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

Results:

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

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 160M (score: 1): Author: "jsloss" <k7mks@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:37:21 -0700; What type of 160m performance, if any, am I likely to get if I tie the shack end of open wire feeders together, that go to a 80m dipole up 55', and feed it against ground. Joe k7mks _________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-06/msg00017.html (6,380 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:09:55 -0700; You're very likely to have a lot of fun on 160M. I've used EXACTLY that antenna, with great success both here in Nor Cal and back in Chicago. One important caveat though -- you don't want to feed it; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-06/msg00018.html (8,137 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M (score: 1): Author: "Steve Jones" <n6sj@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:39:16 -0700; I have a 80M dipole up around 70 feet fed with open wire line just like yours. I have worked a few countries with 100W feeding the shorted feedline through a tuner. I have no counterpoise or radial s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-06/msg00019.html (8,908 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] 160M (score: 1): Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:11:49 -0700; Joe, I concur whole heartily with Jim, especially with regard to having a good ground system/counterpoise. I've used variation of what you describe at several locations with good success on 160 meter; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-06/msg00020.html (8,137 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]