Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

[daraymond]

I can heartily confirm Bob's experience.  I live in Iowa and moved from the
suburbs of Des Moines to a rural setting 22 years ago.  I have a well
constructed overhead single phase 13.2 kV distribution feed on the road 1/4
mile from my home.  My house is fed underground from the pole to the
transformer and underground from there to the house.  When I first moved
here my mid-day noise floor on a 1/4 wave vertical antenna ran around -125
to -130 dbm (300 hz bandwidth).  Switching from no antenna to the 1/4 wave
vertical on a sunny mid-day made a obvious but fairly insignificant 
difference.  I
had very little man made noise.  I then added a four square transmit array. 
I

subsequently put up several single wire Beverages, two-wire reversible
Beverages, and was the first to build W8JI's passive/tuned vertical array
design (which, oddly enough, had a simple design error which Tom quickly
caught and corrected).  While all the RX antennas worked, they rarely out
"heard" the four square TX array and if they did, not by much.  Remarkably,
they didn't "out hear" the 1/4 vertical by a whole lot many times either.  I
began wondering if all these RX antennas were somehow defective (it's kind
of hard to screw up a Beverage).  The answer proved out to be. . .they were
all working fine.

I have mentioned this a couple of times over the years but perhaps it's 
worth noting.
The bottom line is. . .if you have a really quiet QTH (getting to a rarity), 
having a

terrific RDF doesn't buy you much in terms of improving real S/N performance
(with no "N" ?) and true ability to hear.  If you are fortunate enough to be 
in this
situation, you also quickly realize quiet low gain RX antennas are often 
noise figure
limited (on several occasions people kept telling me "you just need more 
gain". .

not necessarily so).

About six or eight years ago I put up an early Hi-Z 8 circle array which has 
and continues to
perform extremely well.  Interestingly enough, many times it doesn't hear 
all
that much better than the four square TX antenna (but putting it in 
diversity
is a huge help).  That said, with all the encroaching rural homesteads being 
built
with a mile or two, my noise floor over the past five years or so has slowly 
crept up to
about -115 or -120 dbm.   Sometimes I'm seeing -115.  Lee/K7JTR understands 
the
low noise floor issue very well and, at my and others behest, developed the 
+6 amps
for the Hi-Z antennas with improved NF.  He and I have had discussions about 
improving

this further but, frankly, I'm not certain there is much of a market for
people with true -130 noise floors. . .hi.  With my ever increasing noise 
floor, the
performance difference between the Hi-Z 8 and the TX antenna has become more 
apparent.
Sadly, my quiet QTH is not as quiet as it once was making RDF now matter 
more.


See you all in the Stew.   73 and Happy New Year to all. . .Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message- 
From: W7RH

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:04 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

All,

Two cents worth of comments on thread. The SAL, K9AY and Waller Flags
all work well and have their limitations. They do help the city folk
improve the ability to receive. The WF works great if you can get it up
in the air and rotate it. That is if you can keep it there in one piece
though snow , ice and wind. It also encompasses additional costs for
tower support and rotator.

The larger passive and active arrays specifically 8 circle provided you
have space are better yet with great RDF, realistic gain and noise figures.

There is a cross over point where there is no longer any improvement
IMHO. I'll point out an example. In the morning hours before sun rise my
noise floor drops to near zero on my RX/TX array. I'm extremely
fortunate for I have the space and no neighbors, no commercial power and
thus only natural noise. A reasonable  guess would be a noise floor
greater than -120 to -125dB. Almost to the point of MDS where there is
no indicated or measured difference between antenna and no antenna.
Working signals via polar path, NW, West and SE are _on average very
very weak._

My experience tells me that active loops would be inferior to the
existing directional RX/TX antenna at this point because of their signal
capture levels and increased noise created by preamplifier. In this case
only long properly terminated and maybe phased beverages would be better.

I can feel the heat coming on this one. I'm not here to sell antennas as
I build my own.

73 and Happy New Year!

Bob, W7RH

--
W7RH DM35OS


It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
humanity.

Albert Einstein

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

[W7RH]

All,

Two cents worth of comments on thread. The SAL, K9AY and Waller Flags 
all work well and have their limitations. They do help the city folk 
improve the ability to receive. The WF works great if you can get it up 
in the air and rotate it. That is if you can keep it there in one piece 
though snow , ice and wind. It also encompasses additional costs for 
tower support and rotator.


The larger passive and active arrays specifically 8 circle provided you 
have space are better yet with great RDF, realistic gain and noise figures.


There is a cross over point where there is no longer any improvement 
IMHO. I'll point out an example. In the morning hours before sun rise my 
noise floor drops to near zero on my RX/TX array. I'm extremely 
fortunate for I have the space and no neighbors, no commercial power and 
thus only natural noise. A reasonable  guess would be a noise floor 
greater than -120 to -125dB. Almost to the point of MDS where there is 
no indicated or measured difference between antenna and no antenna. 
Working signals via polar path, NW, West and SE are _on average very 
very weak._


My experience tells me that active loops would be inferior to the 
existing directional RX/TX antenna at this point because of their signal 
capture levels and increased noise created by preamplifier. In this case 
only long properly terminated and maybe phased beverages would be better.


I can feel the heat coming on this one. I'm not here to sell antennas as 
I build my own.


73 and Happy New Year!

Bob, W7RH

--
W7RH DM35OS


It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.

Albert Einstein

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Peter Bertini]

Those SWR readings seem to indicate a very large bandwidth, to the extent
it might suggest that your ground resistance losses are swamping the
antenna R radiation resistance.  It would be nice to know the R value at
resonance, where there is no J value.  Too bad the analyzer is overloading.
A simple BCB filter might help.

Pete k1zjh
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

A person emailed me to ask if I could take SWR readings at the rig without
a tuner. Since my antenna analyzer is non-op due to the AM station nearby.
The feedline is about 140' of LMR-240.

Here is the indicated SWR at the 7300:
1.810 1.2:1
1.830 1.3:1
1.850 1.5:1
1.870 1.8:1
1.900 2.3:1
1.940 3.0:1

Todd - NR7RR

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:30 PM Todd Goins  wrote:

> Charlie,
>
> Yeah, I know the 100w is not ideal. This is night #2 with the elevated
> radials on the 100' vertical. I spent every day last week trying to use the
> 100' vertical against my buried radial field. It was horrible on transmit
> and mostly deaf (high noise) on receive. The attenuator didn't help, it
> just isn't hearing stations. My 43' vertical top loaded with 90' of
> horizontal wire is way, way more effective.
>
> I'm using a 230' BOG as my primary receive antenna right now but I can
> switch in the transmit antenna to listen just by throwing a switch.
>
> I'll stick with this 100' antenna for a while and try to use it this
> weekend on the Stew Perry but I have a feeling I'll be back with the 43'
> before it is over.
>
> Thanks,
> 73
> Todd - NR7RR
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:19 PM charlie carroll  wrote:
>
>> Todd:
>> So, I might shorten the antenna up a bit to get the lowest SWR point a
>> bit higher in the band.  But, as it sits right now, your SWR is not
>> indicating a problem.  You're talking only a 100 watts which gives you at
>> least 1 strike.  I would play with it as is for a few days and get some
>> idea as to how well you are hearing and how well you are transmitting.
>>
>> Without detailing you, 160 is a place where you need patience and/or a
>> low-noise receiving antenna.  Plus, you also need to know whether you are
>> being affected by local noise sources.  Another reason why I encourage you
>> to spend more time evaluating the antenna.
>>
>> 73 charlie, k1xx
>>
>> On 12/28/2018 10:07 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
>>
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> I can measure SWR at the rig. Feedline is about 140' of LMR240 coax.
>>
>> SWR at:
>> 1.810 1.2:1
>> 1.830 1.3:1
>> 1.850 1.5:1
>> 1.870 1.8:1
>> 1.900 2.3:1
>> 1.940 3.0:1
>>
>> I wasn't too worried about the choke situation but I connected in-line
>> what I had on hand, figured it wouldn't hurt. Mike had just asked what I
>> was using so I let him know. I'm not having any symptoms of RF in the shack
>> but I'm only running 100 watts.
>>
>> 73,
>> Todd - NR7RR
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:56 PM charlie carroll  wrote:
>>
>>> Todd:
>>> So, what do you expect the air-wound choke to do for you?  Many, many,
>>> many antennas operate fine without a choke.  Don't get yourself wrapped
>>> around the axle that the antenna won't work without a "correct" choke.
>>>
>>> What's SWR are you measuring at the transmitter?  How long is the
>>> feedline?  Sure, it would be better to know what the Resistance and
>>> reactance are.  But, SWR will give you some idea as to where you are at.  I
>>> think right now, you don't really know what your ground truth is.  Tell me
>>> the SWR at 1.8, 1.85, 1.9, etc.
>>>
>>> 73 charlie, k1xx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/28/2018 9:30 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
>>> 160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged up
>>> the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it in
>>> line just in case.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on those sites.
>>>
>>> The air-wound choke is what I'm using when I'm feeding the antenna using
>>> the elevated radials. When I was testing using my buried radial field it is
>>> a different setup. There I have a DX Engineering radial plate that neatly
>>> ties everything (remote tuner, and DX Engineering Maxi-core Feedline
>>> Current Choke) together at the feed point.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments and info.
>>> 73,
>>> Todd - NR7RR
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:57 PM Mike Waters  
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Todd,
>>>
>>> I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
>>> Take at look athttp://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.
>>>
>>> A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, 
>>> fromhttp://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
>>> written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.
>>>
>>> 73, Mikewww.w0btu.com
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
>>> not
>>> be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
>>> wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted
>>> in
>>> the shack.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Todd - NR7RR
>>>
>>>
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

Hi Mike,

Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged up
the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it in
line just in case.

Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on those sites.

The air-wound choke is what I'm using when I'm feeding the antenna using
the elevated radials. When I was testing using my buried radial field it is
a different setup. There I have a DX Engineering radial plate that neatly
ties everything (remote tuner, and DX Engineering Maxi-core Feedline
Current Choke) together at the feed point.

Thanks for the comments and info.
73,
Todd - NR7RR


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:57 PM Mike Waters  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
> Take at look at
> http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.
>
> A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, from
> http://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
> written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  wrote:
>
>> ... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
>> not
>> be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
>> wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted
>> in
>> the shack.
>>
>> 73,
>> Todd - NR7RR
>>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Mike Waters]

Hi Todd,

I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
Take at look at
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.

A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, from
http://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  wrote:

> ... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
> not
> be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
> wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted in
> the shack.
>
> 73,
> Todd - NR7RR
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Fwd: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

[Mike Waters]

Hi Wes,

I'm 95% certain that N4IS knows what he's talking about here. I've been
reading the posts on this reflector for years, and there's a few experts
that stand above and beyond the rest of us. ;-)

He invented the Waller flag, IIRC; you might want to look into that. He has
written much about it, both here and on his website. If I were a young man
again, I would put one on a tower and rotor in a heartbeat. It's like
having a one-wavelength Beverage that's rotatable.

Now, the Waller is more critical than many other good RX antennas, but with
your years of hands-on electronics experience I have no doubt that wouldn't
be an issue for you.

You might want to start with Dr. Gary Breed's (K9AY) improved design first.
I forget the URL of his website.

 Just my $0.02 worth. ;-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

-- Forwarded message -
From: 
Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33
To: Jay Terleski , 


Jay

The SAL is only one electrical equivalent loop with 9 db RDF, the Waller
Flag  has 2 flags in phase with 11.5 db RDF.

It is not on the same class.  Sorry but I am been honest here, both antennas
need the tower to be detuned to work.

The invention of a BALUN just transfer the impedance replacing a resistor
1000 ohms to load the loop as any FLAG, the other BALUN you call a special
name to patent, it is just a simple BALUN, it is just the feed line , the
SAL does have one resistor and one feed point,  the two vertical wires works
like a very  short transmission line. And it removed does not affect
anything, You own engineer admitted that.

To prove that it is no the same class,  check the side null, two flags can
provide a deep null on each side , 30 db , and 20 db F/B.

Does your SAL provide side null, 82 degree front lob,. 11.5 db RDF and it is
ground independent?  NO.

Can you elevate it and turn.it? NO

The SAL is grounded dependent and can not be elevated and turned..  Sorry
the SAL is identical a K9AY, build them side by side and you will see it.

The HWF is at another level because cancel manmade noise and the increase on
signal to noise ratio improvement is 20 db or better.

You get what you pay for. I can tell you that the SAL is really a Snake Oil.
Work 300 countries with a SAL and I will give you some credit.

73.
JC


-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of Jay Terleski
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 12:20 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

JC said,
 The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio.
The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the
improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db
below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
>
> ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single
FLAG, The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the
most complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not
change the directivity.
>
> You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can
> phase
two K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it
is impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
>
> 73
> JC
> N4IS

JC the SAL is not in the class of the single terminated loops of the K9AY
antenna, and you of all people should know this as it is in the same class
as your waller loop in that it uses two loops do derive the pattern.  in
each of the 4 directions.  And combines the loops to get the intermediate
directivity in 8 directions.  It is a fantastice ground independent antenna
and we can't hardly keep them in stock.  As to your claim that the RDF has
not been confirmed is also wrong.  It has been run on many simulation
platforms and I am sure you have studied it well.

We have a Yahoo group that you may join and get the NEC models and you may
feel free to join it as well.

The SAL is a fantastic antenna, and if one takes time to optimize it, it
will give the performance you see on the videos on You Tube, etc.  It
doesn't suffer from huge low gain problems of the HWF you sell, and is much
more cost effective for the small guys to get a good low band antenna
working to share DXing on top band as well as others as it is very broad
banded.
Due to it's gain, we do not need exotic amplification the the HWF requires.
And we publish the details so a customer may build their own successfully.

Try the SAL-30/20/12 guys, I have two of them up now and plan to phase them,
as one of my customers has done.

Thanks for reading and Happy New Year to the group.
Jay, WX0B


Jay Terleski
Array Solutions
214 954 7140



On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:00 AM  wrote:

> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear in my post. The elevated radials are not
connected to the buried radial field. They are two separate entities. Now
the elevated radials do sit above or cross some the buried radials in some
places so I'm sure they do interact but they aren't directly connected
together.

I only have a finite space to work with and the tree limb I'm using to
support the wire "is where it is". Everything I'm doing at this scale is a
huge kludge or compromise but I'm just trying to optimize my situation as
best I can. The BOG however sits nowhere near the radials.

So, the 100' vertical has only ever been hooked to just the buried radials
or the elevated radials at any one moment during my testing.

I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may not
be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted in
the shack.

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Need for capacitor

[Mike Waters]

Thank you, Gary! Now I know where I can buy a spare plate choke bypass
capacitor for my homebrew dual-833C linear amp. :-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:10 PM Gary K9GS  wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> Take a look here:
> https://www.alpharfsystems.com/?s=75+pF=Search
> They have both the individual caps, now 18 kV, and the 5 capacitor
> assembly.
> Good luck
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 73,
> Gary K9GS
>  Original message From: daraym...@iowatelecom.net Date:
> 12/28/18  3:16 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: topband@contesting.com Subject:
> Topband: Need for capacitor
> Greetings topbanders. . .
>
> While CQing early this morning I began noticing a faint but troubling
> smell in the shack.  It smelled like over heated wiring or electrical
> components.  It continued to get stronger as I realized the odor was coming
> from the Alpha 99 amp.  Indeed, a few moments later it tripped out.  I dug
> into it this afternoon and discovered a leaky 75 pF/6 kV cap which is one
> of five such caps in a parallel bank that is pulled in on the band switch
> to achieve tank resonance only on 160m.  I have removed the bad cap making
> the amp operational once again with the air variable tuning cap making up
> the lost C (and there’s still a little C to spare on the air-variable).
> After some searching I cannot find a 75 pF/6 kV cap.  Mouser does not have
> anything even close in terms of the high voltage rating (hopefully I didn’t
> something).  The closet thing Newark has is 47 pF which I have ordered.
> I’m guessing the 47 pF is probably OK but how important is equal current
> distribution across the five caps?  Maybe I don’t need to be concerned
> about it?  If I really do need the correct 75 pF/6 kV cap does anyone have
> ideas of a source?Replying privately is fine.   See you all in the
> Stew.73. . .Dave, W0FLS
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

[Arthur Delibert]

I can't speak to all the technical details of this discussion, but I can say 
that I've had a very good experience with the SAL-12, despite having very 
difficult terrain.  My SAL is partly over concrete and partly over dirt; partly 
over a level surface and partly over a steep downhill slope; and partly in the 
clear and partly threaded through the shrubbery.  Because of all that (and my 
impatience to try it out), it took several weekends of readjusting before I got 
it just right.  And of course, the feedline has to be protected by chokes 
against common mode noise.  But now that I have all that done, it performs very 
well.

