Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Vertical\s+ground\s+radials\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Vertical\s+ground\s+radials\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Vertical ground radials (score: 1): Author: richardw@mho.com (Rick Williams); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:54:28 -0600; First, thanks to all who responded to my question concerning elevated and ground radials. I did not get one positve response about elevated radials; so the answer is use ground radials. One question; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00503.html (8,058 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Vertical ground radials (score: 1): Author: frenaye@pcnet.com (Tom Frenaye); Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:30:49 -0400; I have 4 raised radials for the verticals on my 160m 4-square, it works very well. It just means I believe 4 raised radials are better than 4 radials on the ground. On the other hand, 30 radials on t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00504.html (8,391 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Vertical ground radials (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:39:00 -0400; It won't make any difference at all one way or another. The 120 radial myth is mostly based on folklore, and misunderstanding of what the FCC suggests....not on measurements. The FCC suggests using; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-10/msg00516.html (8,930 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]