| To: | VHF Contesting eMail Remailer <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW rule question |
| From: | Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com> |
| Date: | Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:39:52 -0600 |
| List-post: | <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com> |
On Jul 14, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Ev Tupis wrote: > Here are two examples of antennas that are not connected to the > transmitter by wires: > > http://www.qsl.net/n1bwt/chap3.pdf > > http://www.qsl.net/n1bwt/chap8.pdf > > I think that it is best for W1XX to comment, rather than > speculate. Has anyone asked him? > > Ev, W2EV Heh heh... is hardline a "wire"? I always thought of it more as "lossy waveguide". :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Rule question, Eric Smith |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Rule, John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW rule question, Ev Tupis |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Rule, John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |