Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Low\s+angle\s+versus\s+high\s+angle\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Low\s+angle\s+versus\s+high\s+angle\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: Low angle versus high angle (score: 1): Author: sire@omen.com.au (Steve Ireland); Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:56:04 +0800; Those who have found that putting a vertical/low angle antenna on 160m improves their DX performance and think that this is the answer to everything/everybody should take heed from old campaigners li; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00379.html (9,107 bytes)
2. TopBand: Low angle versus high angle (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com); Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:32:19 EST; And I cant even get into the 3rd tier with my 160' high inverted V Steve. I think Yuri is correct...it is too high. When I first moved here in 89-90 winter all I had was a V at 55'...worked 3Y5X on B; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00385.html (11,344 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]