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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Water\s+Conductivity\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Water Conductivity (score: 1): Author: kn4lf@hotmail.com (Thomas Giella); Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:24:20 -0500; Conductivity of flood water is usually much higher then ground water, as it has come into contact with numerous surface materials and pollutants. Also ground water is also much more conductive then m; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00108.html (7,146 bytes)
2. Topband: Water Conductivity (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:10:32 -0500; Right, but doesn't Leeson say in his book that for horizontally polarized antennas, ground conductivity is basically irrelevant, at least in the Fresnel zone where pattern formation occurs? He says,; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00110.html (7,537 bytes)
3. Topband: Water Conductivity (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 06:45:46 -0500; KN4LF: When we did broadcast proofs in the Lake Erie/ Lake Huron areas, both lakes had a conductivity of about 6 or 8. Surrounding land ranged from 10 to 30mS/m. The 30mS/m stuff was very wet black s; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00113.html (7,824 bytes)
4. Topband: Water Conductivity (score: 1): Author: Sam Dellit" <dellits@onthenet.com.au (Sam Dellit); Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:09:58 +1000; g'day tom and the gang you may be interested to know that measured ground conductivities in a large area of south central New South Wales (state of australia) are consistently in excess of 40mS/m. 80; /archives//html/Topband/2001-03/msg00114.html (7,594 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]