Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Ashton Lee]

I’m impressed that you could hear the US SSB stations. I have never heard NZ on 
160.


> On Mar 1, 2016, at 9:30 AM, Greg - ZL3IX  wrote:
> 
> So far I have remained silent on this topic, although I do have a very strong 
> view, as follows.
> 
> I can understand the need for SSB operators to 'leak' downwards into the CW 
> exclusive part of the band during a contest.   I would even say take over two 
> thirds of the CW only segment and come down as far as 1823.  But please 
> leaves us the bottom 10 kHz to use.  Anything else is just plain 
> disrespectful and rude.
> 
> Over the weekend, I was trying to keep my nightly CW sked with G stations.  
> We decided to try 1811, but after a couple of minutes it was taken over by 
> some US SSB contester, and we had to give up.  I stayed QRT for the rest of 
> the weekend.
> 
> 73, Greg, ZL3IX
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 

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

Re: Topband: Vertical Antenna on a cliff above the Sea

[Ashton Lee]

I have a small cabin and station on a mountain top. My experience is that 
horizontal antennas set right at a cliff face act as if they are much higher 
than their towers… to the point that real towers are pretty counter productive. 
Verticals act as if they are elevated 400 feet in the air (which id close to 
being on salt water… and in your case they would be). I have modeled but not 
built antennas that go down the slope. Personally I would do as I have done… 
put the best vertical you can at the cliff line and run your radials down the 
cliff. For higher bands just put antennas on 20-30 food supports right at the 
cliff face.


On Dec 3, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Stan Stockton  wrote:

> Robb,
> 
> I assume you do not have a 130 foot support at the edge of the cliff.  
> Perhaps you have a loaded dipole?  If you think the cliff will block your 
> signal in the most desired directions, you will have to do something 
> different but if not, I would suggest you put two radials in line with each 
> other with short supports every 25 feet or so above ground by 2-3 feet as 
> near the edge as you dare go and hang the vertical element over the cliff.  
> It would look like an upside down vertical with a short feedline and surely a 
> good performer at least in the directions that cliff is not blocking.  If the 
> cliff blocks important directions I would go for a vertical as you have 
> described with the shield side of the coax hanging down the side and the 
> portion above the edge of the cliff vertical even if it had to be loaded.  
> 40-50 feet vertical with two inverted V looking top loading wires to make it 
> resonant on about 1830 will work well.
> 
> 73...Stan, K5GO
> 
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Robb Webb Proprietor of Robb Webb Photography 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Good day fellow Topband Experimenters. 
>> When it comes to antennas I am a keen experimenter but technically a suck it 
>> and see merchant rather than a design pro so I ask for your expert opinions. 
>> I live near a high cliff overlooking the sea. The cliff faces south, is a 
>> good 100ft high and is made up of mud and clay that over the years has been 
>> collapsing into the sea. I am considering mounting my Topband dipole as a 
>> vertical antenna above the cliff edge with the ground portion of the antenna 
>> going down the cliff edge below the vertical portion. I'm aware I may need 
>> to add radials but is there anything else I should need to consider. This is 
>> in preparation for the Boxing Day Stew Perry contest. 
>> Thanks for your help. 
>> Robb 
>> G0URR 
>> 
>> 
>> Robb Webb Photography
>> Bringing Photography to life
>> Mobile: 07891 575892
>> 
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Why do rodents eat coax?

[Ashton Lee]

I had a pack rat problem, eating into cables and have completely cured the 
issue by running coax inside the inexpensive black tubing made for underground 
sprinkler systems. It comes in 100 and 500 foot rolls.

To get the coax into the tubes cut the length you want… then either push an 
electricians snake through, or use a vacuum and suck a small rag with string 
attached in from the other side. Either way gives you a messenger to pull the 
coax.

The tubing comes in several sizes. Be sure you get at least 1.5” to accommodate 
coax connectors. Larger sizes will protect multiple runs of coax.


On Nov 9, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Mike Waters  wrote:

> That's one of the reasons why Phillystran is not supposed to be run all the
> way to the ground. Isn't there supposed to be 6' of steel EHS between the
> guy anchor and the Phillystran?
> 
> Teflon?! Maybe it tastes good with a little butter and salt. ;-)
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Merv Schweigert  wrote:
> 
>> ... teflon,  it lasted a few days and was chewed In pieces ...
>> Latest I found is my phyllistran guy wires are all chewed near the bottom,
>> ...
>> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[Ashton Lee]

As the ham population ages historically many people have been forced to go off 
air when they move to retirement communities, assisted living situations etc. 
Let’s not also forget what remote stations can do for these folks. 

To operate my remote station would cost someone about $200 in hardware. And 
many of these hams might trade their equipment (which could be used in the 
remote stations) for the access.

The only real complexity is that without better engineering than I am capable 
of only one station can operate from a QTH on each band at a time because of 
interference. (I have no experience with duplexers)

In fact it could be a good local club project to begin to set up simple remote 
stations (100 watt radio, multi band doublet) that could serve these folks.

KQ0C





 On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:27 AM, James Rodenkirch rodenkirch_...@msn.com wrote:
 
 Tom: thank you for placing all of this in the correct context.it's a 
 friggin' hobby, not something to start gnashing the teeth over or initiate 
 some hand wringing due to a) misinterpretation of rules, b) purposefully 
 bending/breaking the rules or c) using some combination of a and b to win 
 some certificate!
 
 I got caught up in all of that paper/certificate chasing until about two 
 years agothe onset of a debilitating disease caused me to stop all if 
 that nonsense. Downsizing the shack and returning to a more basic approach - 
 QRP and QRPp operating as far as this hobby is concerned is my new 'mantra 
 and CONOPS - lots more rag chewing, finding chat type nets, exploring the 
 bands to see how propagation is doing, tweaking the antenna system or 
 trying new antennas as the disease allows me, etc.
 
 If some want to bend, break or reconstruct the rules, have at itI'm 
 rediscovering the fun in amateur radio to much fire up one synapses over 
 that sort of piddly craphihi
 
 71.5, 72 Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
 
 People are putting far too much emotion in this. It is a technical issue. 
 The technology to do this at one site is not all that difficult.
 
 Get a K3 and a reasonable amplifier, and you have minimal composite noise on 
 site. Phase-null the TX antenna out of the RX antenna ahead of any RX 
 amplification, and you can get down to noise floor at 1500 watts with 
 reasonable spacing.
 
 Even if the transmitter is nulled, the contact advantage is minimal in a 160 
 contest. The reason is any good station will run the band nearly dry of 
 contacts. You pick up far more contacts with the operator going slow at slow 
 times to get slow stations than someone would ever get by duplex.  The 
 primary advantage to duplex is in multi-op, where an operator can be 
 dedicated to moving up and down the band picking people off. Successful 
 multi-ops already have space to duplex, at least to some reasonable extent.
 
 The real advantage to remote or split site is a better noise or antenna 
 environment. What we should be debating are the real facts and effects, not 
 what we want to be the facts.
 
 As for DXCC, since sometime in the 1990's (as I recall), we could legally 
 move anywhere or operate anywhere and collect DXCC. Prior to that, it was 
 not unheard of for people to call people on the phone to help them get a 
 new country. 160 meters for many years had a phone-a-friend list. I recall 
 that going on in various forms since the 1970's, at least. Suddenly, it is a 
 major problem that will ruin radio as we know it!
 
 The most tragic thing I recall in Ham radio was hearing W8UDN, Ed,  (a 
 person I rarely spoke to) actually crying on the radio when he was losing 
 his 160 station. Listening to Ed's open distress and sadness at no longer 
 being able to enjoy something he loved for most of his life turned a page 
 for me.
 
 If letting someone who loves radio operate a radio, however he can manage to 
 do it, without unfairly taking away from other's ability to enjoy what they 
 want, I'm all for it.
 
 I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in 
 something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 
 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying 
 about others creates for them.
 
 I hope the people who write rules eventually let people like VO1HP enjoy 
 radio, instead of false concerns. Radio is all the better when we help each 
 other, instead of holding someone like Ed back.
 
 
 73 Tom 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: New RF interference killing RX at my QTH

[Ashton Lee]

Be careful.

It could be grow lights from an illegal pot operation.


 On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Goldtr8 (KD8NNU) gold...@charter.net wrote:
 
 Well I made some progress tonight on the way home.
 
 I used my mobile rig with hamsticks to listen while driving on the way home 
 from work.  I tuned to 3.902 which is a very strong frequency that gets 
 trashed at the home QTH and used a 40m hamstick as the receiving antenna. The 
 idea for this setup was to be able to attenuate the signal as I got closer to 
 it.
 
 Anyway while driving home with the pre-amp on the IC-7000 when suddenly the 
 noise was present and strong less than 1 mile from my house.I drove 
 around until it got real loud and turned the pre-amp off and it went away. I 
 then drove around with the pre-amp on until it was at about an s7 on the 
 meter then turned the preamp off as I was close and then drove around until 
 there was about 1 s-unit showing on the meter. I could hear the noise with 
 the pre-amp off when close and the s meter small reading confirmed that I was 
 real close.
 
 The noise is clearly in one subdivision close to my house but I can not tell 
 what is the source at this time.  I also know the noise does not show up on 
 the AM radio in the car although bad power poles do show up.
 
 So to me major progress has been made, now I need to identify where in the 
 subdivision or maybe what house this trash is coming from.  Next short term 
 step is to listen to the links several folks have sent to me to see if any of 
 them match what I am hearing so I know what I am looking for.
 
 I will keep the list updated as I learn more about the problem.
 
 Cheers and thanks for the tips so far.
 
 Don
 
 ~73
 Don
 KD8NNU
 2014 3905CC Top Gun :-)
 -.- -.. ---.. -. -. ..-
 -Original Message- From: Jim Brown
 Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 3:22 PM
 To: topband@contesting.com
 Subject: Re: Topband: New RF interference killing RX at my QTH
 
 On Sat,11/8/2014 9:33 AM, Goldtr8 (KD8NNU) wrote:
 I need to make a noise finding antenna that I can take in my vehicle to look 
 for a source of noise on 160m and 80m bands.
 
 Several useful tools. 1) Tecsun PL380 -- a nice AM/FM/Shortwave
 portable, DSP IF, has built-in loopstick antenna. About $45.  2) A ham
 talkie that has wideband RX. My Kenwood TH-F6A does that and has a
 built-in loopstick antenna.
 
 73, Jim K9YC
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Outdoor rope suggestions

[Ashton Lee]

If you don’t mind the cost and want the best, Harken marine blocks.


On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist rich...@karlquist.com 
wrote:

 On 9/2/2014 10:06 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
 
 I'm supporting high dipoles fed by RG11 up 120 ft with the 5/16-in stuff
 that DX Eng sells. They are run though top-grade pulleys, tied down at
 the base of one tree, 100# of dry sand at the base of the other tree.
 The major issue with the rope is wear -- the pulleys must be first grade
 to avoid abrasion, which WILL eventually break the rope.
 
 
 Can anyone recommend some first grade pulleys?  I am looking for
 something bigger than what they have at hardware stores, 3 or 4
 inch.
 
 Rick N6RK
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Rig Question

[Ashton Lee]

The K3’s (I have 2) come sounding pretty bad on SSB. But there are some 
standard settings for the equalizer which get them sounding pretty good. I’m 
not sure why they don’t leave the factory that way.

All in all I find the K3s unbeatable for CW and on a par with other good rigs 
on SSB. Basically most of the really advanced receiver functions for most 
radios are more functional with narrow discrete CW type signals. SSB signals 
bleed all over each other so there is only so much a radio can do.


On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:42 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV k2av@gmail.com wrote:

 K3's underwent an extended evolution on sound issues in the first two or
 three ears. There are a lot of sound mods, including an outright
 replacement of one circuit board. A lot of K3's do *not* have this mod, as
 those with typical age related loss of high range hearing may not hear the
 distortion, as I would guess might be true for the Elecraft principals.
 
 New K3's and K3's with all the mods can have quite decent audio when set up
 to *personal taste*.
 
 A lot of RX satisfaction simply depends on an appealing sound. Though there
 are some very fuzzily defined common preferences, a lot of what sounds
 good is personal preference and varies over the map. And discussions about
 this comparing rigs, because the elements of the discussion are terribly
 poorly defined, often turn into a Nyah, nyah, na nyah, nyah or My rig is
 better than your rig verbal p***ing contest.
 
