Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+double\s+bazooka\s+vs\s+full\s+length\s+dipole\?\?\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+double\s+bazooka\s+vs\s+full\s+length\s+dipole\?\?\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] double bazooka vs full length dipole??? (score: 1): Author: Alan Wilson <ke4nu@ke4nu.myrf.net>; Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:29:53 -0700; Ok guys, what is your opinion on which antenna is better overall. Of course the bazooka is more broadbanded, but does it have more gain? as compared to a simple dipole centerfed with coax thru a balu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00581.html (6,639 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] double bazooka vs full length dipole??? (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:06:04 -0500; The "broadbandedness" of the double bazooka probably comes more from the additional loss of the coax than from any increase in the size of the conductor. If you consider the size of 12 gauge wire or; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00595.html (8,238 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] double bazooka vs full length dipole??? (score: 1): Author: "hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:35:37 -0600; Alan, The double bazooka (as conventionally described) is a waste of "weight". It will not outperform an ordinary dipole in terms of gain (it has extra loss, which is where the minor VSWR bandwidth i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00600.html (9,012 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] double bazooka vs full length dipole??? (score: 1): Author: "ROBERT CARROLL" <w2wg@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:40:59 -0500; I see MFJ is selling Franklin 2 wavelength collinear wire antennas. Has anyone had experience with this type of antenna? Bob W2WG Alan, The double bazooka (as conventionally described) is a waste of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-01/msg00604.html (9,925 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]