Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+43\'\s+verticals\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+43\'\s+verticals\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "Barrie Smith" <barrie@centric.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:54:27 -0700; I'm seeking advice regarding the 43' verticals I see advertised, both from MFJ and DX egineering. While regional babbling on 75 and 160M is not my primary purpose year-round, I do like to chat with f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00419.html (7,520 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: <donovanf@starpower.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:59:34 -0500 (EST); Barry, A well designed vertical can be an excellent antenna for longer distance night time QSOs or close-in daytime ground wave QSOs on 80 and 160 meters; but its hard to beat a low, horizontally pol; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00420.html (10,068 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:13:15 -0600; Here is your answer: http://www.vk1od.net/antenna/multibandunloadedvertical/index.htm Jerry, K4SAV _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Towe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00421.html (7,467 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:56:37 -0500; I am very pleased with my 43 foot vertical for regional and even close in contacts. I am making contacts I could not before. I agree, however, that having a horizontal wire antenna can be helpful for; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00422.html (7,963 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:36:05 -0700; Funny we just had this same hot topic on our local contesting club reflector. They might be better than what you had but IMHO they can't be very good for 80/160. I wish there were some short miracle; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00424.html (8,909 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:46:22 -0600; Try the HY-Gain Hy-Tower.......I work Europe every night easily on 80mtrs. No tuner....no coils...no caps. Only a DXE ground plate for the radials and a DXE current balun at the base of the antenna.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00425.html (9,663 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "Michael Ryan" <mryan001@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:05:07 -0500; One of the older ARRL Antenna Books had an interesting article some years about about a helically wound 160 vertical, wound around a 4" or 6" ( I think ) PVC pipe about 20ft or so high. Looked like a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00426.html (10,101 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:26:48 -0500; I am thrilled with the 80 meter performance of MY 43 foot DX_Engineering vertical antenna. Even better on 40 M I am finally a big signal on many nets where before I was told they could barely hear me; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00429.html (8,658 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:42:24 -0800; For receiving or transmitting? For Rx, height's not all that important (well.. clearly there's a difference between a 120foot stick and a 8 foot whip, but between a 8 foot whip and a 43 foot mast, I'; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00432.html (8,849 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:45:16 -0800; Helically loaded antennas have been around a long time, and keep popping up (see, e.g. the Univ of Rhode Island guy).. Unless you're using BIG wire, odds are, for the same physical size, your losses; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00433.html (9,061 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:18:33 -0700; Transmit. I have 4 sq receive arrays using small whips. They work great. "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over." Ben Franklin --Original Message--; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00435.html (9,727 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:41:40 +0000; about about a helically wound 160 vertical, wound around a 4" or 6" ( I> think ) PVC pipe about 20ft or so high. Looked like a lot of fun but never> got 'around to it." - Mike> > --Original Message--; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00438.html (11,478 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:10:58 -0700; I have one of those still in a box and one that was trashed by our horses. They get out ok. Very very very narrow bandwidth. The coil is pretty small. "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00439.html (12,562 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:41:20 -0500; I am not sure what you mean by this... as the Cushcraft MA-160V is only 30 to 36 feet tall (adjustable stinger) and only has a 40 kHz bandwidth on 160 meters. The 43 footer is taller, and can be work; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00450.html (9,163 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:04:12 -0500; With miserable efficiency! The MA-160V could easily be substantially better, given the coax and balun losses inherent in the 43 foot vertical approach, even though, as you point out, the MA-160V is s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00457.html (11,836 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:33:55 -0800 (PST); I'll nominate N7JW as an array expert, and he uses 57 foot high verticals for his big 160 meter array on 160 acres. It has a lot of gain but is VERY narrow band. Rick N6RK ___________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00462.html (10,165 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:55:50 -0800; I tend to agree, Dan. Off the cuff, I would expect a 43 ft radiator with no top loading to have a radiation resistance of 2 to 3 ohms. This would produce acceptable results if you have a really good; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00464.html (10,729 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:25:06 -0500; Darn, knew I should have looked it up. OK, I was off by 13 feet ;-) And those antennas are resonant T verticals, almost completely top loaded except for a little tweaking inductance at the base, and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00473.html (9,973 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] 43' verticals (score: 1): Author: Joe Reisert <Joe@Reisert.org>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:05:02 -0500; Dan etal, I haven't been following this thread closely so pardon me if I repeat something. This note is specifically aimed at 160 meters. The 43 foot vertical is probably OK on 160 if you have a good; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-02/msg00584.html (14,618 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]