They were not MAIDENS ..... {$->
de Doug N3ADL // FRC
>From Robert Penneys <radio@UDel.Edu> Fri Apr 26 11:31:22 1996
From: Robert Penneys <radio@UDel.Edu> (Robert Penneys)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <199604261031.GAA04574@copland.udel.edu>
Delaware QSO Party 2/97
After long last, the Delaware QSO Party will come back into being the
first weekend of February, 1997. Sponsor is the First State Amateur
Radio Club, K3QBD.
We're excited about it and I will be promoting it constantly at HRO in
order to maximize activity here. Rules will follow.
Bob WN3K Go FRC!!!!!!!
>From Bill Turner <wrt@eskimo.com> Fri Apr 26 11:51:31 1996
From: Bill Turner <wrt@eskimo.com> (Bill Turner)
Subject: Antenna input sought
Message-ID: <199604261052.DAA18003@mail.eskimo.com>
At 08:21 PM 4/25/96 -0700, Craig Cook N7ENU wrote:
> I believe this was asked on the reflector a while back, but I never
>saw many responses and did not get a summary, so here we go again.
>
> What do y'all think of putting a vertical antenna on top of a tower
>that has a tri-band beam presently installed. I am thinking possibly of a
>Butternut HF2 for 7 and 3.5 mhz. Mainly want to cover 7 mhz, but 3.5 would
>be a bonus. I mainly work the domestic contests and do get on and play in
>the occasional dx test as well.
>
> My main reason for wanting to try this is to get rid of some of the
>wire antennas that are hanging off the tower in various directions, and
>secondly to have a 7 mhz antenna that is fairly high above ground, with a
>full size radiator and a decent counterpoise.
-------------------------------------------------------
Electrically it would work fine, but as a general rule, I'd avoid verticals
for receiving. They tend to pick up man-made noise much more than
horizontals do. They do transmit well when there is a low-loss ground plane
such as you are contemplating, so you might consider transmitting with the
vertical and being able to switch between the vertical and some kind of
horizontal for receive.
At this QTH on 40 meters, I've used a ground plane with lots of full-size
radials and also an inverted vee at 50 feet, and the inverted vee beats the
ground plane hands down.
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt@eskimo.com
>From camacho.c@wcsmail.com (Carmelo Camacho) Fri Apr 26 11:55:43 1996
From: camacho.c@wcsmail.com (Carmelo Camacho) (Carmelo Camacho)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <v02140b02ada65c1d2593@[129.228.32.10]>
help
query
review
>From Tine Brajnik <Tine.Brajnik@guest.arnes.si> Fri Apr 26 13:45:10 1996
From: Tine Brajnik <Tine.Brajnik@guest.arnes.si> (Tine Brajnik)
Subject: TA / locations
Message-ID: <01I3ZXN68EVM0014R6@arnes.si>
Here in Slovenia we checked most of active locations with TA and found out
that results out of that programme gives perfect match to practically
obtained results. So, Felipe find "better" location!
73
Tine S50A
Tine Brajnik
>From camacho.c@wcsmail.com (Carmelo Camacho) Fri Apr 26 12:14:14 1996
From: camacho.c@wcsmail.com (Carmelo Camacho) (Carmelo Camacho)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <v02140b04ada660802d5f@[129.228.32.10]>
help
query
review
>From nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) Fri Apr 26 13:42:22 1996
From: nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Subject: Pratas, Scarborough Lat/Long
Message-ID: <1381617998-76550932@BANJO.EASY.COM>
|Can anyone give me the Latitude and Longitude for the last 2 Countries
|added to the DXCC list: BV9P Pratas Isl., BS7 Scarbough Reef?
|Thanks, Jack, KA8D
Pratas Is 20.70N, 116.76E
Scarborough Reef 15.07N, 117.51E
John, NT5C.
|