I seriously considered the WF, but I think it's too big an engineering project 
for me.  I was able to erect the SAL-12 by myself, and the only risky moment 
was a result of my own thoughtlessness.  But read the instructions through a 
couple times before you start!

-- Art Delibert, KB3FJO



From: Topband  on behalf of n...@n4is.com 

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:44 PM
To: 'Jay Terleski'; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

Jay

The SAL is only one electrical equivalent loop with 9 db RDF, the Waller
Flag  has 2 flags in phase with 11.5 db RDF.

It is not on the same class.  Sorry but I am been honest here, both antennas
need the tower to be detuned to work.

The invention of a BALUN just transfer the impedance replacing a resistor
1000 ohms to load the loop as any FLAG, the other BALUN you call a special
name to patent, it is just a simple BALUN, it is just the feed line , the
SAL does have one resistor and one feed point,  the two vertical wires works
like a very  short transmission line. And it removed does not affect
anything, You own engineer admitted that.

To prove that it is no the same class,  check the side null, two flags can
provide a deep null on each side , 30 db , and 20 db F/B.

Does your SAL provide side null, 82 degree front lob,. 11.5 db RDF and it is
ground independent?  NO.

Can you elevate it and turn.it? NO

The SAL is grounded dependent and can not be elevated and turned..  Sorry
the SAL is identical a K9AY, build them side by side and you will see it.

The HWF is at another level because cancel manmade noise and the increase on
signal to noise ratio improvement is 20 db or better.

You get what you pay for. I can tell you that the SAL is really a Snake Oil.
Work 300 countries with a SAL and I will give you some credit.

73.
JC


-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of Jay Terleski
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 12:20 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

JC said,
 The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio.
The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the
improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db
below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
>
> ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single
FLAG, The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the
most complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not
change the directivity.
>
> You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can
> phase
two K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it
is impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
>
> 73
> JC
> N4IS

JC the SAL is not in the class of the single terminated loops of the K9AY
antenna, and you of all people should know this as it is in the same class
as your waller loop in that it uses two loops do derive the pattern.  in
each of the 4 directions.  And combines the loops to get the intermediate
directivity in 8 directions.  It is a fantastice ground independent antenna
and we can't hardly keep them in stock.  As to your claim that the RDF has
not been confirmed is also wrong.  It has been run on many simulation
platforms and I am sure you have studied it well.

We have a Yahoo group that you may join and get the NEC models and you may
feel free to join it as well.

The SAL is a fantastic antenna, and if one takes time to optimize it, it
will give the performance you see on the videos on You Tube, etc.  It
doesn't suffer from huge low gain problems of the HWF you sell, and is much
more cost effective for the small guys to get a good low band antenna
working to share DXing on top band as well as others as it is very broad
banded.
Due to it's gain, we do not need exotic amplification the the HWF requires.
And we publish the details so a customer may build their own successfully.

Try the SAL-30/20/12 guys, I have two of them up now and plan to phase them,
as one of my customers has done.

Thanks for reading and Happy New Year to the group.
Jay, WX0B


Jay Terleski
Array Solutions
214 954 7140



On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:00 AM  wrote:

> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Mike Waters]

Hello Grant,

Your advice is spot-on! Elevated radials MUST NOT be connected to ground.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Todd's inverted-L is working so
poorly.

Another important thing is to have a GOOD choke balun right at the
feedpoint. *We need to keep the current off of the feedline shield.*

 This is how I made my own inverted-L work, per the advice of many
Topbanders a whole lot smarter than me:
http://www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html (scroll down).
It describes the common-mode choke. There are photos there (click the
links).

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM Grant Saviers  wrote:

> Modeling I've done shows it a bad idea to have in ground and elevated
> radials connected together, but that is not clear from what you
> described.  Then with the elevated separate, moving the feedpoint up at
> least 8', to 12' is better and elevated radials run out at that height.
> I think it is a tossup if the "flying V" feed is used - ie gain some
> vertical wire length by feeding near ground and then angle the wires to
> the the elevated ones say at 45 degrees.  It doesn't hurt to have the
> buried radials below the elevated but doesn't help either according to
> NEC4.2 models I've tried.  The elevated ones shield the currents enough
> from the ground in the near field.
>
> Check out what N6LF has to say about elevated radials (if you haven't
> already)  antennasbyn6lf.com
>
> Then develop an swr curve with 5 watts from your rig.  Better than nothing.
>
> Borrow a different antenna analyzer to try or put a quality BCB filter
> on the input.  You need one anyway.  A two port VNA can calibrate out
> the filter.
>
> It is also hard to compare antennas unless the A/B testing is real time.
>   This week proves that on 160, one night nada to EU, Thur night was
> pretty good and I missed the killer opening on Wed according to PNW
> reports.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
> On 12/28/2018 15:35 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
> > I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
> > who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.
> >
> > So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
> > **horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is
> much,
> > much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the
> 43'
> > vertical with the 90' horizontal.
> >
> > Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
> > receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the
> transformer
> > and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
> > (S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say
> it
> > was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better
> chance
> > to evaluate it.
> >
> > Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
> > buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
> > performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
> > elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130'
> elevated
> > (also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a
> little
> > better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.
> >
> > Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the
> feed
> > point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
> > analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
> > that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has
> been
> > fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
> > the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.
> >
> > So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
> > antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can
> elevate
> > the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
> > make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
> > distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing
> my
> > tail?
> >
> > Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
> > 73,
> > Todd - NR7RR
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Need for capacitor

