RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Not to beat the ANTENNA OVERKILL horse...

To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Not to beat the ANTENNA OVERKILL horse...
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Reply-to: dezrat@copper.net
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:37:58 -0700
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:31:47 -0400, you wrote:


>If that's your definition, "Limited Mode" should be defined as  
>a multiband vertical (e.g., flagpole), an endfed wire or a 1/2 
>wave dipole/inverted V no higher than 50 feet.  Anything beyond 
>the most basic antenna and single transceiver is initiative and 
>experimentation.  
>
>Using that most basic "limited mode definition" makes it available 
>to even the HOA/deed restricted amateur.  Any expansion beyond 
>that is entirely arbitrary ... you then start picking the "winners" 
>(the enhancements you approve of) and the "losers" (those who 
>exceed your personal standards). 

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Not at all. 

The Limited Class should be designed to attract a large number of hams
who are presently non-contesters. Some hams will want to stay in that
class for the rest of their lives and some will want to move to the
Unlimited Class and go all out. Either way is fine.

A large percentage of HF operators who have been in it more than a
year or two have three element tribanders, wires for the lower
frequencies and just one radio. I think that's a good place to begin.

Bill, W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>