"Windom" Antennas.
http://www.packetradio.com/windom.htm
http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump2.cgi?ID=12135
A little history:
http://hamwaves.com/cl-ocfd/history.html#early
The 1956 ARRL Radio Amateur handbook calls them: "Windom" or OFF-Center Fed
Antenna"
Page 343 has a description and shows two methods of feed. One is fed with a
single
wire as the original antenna and the other is with a 300 ohm line and Balun
coils
to a coax which is sometimes called a "Carolina Windom".
They have been called "Windom" at least for the 56 years I have been a ham.
73 de Jim
W5IFP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Dan Schaaf
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:08 PM
> To: w4tv@subich.com; Tower and HF antenna construction topics.
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> Studies)
>
>
> Joe
>
> Here is the better question to answer.
> At what point does a dipole or doublet or Hertz antenna stop
> being a dipole
> and start being a Windom in the general terminology that you
> offer? When it
> is 1 inch offset at the feedpoint? When it is 1 ft offset at the
> feedpoint?
> When it is 10 ft offset at the feedpont? What if the short end of
> the dipole
> is 1 inch long or 1 ft long or 10 ft long? What is it called?
>
> In my humble opinion, no matter what the length on each side of
> the two wire
> or coax feedpoint, it is a dipole, either center fed or off
> center fed. And
> the feedpoint impedance is a function of where the feed point is located.
> Thus requiring no matching ( balun/unun) at center feed or requiring a
> matching circuit ( balun) at off center feed.
>
> The Windom is a single wire feed and that is what differentiates
> it from a
> standard dipole. Di meaning 2 and pole meaning conductor.
>
>
> Dan Schaaf
> K3ZXL
> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
> www.k3zxl.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> Studies)
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> > Go to the ARRL antenna book and look at a windom. It DOES NOT have
> > a break at the feed point for coax center and coax shield. It is a
> > straight wire with the coax center at the off center point. The
> > shield is not connected, or else it is a single wire feed to the
> > horizontal wire.
>
> Amateurs have been calling off-center fed dipoles a "Windom" for
> more than 40 years. The oldest ARRL Antenna Book I have owned
> includes that same discussion. Whether you insist on calling only
> the single wire fed antenna a "Windom" or apply the name broadly
> to the whole family of antennas that operate the same way is not
> material ... whether you use a single wire attached at its
> characteristic impedance, "balanced" feeder attached at its
> characteristic impedance, or coax with a balun attached at the
> transformed impedance, the antennas all operate identically.
>
> By the way, even the single wire fed version of the off center fed
> antenna is not really a Windom. Loren Windom only reported the work
> of a group of Electrical Engineering students at The Ohio State
> University when he was a law student there. If you want to be
> precise in naming the antenna, give credit to the proper persons.
> In the meantime, I choose to recognize Windom in the concept of
> all off center fed antennas just like any center fed doublet is
> a "Hertz" and any end fed antenna against ground is a "Marconi."
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 4/26/2010 10:29 AM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > Go to the ARRL antenna book and look at a windom. It DOES NOT
> have a break
> > at the feed point for coax center and coax shield. It is a straight wire
> > with the coax center at the off center point. The shield is not
> > connected,
> > or else it is a single wire feed to the horizontal wire.
> >
> > The AV-640 has a break at the feed point. The coax center goconnects to
> > the
> > main radiator thru a balun or unun. The shield goes to the counterpoise
> > radials from the other side of the balun/unun.
> >
> > It is an off center fed DIPOLE not WINDOM. 3/8 wave from the
> coax center
> > and
> > the difference from the shield to the counterpoise.
> >
> > Dan Schaaf
> > K3ZXL
> > "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
> > www.k3zxl.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"<lists@subich.com>
> > To:<towertalk@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> > Studies)
> >
> >
> >
> > > The AV-640 in no way resembles a Windom.
> >
> > Straighten the "radials" into a single wire and the AV-620/640,
> > or R5/R7/R8 certainly resemble an off center fed antenna -
> > what it often called a "Windom."
> >
> > > It is high impedance because it is larger than 1/4 wave.
> >
> > No, the high impedance is because of the off center feed. The
> > total electrical length from the tip of the radials to the top
> > of the vertical element is on half wave. The heavy loading on
> > the lower bands coupled with the short radials moves the feed
> > point progressively farther away from the center of the "short"
> > loaded dipole as the operating frequency decreases. This has
> > the fortunate effect of keeping the feed impedance higher as
> > the natural impedance of the shortened antenna decreases.
> >
> > No matter what you call it, the W1JR design used in the R5/7/8,
> > AV-620/640 is arguably one of the best and most effective for
> > elevated multi-band verticals.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> > On 4/25/2010 10:45 PM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
> >> HyGain calls it a Windom, but a Windom is a single wire fed in from the
> >> end.
> >> The AV-640 in no way resembles a Windom.
> >> It is simply a 3/8 wave vertical and the counterpoise is the
> other side,
> >> analagous to radials.
> >> It is high impedance because it is larger than 1/4 wave.
> >> Another nicety is the static bleeder choke inside the box. I have since
> >> bought several chokes from HyGain and installed them on other
> verticals.
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >> Dan Schaaf
> >> K3ZXL www.k3zxl.com "In the Beginning, there was Spark Gap"
> >> ===============================
> >> NOBSKA
> >> www.nobska.net
> >> ===============================
> >> Cape Cod Instruments
> >> www.oceanbiz.net
> >> ===============================
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Art Trampler"<atrampler@att.net>
> >> To: "'Tower and HF antenna construction
> >> topics.'"<towertalk@contesting.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:00 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> >> Studies)
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm going to beg to differ on the theory of operation of the AV640,
> >> specifically its native impedance and the use of the 4:1 unun
> (yes, it's
> >> wired as a unun).
> >>
> >> The 4:1 is not stepping up from 12.5 to 50 ohms. It is stepping down
> >> from
> >> roughly 200 ohms to 50 ohms. Yes, the elements are cut at roughly 1/4
> >> wave,
> >> but they are mounted electrically about 1/10 wl above the feed point
> >> yielding a 3/8 wave antenna.
> >>
> >> It is thus electrically more akin to a vertically mounted OCF dipole or
> >> (in
> >> Hy-Gain's words) Windom. This is why the native feedpoint impedance is
> >> about 200 ohms. The R8 is similar (from what I gather designed by the
> >> same
> >> person) but feeds at about 220 ohms. The unun in the R8 is actually
> >> something like 4.4:1. Yes, there it does wind up electrically a bit
> >> longer
> >> than the 3/8 wave, hence the series capacitor.
> >>
> >> It is the 220 ohm impedance which gives any hope of the 72"
> counterpoises
> >> being effective from an efficiency standpoint. If it were really 12.5
> >> ohms
> >> it would be like running an vertical radiator with no radials at all.
> >>
> >> I'll also submit that at least according to the manual and my
> usage, it
> >> is
> >> not derated on CW, though for SSTV or RTTY I would agree that it is. I
> >> had
> >> problems with QRO on 40 meters which we traced to an improperly wound
> >> current choke; the windings were bunched together at roughly 5
> O'Clock,
> >> so
> >> the choke was getting very hot there. My SWR would climb, so I quickly
> >> lowered it and sure enough had a hot core.
> >>
> >> Hy-Gain saw the pictures and supplied a new unit even though
> it was out
> >> of
> >> warranty. I have no problem running 1500 watts out on 40 or 20 into it
> >> and
> >> haven't had the sunspots on other bands to do more than
> jumping on a new
> >> one.
> >>
> >> Now if I'm wrong in my presentation of how it works, so be it--but I'll
> >> refer people to Hy-Gain as this explanation matches theirs.
> >>
> >> As for improving it, before Hy-Gain agreed to replace the unit I was
> >> going
> >> to go with Balun Designs 4:1, 5KW unun and 1:1 current choke (5KW). A
> >> bit
> >> pricey but I have no doubt they would have worked.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Art, KØRO
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> >> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Gillenwater
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:37 PM
> >> To: Tower and HF antenna construction topics.
> >> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> >> Studies)
> >>
> >> I had the AV620 on a 40 foot tower for four years, unguyed.
> Used it as an
> >> SO2R second radio antenna, it performed well. It is rated to
> take 70 mph
> >> winds. After 4 years the base of the antenna started to come
> apart, with
> >> the aluminum splitting at the lower bolt pattern. I replace the bottom
> >> section of alum. and now it is guyed. Still works well.
> >> 73 Bill K3SV
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Roger (K8RI)"<K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
> >> To: "Tower and HF antenna construction
> topics."<towertalk@contesting.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:39 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> >> Studies)
> >>
> >>
> >>> The AV640 is electronically simple, although a bit complex
> mechanically
> >>> (lots of parts)
> >>> Each band is independent of the others and there is no interaction
> >>> between bands when setting the resonant frequencies. The matching
> >>> network consists of a current balun wound on two toroid cores. This is
> >>> followed by a 4:1 balun which is also wound on two cores and
> is used to
> >>> "step up" the antennas low impedance of 12.5 ohms to 50 ohms. The
> >>> elements are a bit longer than a 1/4 wave electrically and that
> >>> reactance is tuned out by a fixed value "compensating" capacitor. SWR
> >>> "for mine" is virtually 1:1 at resonance on all bands. It will also
> >>> cover each band in it's entirety with the exception of 40 with a low
> >>> (read useable) SWR. IIRC it'll cover about half of 40 at
> less than 2:1.
> >>>
> >>> Although advertised as self supporting, with mine mounted at
> 40' I have
> >>> insulated guys at roughly the mid point.
> >>> I cut a disk out of 1/4" Lexan using a hold saw and drilled 3
> 1/4" holes
> >>> around the edge at 120 degree spacing. The center has a hole
> just large
> >>> enough that it's a loose fit over the center radiator, so the guy
> >>> connection is more of less floating.
> >>>
> >>> The system is broad banded compared to trap verticals and should be a
> >>> better performer than trap verticals although I'd not expect the
> >>> performance between any of the multi band verticals to be "blazingly"
> >>> different.
> >>>
> >>> It is rated for the legal limit on SSB for 40 though 10 and
> 300 watts on
> >>> six meters. The antenna is derated for other modes. I'm assuming the
> >>> de-rating is due to heating of the toroid cores. I believe the early
> >>> ones were rated for 200 watts on six. I've run 800 watts SSB
> on six for
> >>> up to two hours with no problems
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to try 4 toroid cores in both the 4:1 and current balun and
> >>> see if it will handle more power. It'll be #31 mix for the current
> >>> balun, but I'm not sure which mix to use for the 4:1 voltage balun as
> >>> it's a true transformer.
> >>>
> >>> I have no experience with the R7 and R8 but I'd expect them to be
> >>> comparable to the AV640 and all to be much better than the trap, multi
> >>> band verticals.
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>>
> >>> Roger (K8RI)
> >>>
> >>> Dan Schaaf wrote:
> >>>> I didn't get it to work on 160. !!!
> >>>> But, if you notice, the frequency on the 17 meter band is 10
> times the
> >>>> frequency on 160 meters. A tuner can load it. but it is not
> wise to do
> >>>> so.
> >>>> Once I realized that I had the antenna switch in the wrong place, it
> >>>> was
> >>>> too
> >>>> late.
> >>>> Likewise, a 17 meter vertical too close to a 160 meter
> vertical causes
> >>>> SWR
> >>>> fluctuations when the wind blows the antennas around.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan Schaaf
> >>>> K3ZXL
> >>>> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
> >>>> www.k3zxl.com
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "RICHARD SOLOMON"<w1ksz@q.com>
> >>>> To: "TowerTalk"<towertalk@contesting.com>
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:44 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was Gap Challenger ComparisonTesting
> >>>> Studies)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> How did you get the AV-640 to work on 160 ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: n7xy@clearwire.net
> >>>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:40:58 -0700
> >>>>>> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was Gap Challenger Comparison
> >>>>>> Testing
> >>>>>> Studies)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I haven't had any insulator issues, but one of the 40
> meter capacity
> >>>>>> hat wires has a noticeable bend from putting it up single-handed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have had better-than-expected results on 160 at 100
> watts (> 150
> >>>>>> QSOs at distances up to ~1500 miles). I wouldn't try
> running higher
> >>>>>> power than that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bob N7XY
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan Schaaf wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right, My AV-640 has worked the world, literally. I could spend a
> >>>>>>>> lot of
> >>>>>>>> time telling stories .
> >>>>>>>> On 12 meters, ragchewed with N2WB op at VP6DX on 12
> meters between
> >>>>>>>> band
> >>>>>>>> opening. I was running 100 watts SSB
> >>>>>>>> Likewise on 30 and 40 I have 266 and 269 countries logged .
> >>>>>>>> You just have to keep an eye on the 17 meter stub
> insulator at the
> >>>>>>>> top of
> >>>>>>>> the stub. The insulator can burn and short the stub to the main
> >>>>>>>> radiator. I
> >>>>>>>> think it happened here once due to accidentally loading the
> >>>>>>>> antenna on 160
> >>>>>>>> meters. That point on the stub became a high voltage
> point and the
> >>>>>>>> insulator
> >>>>>>>> was wet from morning dew.
> >>>>>>>> Replaced the insulator and all was well again.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've had a couple of the insulators break. (hit a tree on the way
> >>>>>>> up and
> >>>>>>> down - Hired tree trimming crew, Strong wind blew small limb from
> >>>>>>> neighbor's lot and hit antenna) I made new ones from scrap 1/4"
> >>>>>>> Lexan.
> >>>>>>> Just use one of the old ones for a template. I also found that if
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> material from the broken one is sound, they can be "super glued"
> >>>>>>> back
> >>>>>>> together and last quite well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Compared to sloping half wave dipole it does quite surprisingly
> >>>>>>> well on 40.
> >>>>>>> Not meant for heavy duty QRO.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 73
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Roger (K8RI)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dan Schaaf
> >>>>>>>> K3ZXL
> >>>>>>>> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
> >>>>>>>> www.k3zxl.com
> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>> From: "Bob Nielsen"<n7xy@clearwire.net>
> >>>>>>>> To: "Tower and HF antenna construction topics."
> >>>>>>>> <towertalk@contesting.com>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:40 PM
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gap Challenger Comparison
> Testing Studies
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Try<http://www.championradio.com/HF-VERTICAL-PERFORMANCE-TEST-
> >>>>>>>>> METHODS-RESULTS.3>.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The AV-640 was not included in the comparison, however
> it is quite
> >>>>>>>>> similar to the R8. Based on the R8 data I decided to purchase a
> >>>>>>>>> AV-640 and have not been disappointed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bob, N7XY
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This link only takes me to the home page. (http://
> >>>>>>>>>> www.championradio.com) I
> >>>>>>>>>> want to know where is the related comparison?
> >>>>>>>>>> I want to see how my AV-640 stacks up against the others.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dan Schaaf
> >>>>>>>>>> K3ZXL
> >>>>>>>>>> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
> >>>>>>>>>> www.k3zxl.com
> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>>> From:<K7LXC@aol.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> To:<towertalk@contesting.com>;<ka2qwc@verizon.net>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:16 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gap Challenger Comparison Testing
> >>>>>>>>>> Studies
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In a message dated 4/25/2010 8:38:22 A.M. Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> >>>>>>>>>>> towertalk-request@contesting.com writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone done a study? evaluating? the GAP CHallenger
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DX,?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> other verticals?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Butternuts, Hygain, CrushCraft, Steppir rtc..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If so I would like to see the results as the peratin to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> performance. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> am not intersted in anecdotal evidence just fact. If any one
> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>> performed
> >>>>>>>>>>> testing I would like to hear from you. If there is enough?
> >>>>>>>>>>> response I
> >>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> summarize and post the results.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yessireebob. To quote from _www.championradio.com_
> >>>>>>>>>>> (http://www.championradio.com) , "Now you can read
> an unbiased
> >>>>>>>>>>> report on
> >>>>>>>>>>> how they really
> >>>>>>>>>>> performed. Antennas tested include the Cushcraft R8,
> Butternut
> >>>>>>>>>>> HF6V, MFJ
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1798,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Force 12 ZR-3 and V-3, Diamond CP-6, Hustler 6BTV and Gap
> >>>>>>>>>>> Titan.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's 64
> >>>>>>>>>>> pages of protocol, data sets and summaries. Presented at the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dayton
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hamvention."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly the Challenger but full of lots of
> actual data
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> observations. It's the only on-the-air HF vertical comparison
> >>>>>>>>>>> report in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the world.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve K7LXC
> >>>>>>>>>>> Champion Radio Products
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cell: 206-890-4188
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TowerTalk mailing list
> >>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TowerTalk mailing list
> >> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2835 - Release
> Date: 04/25/10
> >> 13:31:00
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TowerTalk mailing list
> >> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TowerTalk mailing list
> >> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|