 1.5" square aluminum tubing split boom transmission line. I've heard that some of the early Tennadynes used round tubing split booms, but
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00620.html (8,871 bytes)

23. Re: [TowerTalk] lp V stepIR (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:56:14 -0500
Just be fair, for the opinions of mostly-happy Tennadyne T-8 users, you might want to visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TennadyneAntennas/ Their Files section has some useful info. The T-8 works -
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00628.html (11,037 bytes)

24. Re: [TowerTalk] lp V stepIR (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:56:50 -0500
Construction details for an 80-40m wire LPDA are in the ARRL Antenna Handbook, 20th Edition. It could easily be extended to higher bands. You need a large family to rotate it and a large field if you
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00652.html (12,030 bytes)

25. Re: [TowerTalk] lp V stepIR (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:57:53 -0500
Seems like a good idea, except the parasitic elements of the other antennas really mess up the pattern, etc! I took a standard LPDA and put one 10' away firing into the original and removed its sourc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00663.html (11,104 bytes)

26. Re: [TowerTalk] stacking logs (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:05:19 -0500
There are two reasons to stack yagis or LPDA's: 1. To increase gain by using a phased array. Maintaining a specific wavelength spacing is important. 2. Taking advantage of the different take off angl
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00674.html (10,024 bytes)

27. Re: [TowerTalk] stacking logs (score: 1)
Author: "Steve W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:26:34 -0500
Jim, The concept of sloping the booms of two vertically stacked LPDA's is to maintain proper phasing between the wave fronts from the two antennas as the frequency changes and the active region moves
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00682.html (10,171 bytes)

28. Re: [TowerTalk] antenna question - slightly off topic (score: 1)
Author: "Steve W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:40:49 -0500
Maybe it's an X510MA? It is now called the X510HDM. They added the HD a while ago for "Heavy Duty" -- not to be confused with X500HD repeater antenna. http://www.rfparts.com/diamond/x510series.html S
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00686.html (8,711 bytes)

29. Re: [TowerTalk] And one more thing..... (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:03:27 -0500
The two common solutions to grounding the Tennadyne LPDA elements and boom is to: 1. Use a shorting stub at the rear of the boom, which helps tune out some anomalies also. 2. Use a Collins choke (coi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00717.html (9,141 bytes)

30. Re: [TowerTalk] serious noise problem (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:48:20 -0500
If you have a portable AM radio, use it as a sniffer to locate the source of the noise. The ferrite rod antennas are fairly directional. It's not uncommon to have other areas of the house tapped into
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00782.html (8,618 bytes)

31. Re: [TowerTalk] AB-1339 Mast (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:50:36 -0500
If you are active in local ARES/RACES groups, generally the county emergency management staff has access to government surplus lists and can get anything that isn't classified (it wouldn't be on the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00006.html (8,561 bytes)

32. Re: [TowerTalk] tower & antenna project questions (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:31:16 -0500
Wiring the J-bolts and rebar is generally not considered adequate for lightning protection! Welding or exothermic bonding is used for the commercial towers I've seen. http://www.polyphaser.com/techdo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00195.html (10,042 bytes)

33. Re: [TowerTalk] 2" OD pipe.. again (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:52:43 -0400
Kevin, http://www.arrl.org/qex/1123.pdf http://www.arrl.org/qexfiles/Travanty.zip Steve, W3AHL Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:08:30 -0700 From: Kevin Normoyle <knormoyle@surfnetusa.com> Subject: Re: [Towe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00387.html (10,172 bytes)

34. Re: [TowerTalk] ma-40 documentation (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:06:34 -0400
Contact US Tower's customer service and tell them you need the Installation and Maintenance Instructions and also the Formal Stress Analysis Document for the MA-40/MARB to complete a building permit
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00390.html (8,431 bytes)

35. Re: [TowerTalk] 2" OD pipe.. again (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:26:07 -0400
Kevin, The three crank-up towers I've seen a stress analysis for (MA-550, MA770 & TX-455) all have the greatest F.S. ( 0.48 - 0.56) for the top section and the least margin (FS= 0.90-0.93) in the nex
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00398.html (14,820 bytes)

36. Re: [TowerTalk] comparing top section of crankup to unsupported (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:45:41 -0400
I'll just respond to the pipe grade portion for now: ASTM A53 Type E Grade B may have a TENSILE strength of 50-60k, but not a YIELD strength -- that would be 35K typically. Big difference. The issue
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00411.html (9,653 bytes)

37. Re: [TowerTalk] material testing Re: 2" OD pipe.. again (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:23:01 -0400
If all you want to do is determine deflection under a static load, yep, that's all you need to do -- hang a weight on it. But that is the least of the issues. What is the composition of the steel? Ho
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00414.html (10,447 bytes)

38. Re: [TowerTalk] comparing top section of crankup to unsupported (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:24:51 -0400
Kevin, Based upon your assumptions and rough estimates, you are correct that the top section in your example would be operating near its max stress limit with the rated load at the top of the tower a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00433.html (11,784 bytes)

39. Re: [TowerTalk] comparing top section of crankup to (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:30:00 -0400
Kevin, Without seeing the full report, I can't answer your specific issues, but I would accept the analysis as valid for the standards used at the time. It appears that the tower's wind load is limit
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00446.html (9,833 bytes)

40. Re: [TowerTalk] comparing top section of crankup to (score: 1)
Author: "Steve, W3AHL" <w3ahl@att.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:48:59 -0400
Kevin, Based upon the info you supplied previously, any length of mast you add, while staying within the allowable base moment loading, will not exceed the top section's max of 7638 ft-lbs. Rather th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00462.html (10,528 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu