Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Re\:\s+Tower\s+used\s+on\s+160m\s+vs\.\s+Packet\s+Node\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: Re: Tower used on 160m vs. Packet Node (score: 1)
Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:06:01 -0700
To: <topband@contesting.com> Ron, You should not have any problems (we call 'em "insurmountable opportunities" around here) with safely driving that system as a 160 merer antenna so long as: 1. All o
/archives//html/Topband/1997-11/msg00199.html (9,705 bytes)

2. TopBand: Re: Tower used on 160m vs. Packet Node (score: 1)
Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:05:48 EST
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:06:01 -0700 Eric Gustafson <n7cl@sparx.mmsi.com> writes: To: <topband@contesting.com> Hi Eric, I had a somewhat similar tower setup at my old QTH including 3 VHF-UHF antennas,
/archives//html/Topband/1997-11/msg00204.html (10,978 bytes)

3. TopBand: Re: Tower used on 160m vs. Packet Node (score: 1)
Author: n7cl@mmsi.com (Eric Gustafson)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:35:19 -0700
To: <topband@contesting.com> RF wise, it will work OK as long as the feedline follows the tower members to the ground. Effeciency and lightning protection are both enhanced with the proper bonding a
/archives//html/Topband/1997-11/msg00217.html (9,668 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu