Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Omni\s+VII\,\s+Eagle\s+and\s+Argonaut\s+VI\s+updates\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Omni\s+VII\,\s+Eagle\s+and\s+Argonaut\s+VI\s+updates\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TenTec] 160 M antenna (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:00:33 -0600; Personally I typically evaluate any HF antenna that I use based on a 3:1 SWR bandwidth. That better is defined as being the frequency that produces a 3:1 SWR below the 1:1 SWR frequency and the frequ; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-11/msg00053.html (13,723 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] 160 M antenna (score: 1): Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:48:48 -0600; Just pointed out that I have a typo. Should be MFJ-259 for the analyzer. 73 Bob, K4TAX -- Original Message -- From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net> To: <k9yc@arrl.net>; "Discussion of Ten-; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-11/msg00056.html (14,536 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]