Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160M\s+inverted\s+L\,\s+1\/4\s+wave\s+vs\s+3\/8\s+wave\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160M\s+inverted\s+L\,\s+1\/4\s+wave\s+vs\s+3\/8\s+wave\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 160M inverted L, 1/4 wave vs 3/8 wave? (score: 1): Author: Ross Primrose <n4rp@aiko.com>; Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:24:05 +0000; I'd like some input on whether the 3/8 wave inverted L or 1/4 wave inverted L is likely to be a better low takeoff angle antenna. In either case, the antenna is going to be about 70' tall, with the r; /archives//html/Topband/2009-11/msg00300.html (7,152 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: 160M inverted L, 1/4 wave vs 3/8 wave? (score: 1): Author: "Edward Swynar" <gswynar@durham.net>; Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:25:45 -0500; "...I'd like some input on whether the 3/8 wave inverted L or 1/4 wave inverted L is likely to be a better low takeoff angle antenna." ** Ross, types... The one HUGE advantage that I especially like; /archives//html/Topband/2009-11/msg00306.html (7,695 bytes)
3. Topband: 160M inverted L, 1/4 wave vs 3/8 wave? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas F. Giella NZ4O" <nz4o@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:57:21 -0500; Ed over the years I have experimented with 3/8-1/2 wave inverted L's/T's on 160 meters with success. I published a website about it at http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o9.htm . 73 & GUD DX, Thomas F. Gi; /archives//html/Topband/2009-11/msg00321.html (7,576 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]