 Some things we do know...
 
 o Younger operators on average hear highs much better than older ops. This
 can cause two ops listening at the same time to the same RX to perceive the
 audio in completely different ways. Confusion reigns.
 o Band noise from a voice-width passband, reproduced with utter fidelity,
 is commonly unbearable, and at very least, nearly uniformly unpleasant.
 With a quiet circuit, a gradual rolloff over 2.5 kHz is near universally
 preferred for voice. This preference is frequently the opposite for a noisy
 circuit.
 o High fidelity noise, due to some common poorly understood human stress
 mechanism, is usually tiring and sometimes tiring to an extreme.
 o The part of the communications voice bandwidth most important for
 comprehension, syllibants, is the upper range, which is also the most
 irritating for noise energy.
 o For contesters, what they prefer for SSB contesting and prefer for casual
 SSB ragchews are often violently different, *Particularly* in terms of how
 loud they push the upper octaves in RX audio. This is also true for filter
 bandwidths. Contesting is usually set for intelligibility alone, and
 ragchews for pleasantness of sound.
 
 An exhaustive list of these issues is fairly long. I almost never see these
 elements transacted in a discussion of rig audios.
 
 I bought my K3 so the RX front end would not be creating the noise base on
 40 meters listening to a 5 element wide spaced quad on a 200 foot catenary.
 Crushing signal levels. Now I can clearly pick out solar noise at certain
 times. I use 1.8 kHz filters for SSB contesting with the passband shifted
 up for maximum intelligibility, a setting I cannot stand to listen to for
 casual ragchewing :)
 
 Sound horrible can be for so many reasons. On a K3 you need to know the
 settings of filter, shift, audio passband shaping, NB  NR settings,
 whether all the audio mods were done, in order to qualify what sound
 horrible might come from.
 
 Some folks can't stand K3's because they can't stand the small knobs and
 buttons. Some others hated K3's until they used them as a guest at a
 contest station. Others just do not like the sound no matter how adjusted.
 I have more than one acquaintance who hated them until they got one.
 
 Early on in K3 history, at the first WRTC with the K3 shipping, fully half
 of the rigs brought to the WRTC championship in Europe were K3's. It was
 clear that the contesters had found something they wanted. The next largest
 contingent was FT1000MP's. At roughly that time, operators at NY4A had
 owned or did own eleven FT1000MP's. Over a period of time, this list of
 hams replaced the MP's with 15 K3's and one Orion, nothing else. Nobody was
 coerced, and for sure each of that crew comes to his own independent views
 and purchases.
 
 Far and away, even now, the K3 is the common choice for serious contesters.
 The sub RX is electrically identical to the main RX, just on a differently
 shaped PC board to fit in its space. If those looking for rig opinions are
 or will be contesters, a used K3 sent back to the factory to have all the
 mods checked/done and firmware set to production levels will be a long
 lasting choice. Audio on a K3 has to be set to something, making a
 contesting setup and a casual setup possible.
 
 One firmware revision a while back made a huge improvement in audio
 quality. This was because prior firmware DSP calculations for AGC did not
 use enough significant digits and were introducing digitalization
 distortion to the 

Re: Topband: Using 80m 1/4 vertical on 160

[Ashton Lee]

I have the zero five 55 foot antenna which was custom built to actually be a 
full sized 80 meter antenna. It was affordable and has stood up well on a very 
windy mountain top. Performance is, of course, no different than a 65 foot 
wire…. if you had trees to support the latter.





On Jun 3, 2014, at 1:43 AM, Ray Benny rayn...@cableone.net wrote:

 Mike,
 
 Can you find or provide more info on these 80m zero-five verticals? What
 does zero-five mean or stand for?
 
 I though about using relays to switch in/out the top loading wires for
 160m, but computed the voltage to be over 10 KV. Vacuum relays to handle
 that voltage are very expensive. Then there is the issue of protecting them
 from harsh WX.
 
 Ray,
 N6VR
 
 
 On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com wrote:
 
 On 6/2/2014 6:07 PM, John Kaufmann wrote:
 
 Perhaps top loading would be somewhat more efficient on 160,
 but it would be difficult electrically and mechanically to switch out top
 loading on 80.
 
 
 Not as difficult as you might think. Certainly worth some modeling. Add a
 80M trap at the top between the vertical and horizontal portions. Below 80M
 that circuit would look inductive, which adds loading on 160. In the model,
 play with values for the trap and the top wires to maximize efficiency. My
 guess it that might be good for another dB or two.
 
 
 73, Jim K9YC
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Suggestions for a tower?

[Ashton Lee]

Or an easy and fairly good approach is to set up a sloper off the tower. The 
sloper acts as an inverted vertical ( inverted verticals work better than 
ground fed ones) and uses the grounded tower as its ground. Basically you run 
your feed line to the top of the tower, run the hot core to a wire slanted down 
and away from the tower and connect the ground to the tower. I ended up with 
the best match using a 130 foot wire and feeding through a 4:1 unun. Slopers 
are a bit tricky as each installation requires some trial and error. But they 
work darn well.

Also, while you will get some counter argument, setting up an inverted V off 
the tower top will work very well too. That may have a higher angle of 
radiation but will be very easy to tune to a 50 ohm match.




On Apr 23, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Jon Zaimes AA1K j...@verizon.net wrote:

 Jaan,
 
 Before replacing the guys, you might consider trying a gamma match at the 
 bottom end of one of the top guy wires to load the tower and guys as-is. I 
 did something similar on a sailboat for 80 meters (gamma matching the rigging 
 on a 35-foot-high mast)  and it worked OK.
 
 73/Jon AA1K
 
 
 On 4/23/2014 8:15 AM, Jaan Jürgenson wrote:
 Hello low banders.
 
 My name is Jaan and I have been reading all kinds of interesting things
 regarding propagation, antennas and other topics here on this reflector. I
 hope to receive some valuable comments, recflections and also hands on
 experience on my question.
 
 Last winter I became active on 160 and found it very exciting with
 propagation and activity on this band. What I would like to ask is what
 would You propose for antenna?
 
 Background:
 I have a tower that is 137ft. or 42m tall. It is triangular 1ft 10inches or
 40cm wide. The tower is guy wired at three levels with non-isolated wire.
 The foundation is a concrete slab on on rocky ground.
 The surroundings is quite flat and conductivity is perhaps not the best.
 About 1/2 mile away I have the Baltic Ocean in almost 360 degrees.
 
