Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+\[Bulk\]\s+Modeling\s+question\s+\-\s+for\s+the\s+experts\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+\[Bulk\]\s+Modeling\s+question\s+\-\s+for\s+the\s+experts\!\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] [Bulk] Modeling question - for the experts! (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:50:13 -0700; I suggest you retest the 40m beam with a transceiver with a decent SWR meter. I've found that high larger antennas (80/40 dipoles and beams) do not measure well on the SARK or AIM4170. There is somet; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-06/msg00046.html (13,637 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] [Bulk] Modeling question - for the experts! (score: 1): Author: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign@ssvecnet.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:58:42 -0400; Hi Grant - my numbers were as found on a recently calibrated (by Larry) LP100 as well as the rig as well as the SPE 2K. All agree quite closely. I've not seen any irregularities here using the SARK s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2016-06/msg00047.html (15,552 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]