Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*R\:\s+Topband\:\s+Re\:\s+Folded\s+Unipole\s+vs\s+Series\s+Fed\s+Antenna\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*R\:\s+Topband\:\s+Re\:\s+Folded\s+Unipole\s+vs\s+Series\s+Fed\s+Antenna\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. R: Topband: Re: Folded Unipole vs Series Fed Antenna (score: 1): Author: Maurizio Panicara" <i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara); Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:08:09 +0100; This kind of antenna is definitely unefficient and it's not any more a folded unipole in most of its range. Actually, for most of the octaves of the planned use, you were dealing with a sort of small; /archives//html/Topband/1999-12/msg00154.html (7,872 bytes)
2. R: Topband: Re: Folded Unipole vs Series Fed Antenna (score: 1): Author: herbs@islands.vi (Herb Schoenbohm); Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:27:56 -0400; <199912161158.GAA13218@contesting.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-topband@contesting.com Precedence: bulk X-List-Info: http://www.contest; /archives//html/Topband/1999-12/msg00216.html (7,638 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]