- 1. [TenTec] RE: BPL (score: 1)
- Author: Don Rasmussen <wb8yqj@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
- Hi Guys, Ever wonder why the lower limit for BPL was set *above* the 160 meter band? They don't want to ruin the AM broadcast band, my guess. I already have a Phonex variation of BPL in my neighborho
- /archives//html/TenTec/2003-09/msg00480.html (6,847 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TenTec] RE: BPL (score: 1)
- Author: Bob Janney <rjanney@optonline.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:53:50 -0400
- Don't worry Don, The FCC is already poised to destroy the AM Broadcast band as well.......IBOC . 73's Bob WB3EBN -- Original Message -- From: "Don Rasmussen" <wb8yqj@yahoo.com> To: <tentec@contesting
- /archives//html/TenTec/2003-09/msg00481.html (8,351 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TenTec] RE: BPL (score: 1)
- Author: Dan <n7nmd@arrl.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:38:28 -0700
- Have you tried to make a 9dBi gain beam for 160? It's not fun. -Dan N7NMD Don Rasmussen wrote: Hi Guys, Ever wonder why the lower limit for BPL was set *above* the 160 meter band? They don't want to
- /archives//html/TenTec/2003-09/msg00484.html (8,173 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TenTec] RE: BPL (score: 1)
- Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:48:03 -1000
- Dan wrote: Have you tried to make a 9dBi gain beam for 160? It's not fun. Having the whole HF/MF ham population all on only 160 meters probably would not be much fun. Building a 9 dBi gain beam for 1
- /archives//html/TenTec/2003-09/msg00488.html (7,302 bytes)
- 5. [TenTec] RE: BPL (score: 1)
- Author: Don Rasmussen <wb8yqj@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
- Hi Cliff, Phonex is very popular here. It sends both sides of my neighbor's phone conversation throughout their home using the AC 110 volt wires. The fundamental frequency is 3.520 and I can hear the
- /archives//html/TenTec/2003-09/msg00495.html (8,383 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu