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

Results:

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

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 160 m antenna swr (score: 1): Author: Alex Aimette <w2ox@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:24:57 +0000; Here is a problem that perhaps some of you have faced or haqve had experience with. On v4 we put up a dipole for 160 but the best we can do is about35-40 feet above "ground." Gound here is a plateau; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00318.html (6,944 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] 160 m antenna swr (score: 1): Author: "W5CUL" <w5cul@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:55:53 -0500; Hi Alex, I live in a subdivision that does not allow towers, much less elevated antennas. So I am pretty familiar with your situation. If the antenna is cut to resonance, meaning no measurable capaci; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00319.html (8,542 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] 160 m antenna swr (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:57:34 -0400; limits how much power we can feed to about net 800 watts (forward 1050-ref 250 w). Alex I have heard and worked V47KP many times on 160. In my opinion your TX signal is superb as is and is already on; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00325.html (7,355 bytes)
4. [Amps] 160 m antenna swr (score: 1): Author: "Paul Marbourg" <zborg@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:46:05 -0800; Hi Alex, I ran a full length 160 dipole at less than nominal height for many years at my old QTH. I fed my dipole (up at 100 feet suspended between Douglas Fir trees on a mountain about 1000 feet abo; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00327.html (8,235 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]