- 1. [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice (score: 1)
- Author: Bill via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 04:28:08 -0500
- First, I want to say thank you to all who responded to my post about a top loaded vertical for 160. The antenna I wound up with was quite different than the one I proposed. Basically, it is about 132
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-02/msg00119.html (7,704 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice (score: 1)
- Author: Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:50:58 -0700
- Sounds like too much loss in that system. A case where a good SWR isn't good news. Is the SAL effective at all? Wes N7WS The antenna I wound up with was quite different than the one I proposed. Bas
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-02/msg00120.html (8,314 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice (score: 1)
- Author: <john@kk9a.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:51:51 -0500
- I have never had a direct fed Inverted L with an SWR that good or that broadbanded. I would be concerned. John KK9A First, I want to say thank you to all who responded to my post about a top loaded v
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-02/msg00131.html (8,173 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:56:01 -0500
- ?I have never had a direct fed Inverted L with an SWR that good or that broadbanded. I would be concerned.? John KK9A I would agree with John. Sounds like either some tower interaction ? which could
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-02/msg00137.html (7,580 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:31:48 -0800
- I agree with those who say there's a lot of loss. But the other part of the equation is, what's your ground like? That has a lot to do both with loss under the antenna and with propagation. 73, Jim K
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-02/msg00165.html (8,056 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu