Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+\"T\"\s+versus\s+\"L\"aerial\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Rollema" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:36:50 +0100
To All from PA0SE Bob, ZL2AC wrote: Dick PA0SE, Fine on the test result. As you stated, the tested T has twice the amount of top loading wire (2x 20 metres) than the L (1x 20 metres). It would be int
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00055.html (11,761 bytes)

2. LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "hamilton mal" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:33:43 +0100
-- Original Message -- From: [email protected] Dick Rollema To: [email protected] LF-Group Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:09 PM Subject: LF: "T" versus "L"aerial To All from PA0S
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00091.html (11,384 bytes)

3. LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "Vernall" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:03:09 +1300
Dick PA0SE, Fine on the test result. As you stated, the tested T has twice the amount of top loading wire (2x 20 metres) than the L (1x 20 metres). It would be interesting to know if a T is better th
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00207.html (11,343 bytes)

4. RE: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "M. Sanders" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:50:41 +0100
Dear Dick / Bob and Lofers, Does the computer calculate the earth losses in the return path from the aerial system to the transmitter? If it would then the earth losses in a T should have been signif
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00022.html (17,351 bytes)

5. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "captbrian" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:21:59 +0100
Then the simulation must surely be wrong.! I spent a long time reading a 160/80 m antenna book by ON4 ?? before realising that the performance of various antenna configurations confidently reported a
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00062.html (12,903 bytes)

6. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "captbrian" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:22:46 +0100
If two 20m wires are better than one 40m one for the same total lenght of wire , Does this mean that four horizontal legs of 10 m would be even better ? and so eight of 5m or sixteen of only 2.5m bet
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00063.html (13,151 bytes)

7. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Rollema" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:50:19 +0100
Dear John, Computer simulation takes place over perfect ground and shows appreciable horizontally polarised radiation under high elevation angles for the inverted-L aerial . But even at say 20m heigh
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00097.html (17,668 bytes)

8. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Rollema" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:29:15 +0100
To All from PA0SE Bryan, G3GVB wrote: Then the simulation must surely be wrong.! I spent a long time reading a 160/80 m antenna book by ON4 ?? before realising that the performance of various antenna
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00098.html (14,405 bytes)

9. RE: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Rollema" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 12:30:09 +0100
To All from PA0SE, Mike, PC4M, wrote: At 02:50 1-1-04, you wrote: Dear Dick / Bob and Lofers, Does the computer calculate the earth losses in the return path from the aerial system to the transmitter
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00100.html (15,067 bytes)

10. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "g3ldo" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:03:53 +0100
Mike, PC4M said -- Does the computer calculate the earth losses in the return path from the aerial system to the transmitter? If it would then the earth losses in a T should have been significantly l
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00147.html (10,642 bytes)

11. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "hamilton mal" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:18:38 +0100
-- Original Message -- From: [email protected] Dick Rollema To: [email protected] [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 3:50 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00183.html (20,924 bytes)

12. RE: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:46:43 +0100
Dear Gary, LF Group, Looking at your diagram, I would avoid having a downlead near the central mast for two reasons; firstly, unless the mast is well insulated from ground, the capacitance between th
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00207.html (14,219 bytes)

13. Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial (score: 1)
Author: "John Rabson" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:03:46 +0100
How much horizontally polarised skywave is there and how well does it propagate? Would it be worth constructing an aerial that favoured skywave? 73 John Rabson G3PAI To All from PA0SE, T In the compu
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2004-01/msg00284.html (16,665 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu