Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Cost\s+effective\s+Tower\s+height\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Cost\s+effective\s+Tower\s+height\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 06:12:25 -0800; I think we sometimes concentrate too much on looking at antenna heights that will maximize gain at certain take-off angles, and forget about the nulls. Those deep elevation nulls can be "killers" if; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00022.html (9,929 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:59:17 +0000; That's what stacks are for! David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net I think we sometimes concentrate too much on; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00023.html (11,670 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:17:41 +0000; "single multiband beam 40 - 10. No stacks." Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00025.html (7,447 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@bdtv.se>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:46:12 +0100; With that criteria I would use a 90 ft tower. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://li; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00027.html (7,875 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:56:12 +0000; Of course he did, but there is no way to fill the nulls with a single beam. You can mount it on a crankup and search vertically for the best signal, but that seems to be more expensive to me and not; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00028.html (8,795 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:09:23 +0000; Plus - the second antenna might not need to cover all the bands if he chooses the heights carefully. Steve G3TXQ _______________________________________________ ______________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00030.html (8,384 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: Wayne Crawford <resopkr@aol.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:41:10 -0500 (EST); Greetings, One of the parameters mentioned here has been towers on flat ground. What effect does unlevel ground/elevation have on this? I live in the Mtn.s of VA. My elevation is appox. 1400 ft and I; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00038.html (8,070 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:03:46 -0700; The wind load capacity of a 90 foot freestanding tower compared to a 70 foot freestanding tower is so greatly different that I'm not sure I would put the 90 footer into the "cost-effective" category.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00046.html (9,509 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:07:12 -0700; Learn it and use it ... both are trivial to do, and the program is free with the ARRL Antenna Book. 73, Dave AB7E _______________________________________________ ____________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00047.html (9,686 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:19:56 -0500; Regardless of the antenna height the nulls and nodes in the pattern will be in a constant state of change as far as being optimum or degrading. 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00051.html (9,779 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:35:14 -0500; Even guyed towers start to get pricey "up there" and beyond. 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list Tow; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00052.html (10,028 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: "Steve Jones" <n6sj@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:26:23 -0800; No thoughts, no advice, just envy of your perfect location! 73, Steve N6SJ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list Tower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00072.html (9,953 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: dotravel@aol.com; Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:30:22 -0500 (EST); Wayne, the ridge should give you additional gain especially in the area that slopes away from your antenna site and that is a good thing. If I were you I'd consider using a beam with more gain than t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00091.html (10,393 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:42:42 -0700; The Hex is a 2 element antenna. We used one at J6 and from there it was more than adequate. It was similar to a 2 element SteppIR. If you could get a 3 or 4 element beam I think you would be happier.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00095.html (11,827 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: "Jim Chaggaris" <jimc@pwrone.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 22:44:45 -0600; "The F/B on the Hex is not great" It is adequate for what it is, a 2 element shortened wire beam. However, it still has better FB than a Steppir on 10M <grin>. Best Regards, Jim N9WW James Chaggaris; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00097.html (13,000 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Cost effective Tower height (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 22:02:07 -0700; I am not sure that is saying a whole lot Hi! I meant to add that I would buy a 3 or 4 element for the top of the tower...Not a two. Mike W0MU W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net ______________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-12/msg00098.html (14,537 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]