Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+HF6V\s+\-\s+any\s+help\s+for\s+80\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+HF6V\s+\-\s+any\s+help\s+for\s+80\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: jrp@dimensional.com (Jeff); Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:01:24 -0700; Kelly, Your ground system may be worse than you think..or maybe you have geographical disadvantages. My ground mounted HF9V allows me to work DX on 80 meters. It's not going to compete against a quar; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00734.html (8,724 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: ve4xt@shaw.ca (Kelly Taylor); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:10:52 -0600; Hi, I have an HF6V, which I realize, despite all Butternut's protestations to the contrary, is really just a base-loaded vertical on 80. It's ground-mounted. It SUCKS on 80! And I have a not bad grou; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00532.html (8,862 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: K4BEV@aol.com (K4BEV@aol.com); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:04:34 EST; << Has anyone compared a ground-mounted HF6V to one that is elevated with elevated radials? >> Sort of. I only have 1 HF6V so AB comparisons weren't possible, but almost no one heard me on 80 when it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00533.html (8,788 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: k6sdw@hotmail.com (Eddy Avila); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:29:44 +0000; Kelly, I have the Butternut hf2v, never owned the hf6v, so can only speak to the hf2v which is an 80/40 meter based loaded vertical ground mounted and using just 12 radials buried below the surface m; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00534.html (10,335 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: w7ts@earthlink.net (Ken Kinyon); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:08:48 -0700; When I lived in Washington State, I put an HF2V on top of a 35 foot tower. It had 4 quarter wave 80 meter radials. It did an outstanding job of transmitting on 80. However, I found I could receive be; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00535.html (10,672 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: k4sqr@juno.com (Jim Miller); Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 05:18:56 -0500; Kelly; The HF-2V Manual shows two lengths of top-loading wires that may be added to enhance 80 meter performance. Is this noted in the back of the HF-6V Manual? If so, I suggest you add three TL wire; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00543.html (10,955 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: py4ro@ig.com.br (py4ro@ig.com.br); Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:09:31 -0300; Dear Kelly, I have used the HF2V from 1995 to 1997 and when it was elevated 10 ft with a few radials it was a killer on 40m and a good antenna on 80m. In 1997 I decided to replaced it with dipoles fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00547.html (13,671 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com); Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:46:50 -0600; The HF2V manual also warns that if too much Top Loading is used, 40M operation is impaired. I expect ANY top loading will make an HF6V unusable on the higher bands. Basically, the best solution is a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00557.html (13,297 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: ac7nj@yahoo.com (Randall Williamson); Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:27:00 -0800; Kelly, I have a butternut HF6Vx I mounted it in the ground and still needed radials for 40 and 80. Lets face it Verticals need radials. I have now moved it to the roof with tuned elevated radials (no; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00559.html (10,569 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com); Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:01:21 -0600; The problem with the HF2V and HF6V verticals is that they are BASE LOADED on 80M which is the LEAST EFFICIENT method of loading a short vertical. A good ground system does NOT make up for this defici; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00560.html (13,174 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: K4BEV@aol.com (K4BEV@aol.com); Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:45:29 EST; Kelly es Randy, I had my HF6V at 10 feet with elevated radials as Randy described (4 twin lead+ 1 for 80m). (I'm using Aluminum instead of Copper for 80 meters though.) Added another 80 meter (66 foo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00563.html (9,062 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] HF6V - any help for 80 (score: 1): Author: ve7hcb@rac.ca (Chris BONDE); Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:00:10 -0800; I have been told that top loading (inductance) is bad, if possible. That the only top loading one is a cap hat. I understand the inductance is best just above the centre of the physical antenna. Howe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00573.html (8,847 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]