Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+OCF\s+and\s+160m\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+OCF\s+and\s+160m\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] OCF and 160m? (score: 1): Author: "Eugene Hertz" <ehertz@tcaf.org>; Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:23:33 +0000; Hello all, ok: I got a real bender for you experts and modelers out there (I am neither!). I have two trees on my property. They are 195' apart. I am thinking of an OCF dipole with 45' and 90' legs w; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00076.html (8,238 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] OCF and 160m? (score: 1): Author: "FISCHER,GREG" <ab7r@cablespeed.com>; Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:38:52 -0500; Good morning Eugene, An OCF antenna is by definition an unbalanced antenna. For it to be balance, both side would have to be the same length. So, Why not see if you have the room for a 160m OCF windo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00080.html (9,608 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] OCF and 160m? (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:03:56 -0700; If you string a horizontal antenna between them, how high will it be? This is a VERY important question. Second, you should plug this information into a simulation program called HFTA, written by N6B; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00084.html (8,589 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] OCF and 160m? (score: 1): Author: Terry Conboy <n6ry@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:26:46 -0700; Eugene, In addition to the excellent comments you have already received, it is worth noting that the 80 meter trap will only "disconnect" the extra wire on 80m, so operation on 60m and up will be imp; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00115.html (8,683 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]