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

Results:

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

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: shunt fed towers (score: 1): Author: "John" <ljdoyle@suscom-maine.net>; Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:36:04 -0500; would like to pose a question to the antenna experts...read recently that a tall tower say 1/4 wave with large antennas atop of it really does not work well as a 160m antenna...what do the experts sa; /archives//html/Topband/2008-12/msg00098.html (6,919 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: shunt fed towers (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:33:23 -0800; I'll assume this is sarcasm. Okay - I have now heard of at least two cases where tall towers work well on 160 meters. I "eat my words". However, there sure isn't anything wrong with a 70-80 foot towe; /archives//html/Topband/2008-12/msg00101.html (8,395 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: shunt fed towers (score: 1): Author: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <olinger@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:50:00 -0500; -- What I have read here and elsewhere is an urban legend substitution of easy feed-point for performance, where "works well" means SWR instead of far field signal strength. Not all high performing a; /archives//html/Topband/2008-12/msg00103.html (8,955 bytes)
4. Topband: shunt fed towers (score: 1): Author: "John" <ljdoyle@suscom-maine.net>; Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:52:44 -0500; just want to thank all the experts for answering on and off the reflector, consenses is that high towers with big antennas for top loading make killer antennas and feeding them is not really a big pr; /archives//html/Topband/2008-12/msg00114.html (7,584 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]