CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Which would make better stubs?

To: "reflector cq-contest" <CQ-Contest@Contesting.COM>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Which would make better stubs?
From: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Reply-to: k1ttt@arrl.net
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:16:59 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I made my stubs for 20/15/10m out of catv hardline and it seems to work just
fine.


David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of mwdink@eskimo.com
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 20:48
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Which would make better stubs?
> 
> RG213 or LMR400?
> 
> I thought LMR 400 but the data in George W2VJN's
> Station Interference book would seem to indicate otherwise.
> 
> RG213 would be cheaper. Anybody else had experience
> with stubs made of LMR400?
> 
> 73
> dink
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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