Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+B\.O\.G\.\s+vs\.\s+regular\s+beverage\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+B\.O\.G\.\s+vs\.\s+regular\s+beverage\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: "Chuck Dietz" <w5pr@swbell.net>; Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:51:05 -0500; I have to now use a temporary beverage to the NE. I have 1000 feet. 1. I can put out 1000' of RG-59 on the surface of average ground to a termination, or 2. I can put out 1000' of bare wire at 10' of; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00029.html (7,298 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: Larry Molitor <w7iuv@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT); Chuck, You need to define "perform better". Some folks want maximum "S" meter wiggle, some want F/B, and some want maximum overall S/N (RDF). It has been my experience that a BOG will always give as; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00030.html (7,717 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: "D Andersen" <w7dddd@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:58:54 -0700; Hi Chuck, I have tried a Beverage on the ground and found that the gain was to low for use without a pre-amp. I elevated it 1 inch and the gain was almost as good as 10 feet and no pre-amp was needed; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00055.html (8,657 bytes)
4. RE: Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: "W5PR" <W5PR@swbell.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:43:38 -0500; I tried a 1000 foot B.O.G. and was not impressed with the performance compared to the previous 650 foot standard beverage. I will go to a 850 foot 10 foot high beverage on temporary supports for CQWW; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00056.html (10,797 bytes)
5. RE: Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: "R. Kline" <k7nj@zahav.net.il>; Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:21:00 -0600; I've always used BOGs at 4X4NJ and had 5 of them last year. They work remarkably well. I believe the only hesitancy in using them would be if either (1) you have high ground conductivity or (2) you h; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00058.html (9,616 bytes)
6. RE: Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: "Logan Dietz" <cdietz@swbell.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:51:00 -0500; I think I have too high ground conductivity... It did not work well here. I have old river bottom soil. Chuck W5PR I've always used BOGs at 4X4NJ and had 5 of them last year. They work remarkably wel; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00059.html (10,570 bytes)
7. RE: Topband: B.O.G. vs. regular beverage (score: 1): Author: "CHARLES HUTTON" <charlesh3@msn.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:27:30 +0000; Could you tell us what "not impressed with the performance" means? Did you lose a few dB's via loss and have a non-too-sensitive radio that couldn't dig things out? Did you feel that the nulls were s; /archives//html/Topband/2004-10/msg00060.html (11,762 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]