 My question is what options do I have to build a good TX antenna out of
 this? What can I do? On RX side I will use separate antennas.
 I could think of isolating the guy wires or replace them for non-conductive
 type. I'm not sure if it possible to isolate the base today. Shunt fed the
 tower, use it as a folded monopole? Or should I just use the tower as a
 support for a L-antenna?
 
 73 de Jaan, SM0OEK
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition

[Ashton Lee]

I would be especially mindful of corrosion issues in tower planning in the 
Caribbean. There was a recent article in the Contest Journal on the ever 
difficult tower corrosion experienced at PJ2T.


On Feb 25, 2014, at 1:17 PM, DALE LONG dale.l...@prodigy.net wrote:

 Gentlemen:
 
  I have been reluctant to ask for help which did not relate directly to our 
 reflector. But today I got up my courage, so here goes.  I have been invited 
 to lead a group of amateurs to help build an AM tower in Haiti.
 
 
 Two things that may relate to some of our readers:
 
 1. I will be returning to Haiti in November to build a 240foot AM broadcast 
 tower.  I know there are many AM broadcast engineers on this list and would 
 like to have your advice.  Specifically we are searching for a large conical 
 base insulator.  Sometimes when a tower rusts, they are disgarded or thrown 
 on a pile somewhere.  We would like to buy one, and possibly a tower as well.
 
 2. In December of this year, I am organizing a small group to go to Haiti and 
 participate in the 160m contest. (this of course is dependent on the tower 
 being built.)
 
 I am particularly pleased that amateurs have been invited to help. Sometimes 
 broadcast engineers do not have the highest opinions of amateur 
 installations.  So we do want to do it right.  We have a 9-acre parcel of 
 land along the ocean and part of the area is a salt-water marsh. I think 
 there hasnt been any serious 160m activity from Haiti for a number of years.  
 This location would present a nice opportunity for a serious lowband 
 operation.
 
 If you have any information about base insulators/towers, or if you would 
 like to join a 160m dxpedition to Haiti, please respond off the reflector to 
 n3b...@gmail.com
 
 Thanks for your time.
 
 Dale - N3BNA
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition

[Ashton Lee]

I thought a bit more about this… while a beachfront/salt marsh location might 
be ideal for building an international broadcast facility, if you were building 
a station for domestic Haitian audiences you would probably prefer a high 
location reasonably far from the sea and its corrosive effects. Or perhaps you 
might design a tower primarily as a support structure and utilize easily 
replaceable vertical dipoles with coated wire as the radiators. Without 
extensive maintenance a tower might last a relatively short period of time and 
have conductivity issues.


On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Charlie Cunningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com 
wrote:

 Good point!
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ashton
 Lee
 Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:03 PM
 To: DALE LONG
 Cc: topband@contesting.com
 Subject: Re: Topband: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition
 
 I would be especially mindful of corrosion issues in tower planning in the
 Caribbean. There was a recent article in the Contest Journal on the ever
 difficult tower corrosion experienced at PJ2T.
 
 
 On Feb 25, 2014, at 1:17 PM, DALE LONG dale.l...@prodigy.net wrote:
 
 Gentlemen:
 
 I have been reluctant to ask for help which did not relate directly to
 our reflector. But today I got up my courage, so here goes.  I have been
 invited to lead a group of amateurs to help build an AM tower in Haiti.
 
 
 Two things that may relate to some of our readers:
 
 1. I will be returning to Haiti in November to build a 240foot AM
 broadcast tower.  I know there are many AM broadcast engineers on this list
 and would like to have your advice.  Specifically we are searching for a
 large conical base insulator.  Sometimes when a tower rusts, they are
 disgarded or thrown on a pile somewhere.  We would like to buy one, and
 possibly a tower as well.
 
 2. In December of this year, I am organizing a small group to go to Haiti
 and participate in the 160m contest. (this of course is dependent on the
 tower being built.)
 
 I am particularly pleased that amateurs have been invited to help.
 Sometimes broadcast engineers do not have the highest opinions of amateur
 installations.  So we do want to do it right.  We have a 9-acre parcel of
 land along the ocean and part of the area is a salt-water marsh. I think
 there hasnt been any serious 160m activity from Haiti for a number of years.
 This location would present a nice opportunity for a serious lowband
 operation.
 
 If you have any information about base insulators/towers, or if you would
 like to join a 160m dxpedition to Haiti, please respond off the reflector to
 n3b...@gmail.com
 
 Thanks for your time.
 
 Dale - N3BNA
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 

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

Re: Topband: Ends for older Phillystran

[Ashton Lee]

We sailors would wrap a line twice around the eye and then leave a longer tail 
and clamp that with some space between each clamp. The increased friction of 2 
wraps around an eye/block/winch substantially reduces the pull on a knot, 
cleats or (in this case) clamps. It could be that the phillystran needs to be 
wrapped around something with a larger radius than the eye however… not sure of 
the engineering on that point. So you might  need a “thimble” in the set up.



On Jan 14, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Bill Wichers bi...@waveform.net wrote:

 The bar idea would probably significantly reduce the allowable tension on the 
 cable, similar to what knotting does, due to the force at each bite point 
 weakening the cable. I suppose if the cable was sufficiently oversized this 
 wouldn't pose a problem, but I'd certainly expect such a clamping method to 
 effectively reduce the allowable tension significantly below the normal rated 
 load.
 
 I'm actually a little surprised a dead end / preform isn't supposed to be 
 used with the straight-strand version of the cable. Those grips work by 
 compression of the cable they are grabbing, and it's a fairly even pressure 
 over the length of the gripped area. If one could be found that was the 
 correct diameter for the cable being used it might be worth a shot, but I 
 completely agree with Tom -- TEST ANYTHING YOU TRY BEFORE USING IT FOR REAL!  
 He's also correct that dynamic loading is much worse than static loading. 
 Wind causes vibration in towers and guys and that can cause your clamps  to 
 loosen over time, especially if they were marginal to begin with.
 
   -Bill
 
 
 Has anyone thought of a long rectangular bar with multiple champhered
 holes, with the Phillystran woven through from side-to-side? With enough
 weaves, this should self-tension with just a single clamp on the far end.
 Regardless, I would test pull and see what breaks first at what tension.
 
