<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ham Radio Help Desk &#187; 160m</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hamradio.me/interests/160m/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hamradio.me</link>
	<description>Hams helping hams make the most of the hobby of amateur radio.  (This site is moving from www.hamhelpdesk.com to www.hamradio.me)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:48:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>NVIS 80m with 160m Full Wave Loop is less than ideal</title>
		<link>http://www.hamradio.me/antennas/nvis-80m-with-160m-full-wave-loop-is-less-than-ideal.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.hamradio.me/antennas/nvis-80m-with-160m-full-wave-loop-is-less-than-ideal.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Huggins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antennas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[160m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[40m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[80m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EZNEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[full wave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nvis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hamradio.me/?p=704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big HF loop antennas provide great performance, but they can't do everything.  160 meter full wave loops won't work well for NVIS when used at 3.8 MHz.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hamradio.me/antennas/nvis-80m-with-160m-full-wave-loop-is-less-than-ideal.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 43 foot vertical &#8211; The answer to everything?</title>
		<link>http://www.hamradio.me/antennas/answer-to-everything-43-feet-antenna.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.hamradio.me/antennas/answer-to-everything-43-feet-antenna.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Huggins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antennas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[160m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[20m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[30m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[40m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[43 foot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[80m]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Baluns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BigIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cebik]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EZNEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vertical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verticals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hamradio.me/?p=275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 43 foot vertical antenna is a popular height being promoted by several antenna manufacturers for 160 to 10 meters.  Let's see why and examine some advantages and pitfalls.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hamradio.me/antennas/answer-to-everything-43-feet-antenna.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

