The correction/clarification wasn't much clearer than the original, was it?
I was thinking of the 80-meter loop when I originally posted the 60-foot-or-so length per side; and was referring to the 160m loop when posting that "at 130 feet or so per side, it's pretty big", etc. - ps kd4e wrote: > > Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote: >> Yep. I was thinking of the 80 meter one. At 130 feet or so per side, >> it's pretty big, but still fits in some lots where there's not enough >> length to do a 160 dipole. I really should restrict things that require >> thinking to before 5:00 PM when I switch the brain in standby after work... > > Did you mean to type "At 65 feet or so per side ..." > when you referred to a full wave 80M loop rather > than "At 130 feet or so per side ..."? > > Just wondering as it confused me for a moment. > :-) >