 73 Tom
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Ends for older Phillystran

[Ashton Lee]

As a very crude analogy what you want to be able to do is use a steel cable 
from the anchor through the middle of something like an automobile wheel, Then 
the Phillystran wants to take a couple of lazy turns around the rim of the 
wheel and then get clamped to itself. While there are probably better 
engineered alternatives to the auto wheel the idea is that the turn be of a 
large smooth radius and have a high total friction such that the clamps don’t 
actually hold against much pull.

If you look at old sailing ships that’s how they are rigged… with big wooden 
thimble blocks.


On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote:

 The bar idea would probably significantly reduce the allowable tension on 
 the cable, similar to what knotting does, due to the force at each bite 
 point weakening the cable. I suppose if the cable was sufficiently 
 oversized this wouldn't pose a problem, but I'd certainly expect such a 
 clamping method to effectively reduce the allowable tension significantly 
 below the normal rated load.
 
 
 I wouldn't do anything as tight as a knot, especially when both surfaces have 
 significant yield. The holes would have to be chamfered to prevent cutting 
 through the jacket. It wouldn't be much different than an insulator if done 
 correctly. It is all about not making the short turn radius a knife.
 
 I'm actually a little surprised a dead end / preform isn't supposed to be 
 used with the straight-strand version of the cable. Those grips work by 
 compression of the cable they are grabbing, and it's a fairly even 
 pressure over the length of the gripped area. If one could be found that was 
 the correct diameter for the cable being used it might be worth a shot, but 
 I completely agree with Tom -- TEST ANYTHING YOU TRY BEFORE USING IT FOR 
 REAL!  He's also correct that dynamic loading is much worse than static 
 loading. Wind causes vibration in towers and guys and that can cause your 
 clamps  to loosen over time, especially if they were marginal to begin with.
 
 
 There has to be considerable pressure on the jacket squeezing it into the 
 inner fiberglass. I'd be reluctant to use a grip on something that has a 
 tendency to slide. I don't think it will squeeze hard enough. The newer 
 Phillystran has much less tendency to have the jacket slide over the center. 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 contest observation

[Ashton Lee]

Come out to Colorado and you won’t have the problem of mass European pile ups.


On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Shoppa, Tim tsho...@wmata.com wrote:

 I spent almost all of the second night of the ARRL 160 test, just running, 
 little to no SP. This probably shows up in my final score as a high QSO 
 count but comparatively low mult count. I certainly didn't rack up the most 
 5-pointers of the east coast guys, either!
 
 Interestingly... whenever I worked a DX station while running, sometimes even 
 before I successfully copied all of the DX's call, other folks would start 
 showing up on my run frequency trying to work, I guess, the DX. Often I 
 worked them even if they were dupes.
 
 Sometimes the EU DX I worked seemed to come in a streak too. I don't have 
 the best station in the world and it's unusual for me to work 5 EU's in a row 
 but it happened on several occasions. This may have just been a couple of 
 good condx to EU highlights the second evening.
 I'll be going to go back and look at reversebeacon and manual spots from 
 those nights, and see what correlations there might be.
 
 Tim N3QE
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: ARRL 160 contest observation

[Ashton Lee]

Jim

I note from QRZ that you have 133 countries contacted on 160… and yet you 
haven’t heard Europe in 2 years.

Kinda puts into perspective what 160 is like for those of us in the West these 
days.

KQ0C
Ash


On Dec 11, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com wrote:

 On 12/11/2013 7:56 AM, Shoppa, Tim wrote:
 After CQ WW CW, I was talking with a guy in Arizona who had worked 100+ JA's 
 on 160 in that test! More than half a continent away, very different 
 perspective on 160 than mine!
 
 Yep. 100+ 5,500 mile QSOs, but only 1 multiplier.
 
 As to EU -- I haven't heard EU on 160 in more than two years.
 
 73, Jim K9YC
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: DX Window

[Ashton Lee]

The issue I believe is that many people’s 160 antennas are limited in frequency 
breadth.

There is really just one SSB contest.


On Dec 9, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Roger Parsons ve...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I agree with the remarks made by others regarding the DX window in the ARRL 
 contest.
 
 I have been more concerned for many years about the various phone contests 
 which take place on 160m. During those contests phone operation takes place 
 right down to the bottom of the band, effectively making any CW operation 
 impossible during those weekends. Last year one ssb contest coincided with a 
 Dxpedtion to 9U - an exceptionally rare country on 160m. Whilst it is true 
 that there are only a few phone contests on the calendar, it is also true 
 that there are only a few weekends where exceptional conditions happen, 
 particularly during sunspot maxima.
 
 
 Frequency allocations on top band vary from country to country, but it is 
 generally true to say that the 'prime real estate' for phone operation is 
 from 1830 - 1850 kHz, with the 1810 - 1830 kHz segment being next most 
 desirable. Very few countries allow phone (or any) operation below 1810 kHz. 
 A significant number of countries (particularly North America) also allow 
 operation all the way up to 2 MHz..
 
 Even in the busiest contests it is rare to hear any operation above 1900 kHz.
 
 It would be nice if the regulations were changed (particularly in NA) to 
 limit the permissible frequencies for ssb, but I think we all know that will 
 never happen.
 
 However, contest organisers can very easily define the allowable frequency 
 bands for each individual contest, and as has been mentioned by others this 
 is already done for some (particularly European) contests.
 
 I would like to propose that phone contests disallow the use on ssb of any 
 frequency below a dial frequency of 1820 kHz. That leaves 8 kHz of 
 international frequencies for CW operation whilst still giving the ssb 
 contesters 32 kHz of the 'prime real estate' - and 150 kHz of the apparently 
 less desirable frequencies above 150 kHz.
 
 I did suggest this on the contest reflector last year and was immediately 
 flamed, but I honestly think this would be an attainable and reasonable 
 compromise.
 
 73 Roger
 VE3ZI
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Antenna Question

[Ashton Lee]

The 43 foot antennas are very short (low inductance, poor efficiency) on 160. 
Only my very best tuners will tune them… and tuning doesn’t make them 
efficient, it only makes them not destroy the radio with reflected currents.

The best solution is to top load a 43 food antenna and turn it into an inverted 
L. Of course, if you have trees, a wire will do the same thing without needing 
the 43 foot aluminum part.

