Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+base\s+loaded\s+vertical\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+base\s+loaded\s+vertical\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Topband: base loaded vertical (score: 1): Author: "Roy" <royanjoy@ncn.net>; Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:30:11 -0500; Concerning, "Which has better bandwidth for matching this antenna, an L-L step-up L network with two coils that are *not* coupled to each other, or the tapped-coil scheme that I used?" In general, th; /archives//html/Topband/2007-06/msg00053.html (6,464 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: base loaded vertical (score: 1): Author: "George (K8GG) & Marijke Guerin" <gmguerin@voyager.net>; Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:33:31 -0400; Hi Topbanders, In this case, I think I have to disagree with Roy. I was modelling verticals in the 60 - 87 foot height range for a recent expedition, and some inverted-L antennas for a ham new to 160; /archives//html/Topband/2007-06/msg00055.html (8,637 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]