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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+low\s+TOA\s+on\s+160\s+verticals\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Low TOA on 160 Verticals (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:24:59 -0400; If installed over salty marsh. Ever tried to model or compare any vertical over average and "perfect" sea ground and see the gain at LOW angles? Speaking of low angles, when it comes to 160 meter ver; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00069.html (7,792 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] low TOA on 160 verticals (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:49:38 -0400; At the W2GD 160m contest site, the former WCC coastal marine site, in West Creek, NJ... we had an inverted Ell as the 'mult' station antenna. It was modelled by a very bright guy...and we changed to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00080.html (7,586 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Low TOA on 160 Verticals (score: 1): Author: k3bu@optonline.net; Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:19:42 +0000 (GMT); That may be true according to theories you use. :-) But according to "my" theory http://www.k3bu.us/propagation.htm sometimes low angles and ducting/refraction do not jive with conventional wisdom,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-04/msg00086.html (9,560 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]