Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+Further\s+signals\s+measured\s+$2nd\s+version$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+Further\s+signals\s+measured\s+$2nd\s+version$\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Re: Further signals measured (2nd version) (score: 1): Author: "Dave" <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:05:23 +0100; Geri etc. It could be true, Graham's aerial is higher than mine but his top loading comes down inverted V fashion which drastically lowers the average height. The RF power is about the same. By the c; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/1999-04/msg00108.html (9,271 bytes)
2. LF: Re: Further signals measured (2nd version) (score: 1): Author: "'Geri' Kinzel, DK8KW" <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 11:22:52 -0400; So even if the calculated erp of two stations is the same we have to consider the surrounding terrain?< yes, Dave, it looks like this might make a difference. My first thought was that only obstacle; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/1999-04/msg00109.html (8,883 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]