Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+JK\s+Navassa\-5\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+JK\s+Navassa\-5\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: Ken Garg <w3jk@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:34:49 -0500; Happy Thanksgiving all !! A good friend alerted me to a posting by K9OM. His post starts as follows ..Correct me if Im wrong . Well, Dick you are WRONG. The JK Navassa-5 comes pre-drilled, pre-cuts t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00563.html (7,727 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:12:24 -0500; If the antenna is at 36 feet, why are you using 100 feet of coax for the measurement? Why not use 50 feet or calibrate out the losses and present true "at the antenna" measurements? 73, ... Joe, W4T; /archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00569.html (8,967 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: Ken Garg <w3jk@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:30:16 -0500; Joe, All data is available at 50ft, 100ft etc. There is not much significant difference thats smoke and mirrors. The reason to show 100ft was taking into account an average ham shack with a coax run.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00571.html (10,041 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:21:45 -0800; On 11/27/14, 11:30 AM, Ken Garg wrote: Joe, All data is available at 50ft, 100ft etc. There is not much significant difference thats smoke and mirrors. The reason to show 100ft was taking into accoun; /archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00572.html (9,937 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:38:30 -0500; It depends ... perhaps with quality RG-213 where loss is ~1 dB/100' at 30 MHz the difference is not significant. However, if you're using RG58 with nearly 3 dB/100' at 30 MHz even a non-resonant ant; /archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00576.html (11,496 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: Ken Garg <w3jk@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:37:05 -0500; Yeah, I did not jump in to argue and also why would you spend $1000 for an antenna and use RG58!! We can definitely add on the website RG213 of good quality used if it makes folks not get confused. T; /archives//html/Towertalk/2014-11/msg00578.html (13,234 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbert.schoenbohm@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:57:10 -0400; IMHO for a high performance well built antenna the Force 12 C3S was great for the price, easy to assemble, and USPS shippable with 3 elements on 15 and 10. With pre-drilled holes for the element leng; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00015.html (13,078 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: "John Langdon" <jlangdon1@austin.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 07:30:40 -0500; The C3 and C3S both had a very high performance to wind load ratio, and were good for 20+ years with no maintenance required. 73 John N5CQ IMHO for a high performance well built antenna the Force 12; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00016.html (15,049 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5 (score: 1): Author: Richard Thorne <rthorne@rthorne.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:25:33 -0500; I have a C3 on my tower that I purchased back in 1996, still going strong, no issues. Rich - N5ZC 73 John N5CQ IMHO for a high performance well built antenna the Force 12 C3S was great for the price,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-10/msg00018.html (14,942 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]