Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+160\s+Receiving\s+Antennas\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: Tom Taormina <tom@k5rc.cc>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:27:51 -0700
Okay brain trust, I am looking for recommendations for 160 receiving antennas. I have tried a number of beverages and they do not yield the desired result here in the high desert with no ground refer
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00292.html (6,940 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:42:52 -0400
Hi Tom...I did an evaluation for DX Engineereing of the rcv'ing 4 sq..and its over all performance is equal to my 900 ft beverages on 160m and 80m and the f/b was far better...a number of others have
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00293.html (8,759 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:11:34 -0000
The, overall, most success I've had has been with a relatively low, 25-40 ft high, full-sized 300 ohm folded dipole. It is almost useless as a xmit aerial but really hears well and is very low noise.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00295.html (8,902 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:58:51 -0600
I've had good luck with a simple closed loop, large, 20 - 50 feet up. Large = 300 foot on a side... your size may vary, although as long as it is about a wavelength in circumference, there should be
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00297.html (7,488 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:33:58 -0500
Hi Tom. For future NAQPs I would campaign for two K9AY loops a half wave apart and fed in phase bearing East, and possibly something low and down in the gully up in back of the 40 tower, like N7MAL's
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00298.html (9,439 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "D LINDSAY ESVLC EXP LINER MGR" <DLindsay.vlc@mscspain.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:56:20 +0200
Very timely thread.... I will be doing CQWW SSB this year from a beachside location in EA6 (Formentera island) and am still wondering what band to do, bearing in mind I will only have a few hours to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00299.html (10,297 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:02:13 -0600
One of the things that could hurt the vertical effort, may be the local noise level. One may want to have a back up plan.. that could be as simple as simply running a long piece of coax out.... I kno
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00300.html (8,932 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: J F <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Duncan and all... I've used my top loaded 80M verticals for Rx on 160 and have been quite pleased. The S/N ratio is certainly better that on my top loaded 160M vertical. No preamp was needed, nor
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00301.html (10,699 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: SQ6MS Maciek <sq6ms@o2.pl>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:46:25 +0200
Hi Tom i think you should try the array of 4 k9ay phased togheter. Here you find some information and audio clips: Version for 80/40M (smaller one) http://www.sp3key.com/klub/k9ay_pro/index_en.html V
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00306.html (11,117 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:28:30 -0400
Duncan, Tom, et al: As W8JI makes clear on his web site, the only real improvement in receiving capability on 160M results from DIRECTIVITY. A short loaded vertical will be no better noise discrimina
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00308.html (12,970 bytes)

11. [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "James Cain" <cainjim@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:39:00 -0400
"It probably would also work better if I didn't have five other towers in my five-acre yard :-( -- 73, Dave/K8CC"Five acres isn't a "yard," it's a county! Or, if you could submerge 99 per cent of it,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00312.html (8,277 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] 160 Receiving Antennas (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up3@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:45:51 -0400
I use a rotatable loop for directions where I don't have a Beverage. My web page with construction details, etc. has been up for several years, but I changed ISPs a few months ago, so there may be so
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00313.html (15,105 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu