Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Mosley PRO-96

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Iszak

unread,
Apr 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/29/95
to
-=> Quoting to ALL <=-

> @PID: NetXpress v1.03
> @MSGID: <3mjqjk$a...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>
> Newsgroup: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
> Organization: Morris is a cat, Morse is a code

> Michael Iszak (michae...@wisebbs.com) wrote:
> : What is a "PRO-96?"
> : 73's de Mike VE3XLS

> Mosley PRO-96

> | | |
> | | | | 1. Reflector - 40/20/17/12
> | | | | | | | | 2. Reflector - 15
> | | | | | | | | | 3. Reflector - 10
> | | | | | | | | | 4. Driven - 12/20
> +-+-+--+-+---+---+---+---+ 5. Driven - 40/17/15/10
> | | | | | | | | | 6. Director - 10/12/17
> | | | | | | | | | 7. Director - 10/15/20
> | | | | | | | | 8. Director - 10/12/17
> | | | | 9. Director - 10/15/20/40
> | | |
> Boom = 36 feet
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


> 73, Jay K0GU ja...@fc.hp.com

Thanks for the info!
73's de Mike VE3XLS


... If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
~~~ Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: mis...@wisebbs.com (Michael Iszak)
This message was processed by the Good People at the WISE BBS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Heinzl

unread,
May 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/5/95
to

I've heard talk (from several people that I trust) that the trap
design on the Mosley antennas isn't that great (it used to be better).

Since I'm real interested in the PRO-96 too, is there anyone that can
elaborate on the trap design and why it would be good or not as good?

Also, why did they not cover the 30m band with this antenna???

-Carl G. Heinzl WA3UEN-
President - Very Versatile Business Computer Company of New England
110 Kendall Pond Road
Windham, NH 03087
(603) 434-3712 (leave message)
(603) 434-6543 (Fax)


0 new messages