Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+high\s+angle\s+versus\s+low\s+angle\s+radiators\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+high\s+angle\s+versus\s+low\s+angle\s+radiators\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: high angle versus low angle radiators (score: 1): Author: sire@omen.com.au (Steve Ireland); Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:36:24 +0800; For most of the last three years, I have used an inverted-u dipole at 60 to 40' high, which has produced around 120 countries. I agree with Yuri VE3BMV and Bill W4ZV's observations about high angle r; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00011.html (12,026 bytes)
2. TopBand: high angle versus low angle radiators (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 04:06:07 -0400; Hi Steve and all, Interesting statement, but a puzzling one. Beverages are excellent high angle receiving antennas. They WAN'T to be high angle antennas because of their height and wire orientation.; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00016.html (13,848 bytes)
3. TopBand: high angle versus low angle radiators (score: 1): Author: happyheart1@juno.com (Charlanne F. Tippett); Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 09:18:21 -0400; On Sun, 02 Aug 1998 04:06:07 -0400 "w8ji.tom" <w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com> writes: Tom, I hope it is not wierd science for me to believe a properly working Beverage has a much lower takeoff angle (~35 degre; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00020.html (8,904 bytes)
4. TopBand: high angle versus low angle radiators (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:34:47 -0400; Hi Bill, Please excuse my last post, I might have a good excuse for not being as clear as I like. I just recovered from food poisoning, and after a week of 104-105 degree temperature I'm a little "fr; /archives//html/Topband/1998-08/msg00037.html (10,457 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]