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

Results:

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

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Linear-loaded 160m sloper? (score: 1): Author: tonyjw@primenet.com (Tony Wanschura); Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:09:37 -0600; I'd like to ad 160m capability on a small city lot (120x50) with a 60 foot tower. No room for radials of any kind, and I don't want to feed the tower anyway. I'm thinking of a 1/4 wave sloper incorpo; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-09/msg00037.html (6,658 bytes)
2. Linear-loaded 160m sloper? (score: 1): Author: albraun@socketis.net (albraun@socketis.net); Date: Thu, 05 Sep 96 12:57:43 +0000; Tony - I did this for several years when I had a small city lot and it worked quite well. There is an article in QST, April 1986 I believe, that tells how to do it and some sample dimensions. If you; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-09/msg00045.html (7,125 bytes)
3. Linear-loaded 160m sloper? (score: 1): Author: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher); Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:19:08 -0400; Thanks, Alan! I'll go to the club library and get the QST article. Right now, my 160 antenna is a quarter wave sloper, fed against the tower at the 70 foot height. It's far from optimum, but it gets; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-09/msg00046.html (6,882 bytes)
4. Linear-loaded 160m sloper? (score: 1): Author: k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian); Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:07:08 PST; On Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:09:37 -0600 Tony Wanschura <tonyjw@primenet.com> writes: Hi Tony, Here's a description of my 160 half sloper on a 70x120 city lot. The tower is 48 feet high, with a KT-34XA at; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-08/msg00297.html (7,673 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]