[Cecil Acuff]

eBay...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-CentraLab-CRL-850S-75N-Doorknob-Capacitor-75-pF-7500-V-N750-in-Silver-Saver/264077356412?hash=item3d7c3cad7c:g:m9EAAOSwUalcCkiZ

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Dec 28, 2018, at 3:16 PM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Greetings topbanders. . .
> 
> While CQing early this morning I began noticing a faint but troubling smell 
> in the shack.  It smelled like over heated wiring or electrical components.  
> It continued to get stronger as I realized the odor was coming from the Alpha 
> 99 amp.  Indeed, a few moments later it tripped out.  I dug into it this 
> afternoon and discovered a leaky 75 pF/6 kV cap which is one of five such 
> caps in a parallel bank that is pulled in on the band switch to achieve tank 
> resonance only on 160m.  I have removed the bad cap making the amp 
> operational once again with the air variable tuning cap making up the lost C 
> (and there’s still a little C to spare on the air-variable).  After some 
> searching I cannot find a 75 pF/6 kV cap.  Mouser does not have anything even 
> close in terms of the high voltage rating (hopefully I didn’t something).  
> The closet thing Newark has is 47 pF which I have ordered.  I’m guessing the 
> 47 pF is probably OK but how important is equal current distribution across 
> the five caps?  Maybe I don’t need to be concerned about it?  If I really do 
> need the correct 75 pF/6 kV cap does anyone have ideas of a source?
> Replying privately is fine.   See you all in the Stew.73. . .Dave, 
> W0FLS
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Grant Saviers]

Modeling I've done shows it a bad idea to have in ground and elevated 
radials connected together, but that is not clear from what you 
described.  Then with the elevated separate, moving the feedpoint up at 
least 8', to 12' is better and elevated radials run out at that height. 
I think it is a tossup if the "flying V" feed is used - ie gain some 
vertical wire length by feeding near ground and then angle the wires to 
the the elevated ones say at 45 degrees.  It doesn't hurt to have the 
buried radials below the elevated but doesn't help either according to 
NEC4.2 models I've tried.  The elevated ones shield the currents enough 
from the ground in the near field.


Check out what N6LF has to say about elevated radials (if you haven't 
already)  antennasbyn6lf.com


Then develop an swr curve with 5 watts from your rig.  Better than nothing.

Borrow a different antenna analyzer to try or put a quality BCB filter 
on the input.  You need one anyway.  A two port VNA can calibrate out 
the filter.


It is also hard to compare antennas unless the A/B testing is real time. 
 This week proves that on 160, one night nada to EU, Thur night was 
pretty good and I missed the killer opening on Wed according to PNW 
reports.


Grant KZ1W

On 12/28/2018 15:35 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.

So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the 43'
vertical with the 90' horizontal.

Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the transformer
and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
(S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say it
was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better chance
to evaluate it.

Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130' elevated
(also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a little
better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.

Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the feed
point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has been
fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.

So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can elevate
the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing my
tail?

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Gary Smith]

LOL, oh comeon, enough carping, I've made 
hundreds of QSOs, many of them CW, while 
driving.

73,

Gary
KA1J

> [sigh]
> 
> On 12/28/2018 10:33 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:
> > even cooking dinner at the same time!
> >
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> 



_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Ralph Bellas]

Two 100 x 3 ft rolls of chicken wire were added this fall.  I have about 45 
radials, good conductivity, clear view, and the sump pump dumps out nearby.  It 
is quiet in the country  but the beverages are better.  I am putting up a 
SAL30. It will be better for USA contests. The F/B is good enough that you can 
tell someone is calling.

K9ZO


From: Topband  on behalf of Todd Goins 

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 5:35:53 PM
To: TopBand List
Subject: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.

So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the 43'
vertical with the 90' horizontal.

Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the transformer
and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
(S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say it
was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better chance
to evaluate it.

Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130' elevated
(also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a little
better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.

Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the feed
point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has been
fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.

So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can elevate
the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing my
tail?

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.

So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the 43'
vertical with the 90' horizontal.

Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the transformer
and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
(S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say it
was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better chance
to evaluate it.

Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130' elevated
(also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a little
better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.

Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the feed
point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has been
fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.

So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can elevate
the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing my
tail?

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Need for capacitor

[daraymond]

Wow. . a bunch of excellent responses including Alpha even offering the cap 
bank as an assembly (I understand there may have been some failures of this 
part).  Anyway, I think I got some answers and several good options. 
Thanks for sharing the knowledge. See you all in the Stew. . .73. . . 
Dave, W0FLS

P.S.  The cap is a ceramic disc.

-Original Message- 
From: daraym...@iowatelecom.net

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:16 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Need for capacitor

Greetings topbanders. . .

While CQing early this morning I began noticing a faint but troubling smell 
in the shack.  It smelled like over heated wiring or electrical components. 
It continued to get stronger as I realized the odor was coming from the 
Alpha 99 amp.  Indeed, a few moments later it tripped out.  I dug into it 
this afternoon and discovered a leaky 75 pF/6 kV cap which is one of five 
such caps in a parallel bank that is pulled in on the band switch to achieve 
tank resonance only on 160m.  I have removed the bad cap making the amp 
operational once again with the air variable tuning cap making up the lost C 
(and there’s still a little C to spare on the air-variable).  After some 
searching I cannot find a 75 pF/6 kV cap.  Mouser does not have anything 
even close in terms of the high voltage rating (hopefully I didn’t 
something).  The closet thing Newark has is 47 pF which I have ordered.  I’m 
guessing the 47 pF is probably OK but how important is equal current 
distribution across the five caps?  Maybe I don’t need to be concerned about 
it?  If I really do need the correct 75 pF/6 kV cap does anyone have ideas 
of a source?Replying privately is fine.   See you all in the Stew. 
73. . .Dave, W0FLS

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Need for capacitor

[Gary K9GS]

Hi Dave,
Take a look here:
https://www.alpharfsystems.com/?s=75+pF=Search
They have both the individual caps, now 18 kV, and the 5 capacitor assembly. 
Good luck






73,
Gary K9GS
 Original message From: daraym...@iowatelecom.net Date: 
12/28/18  3:16 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: 
Need for capacitor 
Greetings topbanders. . .

