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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Choices\s*$/: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: k4zzr@bellsouth.net (David); Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 15:13:52 -0400; hi....after reading the reviews on Eham and looking at all the websites for various wire antenna mfgs, I'm still not sure which one to chose. I've got a Butternut HF6V vertical which works ok, but I'; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00268.html (7,890 bytes)
2. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:16:10 -0700; How tall is your tower, David? You said, "37' at the second section," but didn't tell us the overall height. I wouldn't mount a G5RV as an inverted vee; actually a G5RV's not much of an antenna on 80; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00270.html (10,058 bytes)
3. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: k4zzr@bellsouth.net (David); Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:42:44 -0400; It's a 55' crankup (three sections) with 16' of mast above that. My 11 el tribander is 18" from the top of the tower. on I've got about twenty radials under the vertical, longest one is about 60'.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00271.html (7,848 bytes)
4. Fw: [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: on4kj@skynet.be (on4kj); Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 21:13:52 -0000; " hight 300 would got ends 75?; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00273.html (11,187 bytes)
5. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: na9d@speakeasy.net (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 19:47:34 -0500; I agree. I had one up and dumped it for an Alpha-Delta multi-band dipole which while very sharp and narrow banded on 80 still is a very good antenna for domestic stations on 80 and 40 at my height of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00280.html (8,159 bytes)
6. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: Jim@ShawResources.com (Jim Shaw); Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 21:59:43 -0700; Why not call w9INN and get one of his custom made wire antennas? Have heard positive things but never owned one myself. 73 de Jim WA6PX JGShaw@Alumni.HAAS.org an I agree. I had one up and dumped it f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00287.html (8,224 bytes)
7. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: ccc@space.mit.edu (Chuck Counselman); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:14:48 -0400; It's not _all_ bad. My G5RV in the shape of an inverted "U" only 30 feet high and my friend W1NU's G5RV in the shape of an inverted "V" 55 feet high at its apex both work well on both 80 and 40 meter; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00288.html (8,388 bytes)
8. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com); Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:57:28 -0600; 40M dipoles work well for DX at 60 ft and above. 50 ft is 'OK' but not great. 80M dipoles *begin* to 'play' around 90 ft or so. I'm pretty happy with my 130 ft high dipoles. Anything less is a cloud; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00289.html (9,472 bytes)
9. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: n4gi@tampabay.rr.com (n4gi); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:16:26 -0400; <<40M dipoles work well for DX at 60 ft and above. 50 ft is 'OK' but not great. 80M dipoles *begin* to 'play' around 90 ft or so. I'm pretty happy with my 130 ft high dipoles. Anything less is a clou; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00294.html (8,547 bytes)
10. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:46:01 -0700; Hi Jon, Re G5RV on 80m, I like to think of it as leaky dummy load. It's amazing how much better a simple 125' dipole works, at only 23' longer... WB2WIK/6 "If everything seems under control, you're j; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00299.html (9,695 bytes)
11. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:54:40 -0700; Hi Chuck, I never judge an antenna by how much DX I can work with it; I judge it against other antennas. It pays to have multiple antennas, and a switch. I broke through a small pileup to work 9J2CA; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00300.html (11,363 bytes)
12. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: bob@farkaly.com (Bob Farkaly); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:20:38 -0700; dang! my 5B-WAZ and 5B-DXCC placques shouldn't be on the wall because I got them both using a 40/80 sloping dipole with the apex at 70 feet. Bob, K9RHY <<40M dipoles work well for DX at 60 ft and abo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00302.html (9,663 bytes)
13. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: ccc@space.mit.edu (Chuck Counselman); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:24:15 -0400; I know; I read that article, and we've all seen or heard examples, sometimes first-hand, of contacts made with practically no antenna. And I agree with you that it pays to have multiple antennas, and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00303.html (11,350 bytes)
14. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:34:27 -0700; Bob, I request you remove the plaques, please. "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." - Mario Andretti; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00304.html (11,314 bytes)
15. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: tmartin@chartermi.net (Tom Martin); Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:10:24 -0500; Isn't the effectiveness of the antenna a lot like real estate? Location, Location, Location! Tom W8JWN; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00305.html (8,262 bytes)
16. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: ccc@space.mit.edu (Chuck Counselman); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:32:44 -0400; Yes. Mainly, the higher, the better. And the higher the co$t. -Chuck, W1HIS; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00307.html (8,444 bytes)
17. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: kk9a@arrl.net (kk9a@arrl.net); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:59:49 -0500; That may be true for someone in MA. I would rather have a lower antenna 1000 miles further east. John Yes. Mainly, the higher, the better. And the higher the co$t. -Chuck, W1HIS _____________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00308.html (9,260 bytes)
18. [Towertalk] choices (score: 1): Author: w7why@harborside.com (Tom Osborne); Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:45:33 +0100; Right on on that one! I had one up here for about a week and don't think I've used a worse antenna. A random length of wire worked better. Another good antenna is the inverted L. I have one for 160 a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00310.html (9,503 bytes)
19. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: na9d@speakeasy.net (Jon Ogden); Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:52:02 -0500; Hear! Hear! Those east coast guys don't know what it's like trying to work Europe while passing your signals through the auroral belt! 73, Jon NA9D -- Jon Ogden NA9D (ex: KE9NA) Life Member: ARRL, NR; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00312.html (10,648 bytes)
20. [Towertalk] Choices (score: 1): Author: kq2m@earthlink.net (Robert Shohet); Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:15:49 -0400; while In New England we are INTIMATELY familiar with what the Auroral Belt does to signals! So are most people on the East Coast. Bob KQ2M; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00313.html (8,499 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]