Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Inverted\s+V\s+verses\s+inverted\s+L\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Inverted\s+V\s+verses\s+inverted\s+L\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Inverted V verses inverted L (score: 1): Author: terry burge <ki7m@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 11:57:00 -0700 (PDT); I have an inverted L. Unfortunately it is noisey but I do the best I can. I've been contemplating putting up and inverted V on 160 meter too in hopes it could give me more 'local' coverage and a quie; /archives//html/Topband/2020-04/msg00098.html (6,767 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: Inverted V verses inverted L (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:04:36 -0700; If you're going to add an antenna of that size, a good RX antenna system seems a better investment of your time. The only benefit of the inv-V (which will be VERY low as a fraction of a wavelength, a; /archives//html/Topband/2020-04/msg00099.html (7,369 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]