KQ0C
Ash


On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:40 AM, rick darwicki n...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi all,
 
 My current LB antenna is an old Create 40/80 Vertical mounted about 20 feet 
 off the ground with a bunch of radials at the base. I removed the Create 40 M 
 trap and extended the mast to about 35 feet. At about 33 feet I have a 
 homemade 40M trap in a horizontal wire out about 85 feet with another 
 homemade 80M trap so the whole thing works on 40/80/160. I can tune it to any 
 band 160/10 with my Nye 3KW matchbox. I have a DX engineering choke at the 
 base. My 40M trap died, it was resonate at 7.15 and I made loaded 1500 W into 
 it at 7.160 chasing DX.
 
 I had problems with the base insulators arcing when I originally tried to 
 tune it to 160 with a base mounted coil. 
 
 I see a lot of hype about these 43 foot verticals doing any band 10-160.  
 
 Do you think a Nye would tune my antenna to 160/80/40 if I extended it to 43 
 feet or so?  Base voltage problems?
 
 I could also remove the traps and just tune it as a bent long wire but again 
 I worry about base voltages. 
 
 Right now I'm considering rebuilding the 40M trap for 6.5 MHz but I'm looking 
 for other options. Don't need for it to work above 30M.
 
 So what is my best option for 30/40/80/160 ?  No traps, making the 
 vertical 40-50 feet high, rebuilding the trap?
 
 Thanks,
 
 Rick, N6PE
 === 
 The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
 
 Website:  http://www.qsl.net/n6pe/index.html
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Easy-to-learn 160 contest logging program?

[Ashton Lee]

I was able to install N1MM the day I received my General and play around in the 
California QSO Party… can’t be that hard if I managed it on day one.

Years later I am still finding additional features however.

But getting it to connect to the radio and log contacts is as easy as any other 
program.


On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Richard Karlquist rich...@karlquist.com wrote:

 On 2013-12-04 08:25, Gary Smith wrote:
 I agree with Doug on N1MM. Do follow the instructions on the download
 page to install the program first and then the most recent update.
 Then once it's running and you've filled in the station info, under
 the tools tab you'll find some other downloads available  download
 them. You'll find there's a bit of a curve to using it but it's so
 easy to use you'll really appreciate it. Tab to select  scroll,
 
 If N1MM was truly easy to learn, it wouldn't need the above disclaimer.
 I've used N1MM for years.  My opinion (YMMV):
 
 Is it easy to install, configure and learn.  No.
 Is it easy to use?  No.
 Is it well documented?  No.
 Is it intuitive?  No.
 
 It is a serious program for the serious contester
 who is willing to invest the time and effort in it.
 
 It does have the advantage of being free, but unfortunately, your time isn't 
 free.
 
 If you want easy to learn, look elsewhere.  For example, N3FJP.
 
 Rick N6RK
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 

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

Re: Topband: Coax rodent protection

[Ashton Lee]

All my coax needs to be protected from pack rats… I use inexpensive rolls of 
underground sprinkler “pipe” as the covering. Works FB.


On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dave Harmon k6...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

 After getting my coax chawed 3 times I used chain link fence top rail as
 conduit.
 If whatever was gnawing my coax tries again I hope it has its dentist
 insurance paid up. 
 
 Dave Harmon
 K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
 Sperry, Ok.
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
 Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 6:16 PM
 To: topband@contesting.com
 Subject: Topband: Coax rodent protection
 
 Izzy the Bombay coax protector cat was  22 length from nose to base of
 his tail. 
 25 lbs of solid mussle. he could easily jump 6 feet strainght up, when
 scared about 8 feet.
 Slept up on the shed roof in summer, maybe for increased field of vision and
 safety.
 Photo for DX cat lovers. www.qsl.net.k1fz/izzy.jpg
 
 73
 Bruce-K1FZ
 _
 Topband Reflector
 
 _
 Topband Reflector
 

_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Magnetic Loops

[Ashton Lee]

I have the Wellbrook at 2 QTHs and it works way better than using a transmit 
antenna on receive. It also works very well early in the evening when signals 
are still iffy and coming in at all angles. My 300 foot beverage on ground 
starts to be quieter and therefore more effective later in the evening. The 
Wellbrook outperforms the K9AY I tried for sure. I don't have much local noise 
so I can't comment on that other than to say that the demos I've listened to on 
the net make the loops seem quite effective at nulling noise. Their 
directionality is much stronger on local signals than on DX.

If you already have extensive receive antennas these may not add much, but if 
you lack the space for other receive antennas these work great.

KQ0C
Ash


On May 21, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
rich...@karlquist.com wrote:

 On 5/21/2013 8:40 AM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
 Sometimes my local power line noise is about S8 or so on 160.
 I am considering the purchase of one of these magnetic loop antennas for 
 receiving to see if it helps.
 Anyone have one of these ?  How well does it perform ?  One better than the 
 other ?
 
 Pixel Technologies RF PRO-1B
 Wellbrooke Communications ALA 1530
 
 Bob
 K6UJ
 
 It is important to understand that these loops have
 a circumference of 10 feet, which they are limited
 to because the manufacturers want to offer a bandwidth
 up to 30 MHz.  Also, they are untuned, again because
 the manufacturers want to offer a broadband solution.
 Very little signal is available from such a small untuned
 antenna, and hence these antennas require a high gain
 preamp.  Depending on your location, the amplifier
 noise may be the limiting factor on sensitivity.
 One of the commercial loops claims to have 0.5 dB noise
 figure, however I measured 3 dB on a sample of one.
 These issues are simply physics, no matter who builds
 the loop.  IMHO, a so called Moebius configuration
 doesn't fundamentally change anything with respect
 to these tradeoffs.  As the inventor of that design
 states, it is only an advantage for its intended purpose
 of EMP weapons testing.
 
 If you are primarily interested in 80/160 meters, then you
 might want to look at my NCJ article:
 
 http://www.n6rk.com/loopantennas/NCJ_loop_antenna_N6RK.pdf
 
 This loop is normally 20 feet in circumference and can
 be made up 40 feet in circumference to get additional
 signal.  Also, it is tuned, which produces much more signal.
 I use it with no preamplifier (besides the one built into
 the radio), although a little gain wouldn't hurt.
 
 Due to popular demand, I will be offering assembled
 versions of this loop for people who are not able to
 build the homebrew version described in NCJ.
 
