Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+1\/2\s+Mile\s+Super\s+Loop\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+1\/2\s+Mile\s+Super\s+Loop\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 1/2 Mile Super Loop? (score: 1): Author: "Brian Campbell" <VY2MGY@sympatico.ca>; Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:49:19 -0400; Please excuse the "Dupe" if you read this on the Contest Reflector but I don't think everyone may subscribe to it on this reflector. I am thinking of putting up a 2000' [ 500' X 500' ] loop up in the; /archives//html/Topband/2004-06/msg00006.html (8,084 bytes)
2. Topband: 1/2 Mile Super Loop? (score: 1): Author: "William G. McDowell" <k4cia@mindspring.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:48:00 -0400; Brian Get in touch with MW0ELR if you can. He has successfully used very large loops on the magnitude of your proposed antenna. He is in qrz.com but no email address. I have heard him on the bands wi; /archives//html/Topband/2004-06/msg00012.html (6,728 bytes)
3. RE: Topband: 1/2 Mile Super Loop? (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:47:21 -0700; Low horizontally polarized antennas do poorly on 160 meters compared to verticals, in spite of what NEC predicts. Put up four 70' verticals in a 4 square and you'll do much better. Rick N6RK ________; /archives//html/Topband/2004-06/msg00030.html (9,420 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: 1/2 Mile Super Loop? (score: 1): Author: "Brian Campbell" <VY2MGY@sympatico.ca>; Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:38:46 -0400; Thanks for all of the replies [ 28 ] and interest in this proposed project. Most, if not all, of the responses indicated that it would be no good for 160M DX. Perhaps I should have gone into a little; /archives//html/Topband/2004-06/msg00045.html (8,159 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]