Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower and antenna decisions

To: "TOWERTALK@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower and antenna decisions
From: "Patrick Greenlee" <patrick_g@windstream.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:53:05 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Richard, It isn't an issue of what you can get away with and not be prosecuted. The protest was based on civility and pedagogical considerations. The original protest was based on the protester's perception of this forum being frequented by those whose ears were not accustomed to hearing such terminology. I don't know what monastery or nunnery you'd have to search to find persons to whom the term would be shocking but it sure isn't today's school children. It may be an unfortunate state of affairs but nevertheless it is the current state of affairs.

Whether or not the user of the term was emulating his idol/mentor is left to your determination. It is a fact in todays world that this sort of speech, used for emphasis, is not an infrequent event. We have come a long way since Lenny Bruce. Not necessarily in a totally desired direction but here we are.

And, oh by the way, I think the T shirt story was hilarious and wish I had thought of it first.

I recall an episode in my undergrad physics days where a friend of mine, a fellow ex USAF cum physics major, told someone to bleep themselves which got a quizzical but mildly hostile reply to which my friend replied, "bleep you, you mother bleeping mother bleeper, bleep off!

Note: I have made no substitution. My friend used the word "bleep" but nevertheless conveyed his intent.

Had the poster written "BULL BLEEP" is there anyone who would not have made the correct translation?

Until or unless I see evidence to the contrary, I think the comment was acceptable in this forum for reasons stated above not because it wouldn't have gotten him prosecuted had it been said on the air. I'm glad to see someone stick up for the laws of physics. It is some of the last laws not bleeped with or bleeped up by the bleeping liberals.

Anyone care to advise me regarding issues relating to the coax run up the tower in the case of a crank-up tilt over with a rotating antenna atop it?

1.  How do you keep the coax tangle and jam free when the rotator rotates?
2. What are the best choices for the part of the coax next to the rotator? Should all the moving coax be some kind of "ultra flexible cable." 3. How do you keep the coax from getting "messed up? when raising and lowering the crank up? I have heard there is a way to keep the coax inside the tower tangle free. Is that so?

This is my first time so please treat me gently. I have never had a rotating ham antenna before.

Patrick


-----Original Message----- From: Richard Solomon
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:08 PM
To: Tower Talk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower and antenna decisions

Jerry Letvin would agree with you, he used the same term in a
televised broadcast in the early 60's. The FCC did not react.

73, Dick, W1KSZ


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>wrote:

On 10/27/2013 2:26 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:

#  Lemme rephrase that slightly.  IF the ground is relatively
flat....higher
is STILL better.   The 1st 45 feet doesn?t count.  You need that just to
clear junk +
clutter in the surrounding neighbourhood.


I won't dispute that.

 ## While 70 ft may seem high....on 40m + 80m, its not.   70 ft on 40m is
like 35 ft up
on 20m.


Gee -- from your earlier post, to which I strongly objected, I got the
distinct impression you were talking about tribanders. But that is is
exactly my point -- in addition to clearing the clutter, the most important
contribution of height is forming the vertical radiation pattern of the
antenna, and for that, height must be thought  on in ELECTRICAL DEGREES,
not feet or meters. Up to a point, additional height boosts low angle
radiation, but eventually a height will be reached where it produces nulls
in the vertical pattern. At lower heights these nulls are at higher angles,
but when you go higher, they are at lower angles.

I'm currently in the midst of a project to raise my 80/40 fan dipole from
around 120 ft (155 degrees on 80M) to around 140 ft (182 degrees) to
improve its low angle radiation on 80M, and to add a reflector to increase
the gain to the east coast and EU. If it were flat land, NEC predicts 2 dB
for the increased height and 3.5 - 4.5 dB for the reflector (the lower gain
number is because the available trees don't allow the reflector to be
parallel to the driven.  We'll see.

 Take one of these 89 ft crank ups....and run it from 26 ft nested..up to
89 ft extended..and it?s a real eye opener.  I have a  slight uphill rise
from N-S...all facing east.   And slightly downhill.... from N-S..all
facing west. I need all the height I can get when pointed at EU, AF, SA,
etc.


Right, but you said flat land. I have similar topography here to the north
and east, and on all bands, higher IS better in those directions, even on
the higher HF bands.  But it is NOT better to anywhere in the Pacific,
because I have five miles of down-slope in that direction.

The beauty of N6BV's HFTA software is that it first models the
contribution of terrain to the vertical pattern along any azimuth that you
choose, then allows you to superimpose statistical modeled data for the
vertical propagation to a range of destinations for the non-WARC bands.
This allows the user to see when those vertical nulls are likely to get us
in trouble, and when they don't matter. I have two towers, one holding a
3-el SteppIR (no trombones) at 120 ft,  another placing monobanders for 20
and15  at about 45 and 35 ft respectively, and a third push-up holding a
10M Yagi at 20 ft. In all cases, HFTA accurately predicts the actual on-air
performance of these antennas.

As to stacking Yagis -- I've heard W3LPL do an excellent presentation on
this topic at part of K3LR's Contest University. I don't know whether this
material is available on line, but it's well worth seeking out.

Someone objected to my use of  "profanity" to make a point. The late Paul
Klipsch, was one of the most highly respected of engineers working in pro
audio as well as some other disciplines (explosives and firearms, as I
recall), and founder of the loudspeaker company bearing his name. At annual
meetings of the Audio Engineering Society, Paul made a practice of sitting
at the back of technical papers sessions wearing a plaid sport shirt (and a bola tie, as I recall). When the technical content of a given paper strayed
from the laws of physics, Paul would stand in the aisle at the back of the
room and open his shirt to reveal a tee-shirt containing the single epithet
"BULLSHIT" in large letters.

73, Jim K9YC


______________________________**_________________



______________________________**_________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

_______________________________________
No infections found in this incoming message
Scanned by iolo System Shield
http://www.iolo.com
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>