 Rick N6RK
 All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night.
 _
 Topband Reflector
 

All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night.
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: A little assistance needed with an attempt at a T antenna

[Ashton Lee]

I don't believe that the off center top loading will have a huge effect if you 
feed it as a T, vs a symmetric  T

Theory would say that a ground fed T against even  3-4 radials will have a 
lower DX angle. The price you pay is the ground losses of a vertical (not due 
to the modest ground radial system, but true of all vertically polarized 
antennae). Let me hazard the guess that you will be down about 1-2 S-units 
versus an ideal monopole vertical. That's not bad given that you don't have 160 
acres and a 135 foot tower. An amp puts you right back in the game.

Basically it would be nice if you set it up so as to be able to switch from one 
feed to the other to test, since your existing antenna did OK. But I suspect 
you will like it slightly more as a vertically fed T.

You might pick up a bit of efficiency by using a full length, or even over 1/4 
wl inverted L since the longer antenna should have more radiation resistance. 
127-135 feet of wire, roughly.

A bigger deal will be to work out a receiving antenna set up. I've had terrific 
luck with the Wellbrook loop which will easily fit into your set up. Because 
your transmitting antenna will be non-ressonant you shouldn't need to worry 
about having the receiving antenna close to it. If you do go with a resonant L 
you may pick up noise off that.

KQ0C
Ash

On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:56 AM, Mike Armstrong armst...@aol.com wrote:

 
 Hey guys and gals,
 I have a question: I have an OCFD that is about 130 feet long, end to end.  
 It is Off Center Fed at a current node for 15 meters, which is the band it 
 was designed for.  Ends up that it tunes easy on just about any band, albeit 
 with open wire feeders and a tuner.  It works very well for 10, 15, 17 and 
 20, since the major lobes are directed where I want them.  Although 
 anecdotal, what I can say is that I rarely have to make a second call to any 
 station I want to work on those bands. which was a very real surprise 
 considering its simplicity.  it is 40 feet high, which is not great, but it 
 is as good as I can do.  I have actually tuned it to 160 during a contest 
 last year and ended up working (and thank you guys, CONFIRMING) a total of 9 
 countries... Japan, Australia and Chile included. Which REALLY blew 
 my mind.  But I digress.. Suffice it to say that for the higher bands, I 
 am very happy with it.
 
 I want to try to use it as a T antenna and lay out some radials.  I do have a 
 limited space situation, from a 160 point of view, with the typical postage 
 stamp lot.  I got the OCFD as long as it is by placing a good portion of the 
 antenna in my Mother-in-Law's property and terminating the far end in one of 
 her palm trees.  I needed to say that because some folks might wonder how I 
 put a long antenna on a postage stamp lot. I didn't. It is 2 postage 
 stamps side by side.  However I can't go crazy and lay antennas everywhere on 
 her land.  So.. After all the preliminaries, I want to try the T, but it 
 definitely struck me that the antenna, being OCFD as much as it is, is 
 definitely NOT balanced side to side.  Would this have a negative impact on a 
 T?  Would it be better to call it an inverted L and just forget the short 
 side, including that side of the transmission line?  I am thinking that the 
 latter is probably the way to go, but if a T would work in such a strange
  c
 onfiguration, I would prefer to use the extra wire rather than having it sit 
 idle LOL. 
 
 Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read this tome. Any response would 
 be welcome, especially if anyone has actually done something similar with an 
 OCFD that is so unbalanced.  Ay anecdotal data concerning performance is 
 welcome, as well.. If you are still using it, because it is a decent 
 performer on 160, that matters because you guys are so willing to alter 
 antennas if they aren't doing EXACTLY what you want them to.. He he he.
 
 Mike AB7ZU
 
 Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
 ___
 Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.
 

___
Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.

Re: Topband: Short Bogs

[Ashton Lee]

My BOG was a breakthrough after previously using just my inverted L on receive. 
Its 300 feet fed through a 300 Ohm transformer. The transformer is grounded, 
but not the far end.

In the last week I added a Wellbrook loop which earned its place as my primary 
receive antenna in the Stew Perry after a bunch of side by side comparisons. 
The loop is much higher gain. It can be rotated but I wasn't set up to do so. 
The loop has slightly more noise than the BOG but way less than the transmit 
antenna. I've used one before in a different location, and find these to be an 
under appreciated option.


On Dec 30, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Bruce k...@myfairpoint.net wrote:

 
 BOG antenna, BOG wire.
 
 
 Yes right on. Not only are there many variables with the earth, but different 
 wire dielectrics are a big factor. 
 
 I have sold many BOG transformers, and received a lot of feedback.  There are 
 many different results, all but one was able to get a positive out come. That 
 one insisted on using a TV antenna pre-amplifier.  I gained a lot of insight. 
 
 One un-named customer was running his BOG across a highway late many nights. 
 One night a car came, out of nowhere, at high speed just before he got the 
 wire secured. It ripped the transformer wire out of his hand. He found it 
 about 200 yards down the road. He never found the termination, thought to be 
 attached to the car. Someone must have found it and wondered, What is this?  
 Now that is real determination to work 160 meter DX.
 
 Anyway,  I do not disagree with anyone with different BOG results. There are 
 way too many variables.
 
 73
 Bruce-K1FZ
  - Original Message - 
  From: Guy Olinger K2AV 
  To: Charlie Cunningham 
  Cc: Bruce ; topband@contesting.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Topband: Fw: Short Bogs
 
 
  The characteristics of #12 THHN and such vary all over the map.  It is not 
 being made for use at RF.  The insulation not only changes the velocity 
 factor, but it also adds loss.  This too varies all over the map.  
 
 
  Wireman has various wires with UV resistant black PE insulation.  That stuff 
 seems to be predictable and stable.  I personally don't know of any THHN with 
 PE insulation.  YMMV, of course.  Neither of the guys at Home Depot and Lowes 
 have any idea what I'm talking about if I mention PE insulation.  Apparently 
 plastic is plastic  :).
 
 
  73, Guy
 
 ___
 Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.
 

___
Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.

Re: Topband: ARRL LOTW and More

[Ashton Lee]

Let's not lose the fact that contests on 160 are events as much as contests… 
they are times when an otherwise barren band fills up. There's a lot of fun 
just in working all you can.

Those of us in deep valleys in Western Colorado have a hard time appreciating 
the extreme difficulties faced by Eastern stations located on Islands 
surrounded by salt water. 


