Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Retert\:\s+Best\s+Coil\s+Material\s+for\s+160\s+Meters\s+Mobile\s+Ant\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Retert\:\s+Best\s+Coil\s+Material\s+for\s+160\s+Meters\s+Mobile\s+Ant\.\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Retert: Best Coil Material for 160 Meters Mobile Ant. (score: 1): Author: "Paul Marbourg" <zborg@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:22:20 +0100; Hello Richard. I am in the midst of doing the same thing here. I have spent a lot of time trying to find the optimum combination of factors to give the best overall efficiency for the antenna system.; /archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00326.html (11,284 bytes)
2. RE: [Amps] Retert: Best Coil Material for 160 Meters Mobile Ant. (score: 1): Author: "Dr. William J. Schmidt, II" <bill@wjschmidt.com>; Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:31:28 -0600; Try a bug-catcher 6160 (or at least use the pattern for your design). It seems to win all the challenges/ shoot-outs... I worked 27 countries in under an hour from my truck with it yesterday in the c; /archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00332.html (13,146 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Retert: Best Coil Material for 160 Meters Mobile Ant. (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:23:18 -0800; Yea, Verily I would try 4" ABS. It's not expensive and it's D-factor is low. Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contestin; /archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00334.html (12,611 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]