Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+43\s+foot\s+Vertical\s+claim\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+43\s+foot\s+Vertical\s+claim\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: "VO1HP" <fdavis@nfld.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:41:13 -0800; "The DX Engineering THUNDERBOLT MBVA-1UP is a rugged 43 foot, high performance 160-10 meter vertical multi-band ..............this antenna is very durable, attractive, and is an optimized height of o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00672.html (7,240 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: Dan Zimmerman N3OX <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:41:07 -0400; How can it be claimed as multiband? Look, the 43 foot vertical craze is a bunch of BS, and there are no manufacturers, in my opinion, who are innocent of putting marketing above good antenna enginee; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00676.html (10,128 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:49:15 -0700; Doesn't say what it's "optimized" for, now, does it? Optimized so the pieces are shippable UPS at low cost? Optimized so that there's maximum difference between sell price and cost of goods sold? Opt; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00679.html (8,478 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: "Jim Chaggaris" <jimc@pwrone.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:37:48 -0500; Frank, It is not an optimized height for 160M regardless of what they say. The marketing departments at DXE, MFJ, Zero Five etc. want you to think so so you'll plop down $300+. This vertical is only; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00711.html (9,360 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: "W5JMW" <w5jmw@cableone.net>; Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:41:10 -0500; Thank you Frank,I was getting ready to start cutting down the hightower to 43 ft....hi hi -- Original Message -- From: "Jim Chaggaris" <jimc@pwrone.com> To: <towertalk@contesting.com> Sent: Tuesday,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00712.html (10,629 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:06:31 -0400; NO SINGLE ANTENNA WILL SUIT ALL OPERATORS. This antenna is the right antenna for the right person under the right circumstances. It is for me, even though it may not be for you. I HAVE ONE OF THESE 4; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00728.html (12,463 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>; Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:57:54 -0500; K8JHR wrote: I DISAGREE with the claim it is a mere cloud warmer on the higher bands. EZNEC studies, performed by others more knowledgeable than I, indicate it has a fairly low take off angle -"....; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00734.html (16,078 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] 43 foot Vertical claim (score: 1): Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>; Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:45:37 -0400; Thanks, Jerry -- I guess the good news is that I was not looking for this antenna to do well higher than, say, 17 meters - My target bands were 160-20 - and it seems to work WELL ENOUGH on my target; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00745.html (10,020 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]