To: | "W. E. Bailey" <ebailey@earthlink.net> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole Longer or higher? |
From: | Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net> |
Date: | Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:53:35 -0500 |
List-post: | <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
On Feb 15, 2005, at 1:04 AM, W. E. Bailey wrote: I would suggest that you think about shortening the length of your antenna Dr. Cebik did his modeling of the 88 foot dipole at 100 feet and 70 feet horizontal. We're talking about a 40 foot high inverted V. There's no reason to emulate Dr. Cebik's design, since at 40 feet and an inverted V, the antenna would have none of the benefit. Making the antenna 88 feet would be a mistake. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA. _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole Longer or higher?, Bill Coleman |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole Longer or higher?, Michael Tope |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole Longer or higher?, Tom Rauch |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Dipole Longer or higher?, Jim Brown |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |