To: | topband@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Topband: Low Dipoles |
From: | Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com> |
Reply-to: | jim@audiosystemsgroup.com |
Date: | Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:35:31 -0800 |
List-post: | <mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
On 12/17/2020 12:28 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote: I've had low (30-40' up) 160m dipoles in essentially 3 QTH's.and always had inverted L's to do A/B realtime comparisons. I'd define a dipole as "low" if it were less than 1/4 wavelength; I had one at 120 ft, less than a quarter wave. The virtue of having it lower than that, of course, is that it further suppresses low angle, potentially reducing local noise. 73, Jim K9YC _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Topband: Low Dipoles, Mike Smith VE9AA |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Topband: Low Dipoles, Roger Kennedy |
Previous by Thread: | Re: Topband: Low Dipoles, Mike Smith VE9AA |
Next by Thread: | Topband: Low Dipoles, Roger Kennedy |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |