- 1. [TenTec] Re: 100w mobile rig, etc. (score: 1)
- Author: "Roy Koeppe" <royanjoy@ncn.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:25:18 -0500
- Was declared, "To be really serious about mobile operation, I run an antenna by HiQ that is about 70% efficient at 17 meters and above and about 36% at 3.8." That 36% at 3.8 mHz is pretty much wishfu
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00168.html (7,500 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TenTec] Re: 100w mobile rig, etc. (score: 1)
- Author: w8au@sssnet.com
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 16:33:44 -0400
- At 11:25 AM 08/04/2004, you wrote: Answer: Overall possible practical mobile antenna system efficiency on 75 meters is limited to approximately 5%. Even this is unlikely to be achieved. Go gettum, Ro
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00194.html (7,389 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TenTec] Re: 100w mobile rig, etc. (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Miller WB5OXQ" <wb5oxq@grandecom.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 17:39:08 -0500
- I guess this is why when I ger on my Thursday night net on 3.972, mobile running 100 watts into a Little Tarheel 2 I am heard 200 miles away as loud or louder than most of the other 3 or 4 base stati
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00200.html (8,451 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TenTec] Re: 100w mobile rig, etc. (score: 1)
- Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:17:19 -1000
- Jim Miller WB5OXQ wrote: I guess this is why when I ger on my Thursday night net on 3.972, mobile running 100 watts into a Little Tarheel 2 I am heard 200 miles away as loud or louder than most of th
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00211.html (7,832 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TenTec] Re: 100w mobile rig, etc. (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Miller WB5OXQ" <wb5oxq@grandecom.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:26:58 -0500
- You know what I mean. I doubt many run a omni 6+ and a Centurion in their mobile. That is what I run in my shack. I guess with a large generator it is possable. My point is that you can sucessfully t
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-08/msg00248.html (9,406 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu