Mail Archive Search: <+from:w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com: 149 ]

Total 149 documents matching your query.

121. TopBand: KZ5MM Noisy Beverage (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:48:18 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Earl and others, The real key is in the coupling between the systems. If the conductors (antennas) have a high level of mutual coupling, they will affect each other in; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00117.html (10,215 bytes)
122. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:48:18 +0000; Hi Carl, With four carefully pruned resonant radials elevated six feet (measured on 80 meters), the field strength was about 4 or so dB down from 64 radials, either elevated or on the ground. That wa; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00118.html (15,191 bytes)
123. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 02:20:45 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> snip Hi Carl, I have all the data you just posted in my stacks of papers on this subject, and I see nothing new or conclusive in any of it. The same small group of people; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00127.html (11,021 bytes)
124. TopBand: BCB FS data (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 06:34:03 +0000; Hi Carl and others, Before I quote or accept data, I like to know where ir comes from and HOW it was derived. The fact it was in print means nothing without that info. Here's how the engineer arrives; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00135.html (9,798 bytes)
125. TopBand: Re: Elevated Radials (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:45:06 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> I have this data also Carl. Boy do I have stacks and stacks of this stuff I've spent hundreds of hours going over! That's a pretty poor test. I would never use data like; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00146.html (9,826 bytes)
126. TopBand: Data (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:39:26 +0000; Carl, The data I posted is mostly from the reports you quoted. IMHO, it is a good idea to have available, read, and attempt to understand what one uses as "evidence" BEFORE using it..not after. If yo; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00156.html (6,745 bytes)
127. TopBand: A small thrill in Johnstonville (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:46:39 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> They were on and S8 here,worked at 1056Z.They spent about 15 minutes calling a W1, so they must have heard the east coast. 73, Tom W8JI w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com -- FAQ on WWW:; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00164.html (7,300 bytes)
128. TopBand: an elevating experiment (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:18:55 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Uli, The "S" meter is a good idea, since you could easily use a precision attenuator pad to calibrate the meter. That would actually be MUCH more accurate than a field; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00198.html (11,660 bytes)
129. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:25:14 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> That's the method I used. The reason I did it that way was because it eliminates many errors. It's good to see someone else recognizes and appreciates the large errors in; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00213.html (10,938 bytes)
130. TopBand: an elevating experiment (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:25:14 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Denny, As Eric pointed out, and I keep pointing out, changing the radials does NOT affect wave angle. It's part of Hamlore and common but incorrect rumor that they do.; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00214.html (8,929 bytes)
131. TopBand: Feedpoint impedance vs efficiency (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:15:17 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Art and others, Actually feedpoint impedance is often a very unreliable (or often completely misleading) indicator of efficiency. Even if a noticeable base impedance c; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00243.html (7,648 bytes)
132. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas - long (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:30:34 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> No, here's how it stacked up in dB. 0 dB is the reference of 60 radials. These are farfield signal levels, accurate to + - .1 dB. Elevated .03 wl Conventional four -4.3 d; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00254.html (9,528 bytes)
133. TopBand: NEC-4 info (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:17:01 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Virtual antennas over virtual ground. The use of models requires real world verification. To this very day, the only verification offered are scattered BC field proofs th; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00265.html (8,317 bytes)
134. TopBand: Elevated Radials (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:31:20 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Earl and all, I'm not sure if that's Roy's position, or if he is relying on (or repeating) NEC data supplied to him. Myself also. While the disagreement could be only; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00277.html (10,782 bytes)
135. TopBand: Elevated Radials (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:32:47 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Paul, The difference in soil behavior between 1.6 and 2 MHz is immeasurable. The famous RCA report was done at 3 MHz, and it's results have been found flawless when de; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00293.html (10,448 bytes)
136. TopBand: Elevated Radials (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:32:47 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi John, Thank you for being civil and non-personal in your comments. That prevents it from being a peeing contest. Not unless the radials, feedline, or other conductors; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00294.html (13,161 bytes)
137. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:32:47 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Eric, I cited two examples in my other post where BW and feedpoint efficiency can go the way we expect to improve things and the results go the OPPOSITE way. Let me ex; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00295.html (12,171 bytes)
138. TopBand: Test Signal source (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:02:31 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> Right. I use a modified MFJ-259 analyzer. I added a switch to disconnect the power lead to the frequency counter (to reduce battery drain) and rewired the frequency count; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00403.html (9,087 bytes)
139. TopBand: Vertcal V Dipole (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:02:31 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> RE: Paul's comments GOOD COMMENTS SNIPPED> Amen Paul. Thanks for a breath of common sense. A good example of this are the observations posted that were made under the fol; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00404.html (7,551 bytes)
140. TopBand: Re: 4 square (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:02:31 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> K1ZM sez: snip With 11 different RX antennas, and a four square TX array, I can get a real good idea what direction(s) signal arrive. The WL7 was definitely coming from m; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00405.html (7,544 bytes)

Current List: 121 - 140
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]