Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Elevation\s+Angle\s+of\s+Maximum\s+Radiation\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+Elevation\s+Angle\s+of\s+Maximum\s+Radiation\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: Elevation Angle of Maximum Radiation (score: 1): Author: midnight@accessnv.com (Robert Kile); Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:07:15 -0700; Guys, I'll agree with Earl and John. I would say that 90% of the time that the extemely low radiation angle is not usefull on topband. Out of 4-5 trys during contest with 1/2 vertical only once was i; /archives//html/Topband/1997-07/msg00121.html (7,209 bytes)
2. TopBand: Elevation Angle of Maximum Radiation (score: 1): Author: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net); Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:48:36 +0000; To: <topband@contesting.com> I has the same results using BC arrays. The 250 ft -300 ft verticals stunk, my 1/4 vertical would beat them. I find the same effect on 80 meters. A low incident angle gr; /archives//html/Topband/1997-07/msg00128.html (8,090 bytes)
3. TopBand: Elevation Angle of Maximum Radiation (score: 1): Author: k0ha@navix.net (Bill Hohnstein); Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:34:55 -0700; I'll speak of on-air results and let others more knowledgeable than I speak of the theoretical explanations behind it: One antenna is not the perfect antenna for everybody... I've had good luck with; /archives//html/Topband/1997-07/msg00143.html (8,683 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]