While CQing early this morning I began noticing a faint but troubling smell in 
the shack.  It smelled like over heated wiring or electrical components.  It 
continued to get stronger as I realized the odor was coming from the Alpha 99 
amp.  Indeed, a few moments later it tripped out.  I dug into it this afternoon 
and discovered a leaky 75 pF/6 kV cap which is one of five such caps in a 
parallel bank that is pulled in on the band switch to achieve tank resonance 
only on 160m.  I have removed the bad cap making the amp operational once again 
with the air variable tuning cap making up the lost C (and there’s still a 
little C to spare on the air-variable).  After some searching I cannot find a 
75 pF/6 kV cap.  Mouser does not have anything even close in terms of the high 
voltage rating (hopefully I didn’t something).  The closet thing Newark has is 
47 pF which I have ordered.  I’m guessing the 47 pF is probably OK but how 
important is equal current distribution across the five caps?  Maybe I don’t 
need to be concerned about it?  If I really do need the correct 75 pF/6 kV cap 
does anyone have ideas of a source?    Replying privately is fine.   See you 
all in the Stew.    73. . .Dave, W0FLS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Need for capacitor

[Tim Shoppa]

Dave, was the original a doorknob? Like this? 
https://www.rfparts.com/580075-7p.html

Some manufacturers have taken towards, as padding on the loading side of the 
tank, super quality glass high current surface mount caps in which case it 
would look like a silvery rectangle.

Tim N3QE

> On Dec 28, 2018, at 4:16 PM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Greetings topbanders. . .
> 
> While CQing early this morning I began noticing a faint but troubling smell 
> in the shack.  It smelled like over heated wiring or electrical components.  
> It continued to get stronger as I realized the odor was coming from the Alpha 
> 99 amp.  Indeed, a few moments later it tripped out.  I dug into it this 
> afternoon and discovered a leaky 75 pF/6 kV cap which is one of five such 
> caps in a parallel bank that is pulled in on the band switch to achieve tank 
> resonance only on 160m.  I have removed the bad cap making the amp 
> operational once again with the air variable tuning cap making up the lost C 
> (and there’s still a little C to spare on the air-variable).  After some 
> searching I cannot find a 75 pF/6 kV cap.  Mouser does not have anything even 
> close in terms of the high voltage rating (hopefully I didn’t something).  
> The closet thing Newark has is 47 pF which I have ordered.  I’m guessing the 
> 47 pF is probably OK but how important is equal current distribution across 
> the five caps?  Maybe I don’t need to be concerned about it?  If I really do 
> need the correct 75 pF/6 kV cap does anyone have ideas of a source?
> Replying privately is fine.   See you all in the Stew.73. . .Dave, 
> W0FLS
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Need for capacitor

[daraymond]

Greetings topbanders. . .

While CQing early this morning I began noticing a faint but troubling smell in 
the shack.  It smelled like over heated wiring or electrical components.  It 
continued to get stronger as I realized the odor was coming from the Alpha 99 
amp.  Indeed, a few moments later it tripped out.  I dug into it this afternoon 
and discovered a leaky 75 pF/6 kV cap which is one of five such caps in a 
parallel bank that is pulled in on the band switch to achieve tank resonance 
only on 160m.  I have removed the bad cap making the amp operational once again 
with the air variable tuning cap making up the lost C (and there’s still a 
little C to spare on the air-variable).  After some searching I cannot find a 
75 pF/6 kV cap.  Mouser does not have anything even close in terms of the high 
voltage rating (hopefully I didn’t something).  The closet thing Newark has is 
47 pF which I have ordered.  I’m guessing the 47 pF is probably OK but how 
important is equal current distribution across the five caps?  Maybe I don’t 
need to be concerned about it?  If I really do need the correct 75 pF/6 kV cap 
does anyone have ideas of a source?Replying privately is fine.   See you 
all in the Stew.73. . .Dave, W0FLS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

[n4is]

Jay

The SAL is only one electrical equivalent loop with 9 db RDF, the Waller
Flag  has 2 flags in phase with 11.5 db RDF.

It is not on the same class.  Sorry but I am been honest here, both antennas
need the tower to be detuned to work.

The invention of a BALUN just transfer the impedance replacing a resistor
1000 ohms to load the loop as any FLAG, the other BALUN you call a special
name to patent, it is just a simple BALUN, it is just the feed line , the
SAL does have one resistor and one feed point,  the two vertical wires works
like a very  short transmission line. And it removed does not affect
anything, You own engineer admitted that.

To prove that it is no the same class,  check the side null, two flags can
provide a deep null on each side , 30 db , and 20 db F/B.

Does your SAL provide side null, 82 degree front lob,. 11.5 db RDF and it is
ground independent?  NO.

Can you elevate it and turn.it? NO

The SAL is grounded dependent and can not be elevated and turned..  Sorry
the SAL is identical a K9AY, build them side by side and you will see it.

The HWF is at another level because cancel manmade noise and the increase on
signal to noise ratio improvement is 20 db or better.

You get what you pay for. I can tell you that the SAL is really a Snake Oil.
Work 300 countries with a SAL and I will give you some credit.

73.
JC


-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of Jay Terleski
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 12:20 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

JC said,
 The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio.
The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the
improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db
below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
>
> ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single
FLAG, The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the
most complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not
change the directivity.
>
> You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can 
> phase
two K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it
is impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
>
> 73
> JC
> N4IS

JC the SAL is not in the class of the single terminated loops of the K9AY
antenna, and you of all people should know this as it is in the same class
as your waller loop in that it uses two loops do derive the pattern.  in
each of the 4 directions.  And combines the loops to get the intermediate
directivity in 8 directions.  It is a fantastice ground independent antenna
and we can't hardly keep them in stock.  As to your claim that the RDF has
not been confirmed is also wrong.  It has been run on many simulation
platforms and I am sure you have studied it well.

We have a Yahoo group that you may join and get the NEC models and you may
feel free to join it as well.

The SAL is a fantastic antenna, and if one takes time to optimize it, it
will give the performance you see on the videos on You Tube, etc.  It
doesn't suffer from huge low gain problems of the HWF you sell, and is much
more cost effective for the small guys to get a good low band antenna
working to share DXing on top band as well as others as it is very broad
banded.
Due to it's gain, we do not need exotic amplification the the HWF requires.
And we publish the details so a customer may build their own successfully.

Try the SAL-30/20/12 guys, I have two of them up now and plan to phase them,
as one of my customers has done.

Thanks for reading and Happy New Year to the group.
Jay, WX0B


Jay Terleski
Array Solutions
214 954 7140



On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:00 AM  wrote:

> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-requ...@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-ow...@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Inverted L improvement question (Cecil Acuff)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 10:31:56 -0600
> From: Cecil Acuff 
> To: n...@n4is.com
> Cc: Wes Stewart ,Arthur Delibert
> , Jeff Woods ,   topband
> 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
> Message-ID: <592429b6-a654-473e-88e6-62ebbf643...@cableone.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8
>
> I would have kept mine if I had seen that kind of performance. Either 
> I have a very low noise floor, I had degraded performance of the RX 
> antenna for some reason or I was doing 

Topband: Stew Perry and RAC Winter contest

[Tony Osman]

To all Stew Perry participants, the SP and the RAC winter contest 
overlap for nine hours, please give VE participants a serial number as 
well as the grid square and then that will qualify for both contests.  I 
will give out both my grid square and my province for the same reason.


Good luck to all

--
Tony
VE3RZ

www.tonysturnings.com 
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Wes Stewart]

[sigh]

On 12/28/2018 10:33 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:

even cooking dinner at the same time!



_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Tim Duffy]

Being that K8ZT is a friend of mine, I asked him if he was on FT8 160 meters
yesterday around sunset. 

Anthony responded that he was on and made several 160 meter FT8 QSOs, and
even cooking dinner at the same time!

 

Probably WD4ELG heard Anthony, K8ZT in Ohio grid EN91

 

73

Tim K3LR

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 192, Issue 33

[Jay Terleski]

JC said,
 The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise
ratio. The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the
improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6
db below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
>
> ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single
FLAG, The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the
most complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not
change the directivity.
>
> You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can phase
two K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and
it is impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
>
> 73
> JC
> N4IS

JC the SAL is not in the class of the single terminated loops of the K9AY
antenna, and you of all people should know this as it is in the same class
as your waller loop in that it uses two loops do derive the pattern.  in
each of the 4 directions.  And combines the loops to get the intermediate
directivity in 8 directions.  It is a fantastice ground independent antenna
and we can't hardly keep them in stock.  As to your claim that the RDF has
not been confirmed is also wrong.  It has been run on many simulation
platforms and I am sure you have studied it well.

We have a Yahoo group that you may join and get the NEC models and you may
feel free to join it as well.

The SAL is a fantastic antenna, and if one takes time to optimize it, it
will give the performance you see on the videos on You Tube, etc.  It
doesn't suffer from huge low gain problems of the HWF you sell, and is much
more cost effective for the small guys to get a good low band antenna
working to share DXing on top band as well as others as it is very broad
banded.
Due to it's gain, we do not need exotic amplification the the HWF
requires.  And we publish the details so a customer may build their own
successfully.

Try the SAL-30/20/12 guys, I have two of them up now and plan to phase
them, as one of my customers has done.

Thanks for reading and Happy New Year to the group.
Jay, WX0B


Jay Terleski
Array Solutions
214 954 7140



On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:00 AM  wrote:

> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-requ...@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-ow...@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Inverted L improvement question (Cecil Acuff)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 10:31:56 -0600
> From: Cecil Acuff 
> To: n...@n4is.com
> Cc: Wes Stewart ,Arthur Delibert
> , Jeff Woods ,   topband
> 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
> Message-ID: <592429b6-a654-473e-88e6-62ebbf643...@cableone.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8
>
> I would have kept mine if I had seen that kind of performance. Either I
> have a very low noise floor, I had degraded performance of the RX antenna
> for some reason or I was doing something wrong.  When I saw a difference in
> SNR it was very minor and wouldn?t have been the deciding factor in making
> the contact. It had a bit less loss than my K9AY but there was more wire in
> the air.  Difficult to erect...wife helped but fell once before we got it
> right.
>
> I don?t expect my experience was typical so not wanting to dissuade
> others...the SAL antennas are good antennasbut I didn?t see the
> performance displayed on the Array Solutions web site video at this
> location.
>
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
> Sent using recycled electrons.
>
> > On Dec 28, 2018, at 10:21 AM,   wrote:
> >
> > Wes you're right
> >
> > The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise
> ratio. The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the
> improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6
> db below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
> >
> > ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single
> FLAG, The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the
> most complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not
> change the directivity.
> >
> > You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can phase
> two K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and
> it is impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
> >
> > 73
> > JC
> > N4IS
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Topband  On Behalf Of Wes Stewart
> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:50 AM
> > To: 

Re: Topband: Ultimate antenna launcher....

[Gary K9GS]

Thanks for posting Peter..that's awesome.
Still not sure how I'd explain this thing to a police officer while on my way 
to put up antennas.



73,
Gary K9GS
 Original message From: Peter Bertini 
 Date: 12/28/18  10:16 AM  (GMT-06:00) To: 
topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: Ultimate antenna launcher 
This is a manly solution for launching antennas... just load a frozen carp
and you can cast your antenna line 300 yards! If the carp gets stuck in a
tree, the birds will take care if it.

https://www.facebook.com/InTheKnowInnovationAOL/videos/1912747892351198/?fref=gs=13909010799_location=group
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Cecil Acuff]

I would have kept mine if I had seen that kind of performance. Either I have a 
very low noise floor, I had degraded performance of the RX antenna for some 
reason or I was doing something wrong.  When I saw a difference in SNR it was 
very minor and wouldn’t have been the deciding factor in making the contact. It 
had a bit less loss than my K9AY but there was more wire in the air.  Difficult 
to erect...wife helped but fell once before we got it right.

I don’t expect my experience was typical so not wanting to dissuade 
others...the SAL antennas are good antennasbut I didn’t see the performance 
displayed on the Array Solutions web site video at this location.

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Dec 28, 2018, at 10:21 AM,   wrote:
> 
> Wes you're right
> 
> The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio. 
> The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the 
> improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db 
> below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
> 
> ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single FLAG, 
> The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the most 
> complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not change 
> the directivity. 
> 
> You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can phase two 
> K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it is 
> impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
> 
> 73
> JC
> N4IS
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband  On Behalf Of Wes Stewart
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:50 AM
> To: Arthur Delibert ; Jeff Woods 
> Cc: topband 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
> 
> I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, 
> to the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.
> 
> That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
> not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could 
> be totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and 
> frankly I haven't kept up.
> 
> Wes  N7WS
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
>> You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from 
>> Array Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a 
>> SAL-12, and I love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  
>> I can switch the antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm 
>> often surprised to find that the DX is coming from a direction different 
>> from what I would expect.
>> Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is 
>> pointed in the right direction, and I really would not have had any 
>> copy if I couldn't point in that direction.
>> 
>> The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and 
>> higher. The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I 
>> recall right, the
>> SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 
>> meters. Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.
>> 
>> These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, 
>> the
>> SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the 
>> same direction.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Art Delibert, KB3FJO
>> 
>> --
>> --
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[n4is]

Wes you're right

The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio. The 
RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the improvement on 
signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db below noise with 
the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.

..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single FLAG, The 
clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the most 
complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not change the 
directivity. 

You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can phase two 
K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it is 
impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.

73
JC
N4IS
-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of Wes Stewart
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:50 AM
To: Arthur Delibert ; Jeff Woods 
Cc: topband 
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to 
the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.

That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could be 
totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and frankly 
I haven't kept up.

Wes  N7WS



On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
> You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from 
> Array Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a 
> SAL-12, and I love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  
> I can switch the antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm 
> often surprised to find that the DX is coming from a direction different from 
> what I would expect.
> Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is 
> pointed in the right direction, and I really would not have had any 
> copy if I couldn't point in that direction.
>
> The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and 
> higher. The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I 
> recall right, the
> SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 
> meters. Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.
>
> These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, 
> the
> SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the 
> same direction.
>
> Regards,
> Art Delibert, KB3FJO
>
> --
> --

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Ultimate antenna launcher....

[Peter Bertini]

This is a manly solution for launching antennas... just load a frozen carp
and you can cast your antenna line 300 yards! If the carp gets stuck in a
tree, the birds will take care if it.

https://www.facebook.com/InTheKnowInnovationAOL/videos/1912747892351198/?fref=gs=13909010799_location=group
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Might be a good EU DX night

[JAYB1943]

The EK was calling CQ with a US grid square..might be legit ?
jay ny2ny
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to 
the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.


That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could be 
totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and frankly I 
haven't kept up.


Wes  N7WS



On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from Array 
Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I 
love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  I can switch the 
antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm often surprised to find 
that the DX is coming from a direction different from what I would expect.  
Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is pointed 
in the right direction, and I really would not have had any copy if I couldn't 
point in that direction.


The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and higher.  
The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I recall right, the 
SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 meters.  
Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.


These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, the 
SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the same 
direction.


Regards,
Art Delibert, KB3FJO




_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Might be a good EU DX night

[Clive GM3POI]

I very much doubt EK8ZT. Smells very fishy, all the big EK signals are
pretty well known in EU and that's not one of them. I think they saw you
coming.
HNY Clive GM3POI

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Lunday
Sent: 28 December 2018 03:29
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Might be a good EU DX night


At sunset tonight I was decoding a strong FT8 signal from EK8ZT.  That's not
a common DX at this QTH...6000 miles is a bit longer than I normally copy
with my non-competitive station.

Then at 0330 I copied VP8EME with a strong signal on FT8.  Again, 6000+
miles, unusual with my setup.

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG
Greensboro, NC  FM06be
wd4...@arrl.net
http://wd4elg.blogspot.com
SKCC #16439  FISTS #17972  QRP ARCI #16497
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector