Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Antennas\s+for\s+80m\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Antennas\s+for\s+80m\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:20:31 -0400; Hi Gang, More questions for the shack rebuild As you saw from my previous posts, I have 10-40m covered fairly well (well, except 30m - and no real interest there) The issue is 80m As I said before, I; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00400.html (7,627 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 07:49:18 -0600; A vertical with whatever radials you can put out would probably be best. If you have room you might consider some type of receive antenna like the K9AY loops. What kind of operating do you do? DXing,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00401.html (8,003 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mts.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:10:20 -0500; Better than an HF2V, IMO, would be the Cushcraft MA8040V. Top loaded and unlike my old Bnut, actually gets out on 80. And it's similar coin to the HF2V. 73 Kelly ve4xt Sent from my iPhone ___________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00402.html (9,432 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:47:30 -0600; DX Eng might have some other 80/40 options too. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00403.html (9,777 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:13:50 -0400; I like to DX, but with my current setup, I'm somewhat limited (still at 187 in 8 year however) I probably have the most fun operating in contests, but tend to prefer the smaller ones, where I'm not t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00404.html (8,424 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Bill <bmarx@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:40:25 -0400; How high is your center support? _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contestin; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00405.html (8,217 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:43:16 -0700; Your lot is the same width, but about 30 ft shorter, than what I had in Chicago. I suggest that you try to install one of the Hypower loaded dipoles for 80/40M as an inverted V, getting the center an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00406.html (10,348 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:48:34 +0100; Looks like you would have plenty of room for an 80m Inverted-L with the vertical section at the far end of the yard away from the house and the horizontal section running back towards a tie-off point; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00407.html (8,873 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:10:24 -0400; Another option to increase the efficiency is to raise the point of maximum current well above ground, by using a K2LQ double L. http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm Whichever is easiest (inverte; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00408.html (8,690 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: David Blake <dhblake@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:13:57 -0700 (PDT); I used this setup while in Ohio with limited space. I dont know why or how it worked as well as it did on the low bands. The lengths are approximate. On 80/75M the antenna was less than 2:1 SWR from; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00409.html (9,647 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:31:02 -0700; I think I'd stay away from those '43 foot antennas'. We had one of those at FD last year and it didn't work all that well for 80. You can make them load up, but don't think the efficiency is all that; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00410.html (8,385 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:13:25 -0700; If he was going to dedicate a 43 foot antenna to 80m, he easily could top load it for good performance and efficiency. At my previous QTH, I put up a 44 foot vertical (it just happened to be how much; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00411.html (10,107 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Antennas for 80m (score: 1): Author: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:00:40 -0600; I wasn't talking about the 43ft works everywhere, sorta, antenna. I believe they have a 80/40 offering. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-04/msg00412.html (9,046 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]