Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Elevated\s+GP\s+vs\.\s+Vertical\s+Antennas\s+\-\s+long\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Elevated\s+GP\s+vs\.\s+Vertical\s+Antennas\s+\-\s+long\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas - long (score: 1): Author: CQK8DO@aol.com (CQ K8DO); Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:48:28 EST; The history of contesting and DX chasing has shown unequivocally that higher antennas having a (presumably) lower take off angle (TOA) of the main lobe, to be better overall than a lower antenna with; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00250.html (9,196 bytes)
2. TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas - long (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:30:34 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> No, here's how it stacked up in dB. 0 dB is the reference of 60 radials. These are farfield signal levels, accurate to + - .1 dB. Elevated .03 wl Conventional four -4.3 d; /archives//html/Topband/1998-03/msg00254.html (9,528 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]