Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*C\-3\s+Info\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*C\-3\s+Info\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:22:05 -0500 (EST); -- Steve - the following is the reply I sent to Mr. Soper, who asked about the C-3 vs. the rest. Thought you might find it interesting. I am not sure if all my replies end up at everyone's Tower Refl; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00307.html (12,287 bytes)
2. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher); Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:15:53 -0500; someone who thinks that chosing a C-3 over an "XA" would be smoking something, since I have done my fair share of contesting and DXpeditions: any day take a C-3 - smaller, lighter, less tower strain,; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00310.html (22,424 bytes)
3. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: k4sb@avana.net (k4sb@avana.net); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 00:40:21 PST; This is basically a variation of the "coupled resonator" principle.....K9AY had an excellent article on it in RF DESIGN Nov. 94. See also CQ, Aug. 1983 Ed -- Name: Ed Sleight E-mail: k4sb@avana.net T; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00311.html (7,929 bytes)
4. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: force12@interserv.com (force12@interserv.com); Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:56:15 -0800; Dear folks: Interesting how this gentleman was apparently waiting for a chance to expound on this subject. I did anticipate that, of course - in fact, I was told beforehand because of some history in; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00312.html (9,375 bytes)
5. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: hb@cpimaging.com (Howard Brainen); Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:23:23 -0800; Tony, Tom, and the gang: All the theoretical analyses of the Force 12 tribanders vs. trapped antennas is very interesting, but why doesn't someone simply put one of each up at similar heights and do; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00315.html (7,967 bytes)
6. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 03:56:43 -0800; Hi Tony -- As always, I find your stuff sensible and thought-inducing. But the one place I don't agree with you is on the *magnitude* of the gain advantage enjoyed by the KT-34XA. (stuff deleted) mod; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00316.html (9,262 bytes)
7. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 08:54:52 -0500; requote from Tom's original post: You made the erroneaous connection, Tom; not I. water, the longer boom length of other antennas would not be effective" is not correct either. I think almost everyon; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00318.html (8,583 bytes)
8. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:11:08 -0500; Pete I'll be happy to concede differences in forward gain numbers. But I don't think ground refelction gain could exceed around 6 dB - you quoted 7.5(20m) or 8(15m)dB. The XA should be better than th; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00320.html (7,946 bytes)
9. C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:26:20 -0500 (EST); No, I think in order to equate the two antennas performance you'd have to have the same boom length. Comparing an 18 foot boom antenna (the C-3) to a 32 foot boom antenna (the XA) is not only a case; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00324.html (8,600 bytes)
10. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:12:38 -0500; Tom et al: I have no issue with the gain number published by Force12. Neither am I able, nor interested in defending the published gain numbers for the KT-34XA. I have done simulations of the XA, and; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00326.html (8,446 bytes)
11. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: force12@interserv.com (force12@interserv.com); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:05:18 -0800; OK, One last time, especially since it was cloudy last night and I could not see the North star anyway. Mr. Tony Brock-Fisher, I don't know you at all. I don't know if you write a lot on the 'net or; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00328.html (9,308 bytes)
12. C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:47:56 -0500; No, I think in order to equate the two antennas performance you'd have to have the same boom length. Comparing an 18 foot boom antenna (the C-3) to a 32 foot boom antenna (the XA) is not only a case; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00329.html (8,448 bytes)
13. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: no2tj@cybernex.net (Jerry NO2T); Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 23:57:32 -0500; Hold it. YOur comments on the reflector have driven me away from considering any force12 antennas for myself or any other hams in the Northern New Jersey area that ask me for advice. First of all. I; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00339.html (8,318 bytes)
14. Fwd: C-3 Info (score: 1): Author: wlminer@pbsac04.isp.PacBell.COM (Miner, Bill L (wlminer)); Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:44:00 -0800; Tom - N6BT - Force 12, I have observed your insulting remarks toward fellow hams on the local DX packet spotting network and now I see you issuing flames on the internet. I don't recall ever seeing a; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-01/msg00417.html (10,796 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]