On Dec 18, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV li...@subich.com wrote:

 
  Some may say this is poor sportsmanshipbut I have tried to get
  someone to recognize that changes are important to bring out a better
  contest product.  I understand those in their ivy covered office
  buildings and who call the shots, really don't care to even entertain
  change for the better.
 
 ARRL 160 Meter contest is essentially a 160 Sweepstakes that allows
 W/VE stations to work DX.  If you don't like the format of the contest,
 don't work it ... after all, there were no VE8, VY1, etc. stations on
 and haven't been for many years.  Change is not necessary and would
 only hurt a well established product - particularly a change that you
 advocate that would only benefit a handful of stations who already
 benefit immensely in other contests.
 
 There are those who don't like CQ's format, those who don't like the
 new ARRL 10 Meter format with Mexican States (why Mexico and not
 Brazil or Argentina, or Chile, or Venezuela?) - the choice is to not
 participate and certainly demand changes that will benefit only *ONE*
 or at most a handful of stations.  If you go giving one or two sections
 a special scoring advantage, why limit it to KP2/KP4?  Certainly the
 scoring disadvantage is just as great in the case of NFL vs. C6 or SFL
 vs. CO.  Once you start making special accommodations where does it
 stop - GA, SC, NC AL MS?
 
 Every set of contest rules gives some an advantage - it's far easier
 for VY2, VE1, VE9, W1 to work all the 5 point DX than others - and
 gives some a disadvantage - who wants to be W6/W7 for ARRL 160 -
 that's the breaks.  Other contests have advantages for another set
 of operators.  You don't screw up a contest with 40 years of history
 because one or two individuals don't like the format - there will
 always be boundary cases EA9 vs. ZB, IG9/IG9 vs. 9H, 9Y vs. J3,
 HP vs, HK ... the list can go on and on.
 
 No matter what the rules are, *someone* will complain.
 
 73,
 
   ... Joe, W4TV
 
 
 On 12/18/2012 7:14 PM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
 On 12/18/2012 7:11 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
 You have bitched for years that DX
 thought the could not work you - I can find the references in the
 archives going back almost to be beginning of this list) but it
 would mean that you got to count each QSO with the rest of us on
 the mainland as 5 points instead of 2 points.  Now you want to be
 able to work DX but count all your QSOs as five points instead
 of two?
 I may have bitched but who wouldn't after being told and scolded by DX
 stations no DX no DX QRZ W/VE only  Many I guess were as confused as i
 was in calling them in the first place.  Again I only want this contest
 to show an element of fairness.  I guess if I do as you suggested then
 next time stations will not only miss KP4 which did not show this time
 but also KP2.  So about working ARRL sections and as some insist that it
 is only a 160 meter version of Sweepstakes, then let it be so and like
 in the much highly enshrined SS not permit *any* DX.  Working DX on 160,
 not some archaic sections is what I am interest in.  If participants
 were tuned into working DX you would not find the band covered by 100's
 of incessant CQ machines every few hertz trying to hold on to there spot
 and not working much of anything.  I think next time I will do what I
 wanted to do this time, just work DX and have my phased Beverages on
 Europe and Africa selected.
 Some may say this is poor sportsmanshipbut I have tried to get
 someone to recognize that changes are important to bring out a better
 contest product.  I understand those in their ivy covered office
 buildings and who call the shots, really don't care to even entertain
 change for the better.
 
 
 Herb, KV4FZ
 
 
 
 ___
 It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground
 whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
 
 ___
 It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever 
 for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
 

___
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever 
for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell

Re: Topband: GAP Vertical Question

[Ashton Lee]

What I can add from personal experience is that a vertical dipole (center fed 
half wave) without radials, on a rocky cliff top is an absolute killer antenna 
on the upper HF bands. My vertical dipole works so well that in contests I 
often just quit using my yagis because of the hassle of rotating or even 
switching them. The omnidirectional vertical is only maybe 3 dB down on very 
good directional antennas.

Center fed half waves on 160 are a lot harder to set up, so I have no 
experience there. But if I had a used broadcast tower it sure would be fun to 
try one.




On Dec 17, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Carl k...@jeremy.mv.com wrote:

 
 - Original Message - From: Paul Christensen w...@arrl.net
 To: topband@contesting.com
 Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:07 AM
 Subject: Re: Topband: GAP Vertical Question
 
 
 Right, typically a couple hundred ohms.  Modeling the base Z of a thick 
 broadcast tower is very difficult with MoM software.  Changes in thickness 
 can result in large base Z changes.
 
 Just to be clear, since the discussion drifted to half-wave radiators, my 
 comment above was specific to the modeling of thick v. thin half-wave 
 radiators, including the 180-195 degree radiators of some well-known 50KW AM 
 stations.  The results when modeling the base Z of approx. 1/4-wave 
 radiators is less affected by thickness, probably due to a lower base Z to 
 start with.
 
 Paul, W9AC
 
 In the 1920's several BC towers were half waves without radials on hilltops. 
 Performance was poor due to the height plus the lack of a decent ground on 
 solid rock limiting the ground wave signal to a low value.
 As a side note tapered towers were also in vogue but that presented other 
 problems.
 
 It wasnt until the educated scientific studies of the 30's and published 
 papers/books that resulted that broadcasters began to standardize.along 
 with some push from the FCC.
 
 Here we are over 70 years later still arguing the subject and embroiled in 
 myths and some folks are very protective of their alternate beliefs.
 
 Did the 100mpg carburetor ever exist? Is this planet only 9000 years old (-; ?
 
 Carl
 KM1H 
 ___
 Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
 

___
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever 
for supposing it is true. #8212; Bertrand Russell

Re: Topband: Fw: GAP VERTICAL QUESTION

[Ashton Lee]

So here's a question. I have a vertical mounted on a cliff side that performs 
incredibly. My amateur's approach to figuring out why is that I modeled it in 
EZNEC as being elevated 400 feet. That shows it performing nearly as well as if 
it were on a tiny island in the great ocean.

Is it correct that an elevated feed point greatly reduces the ground losses?


On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net wrote:

 I have already spoken extensively that your assertion is not proved, NOR is
 the counter-assertion proved.  I have no intentions of adding to that.  I
 am not persuaded either way, though BOTH sides of that question have
 attractive points.  I am waiting for something new to emerge, like
 helicopter measurements out 50 km from operational ceiling down to the
 ground.  Since the near field NEC4 predicts the notchless 3 or 4 km
 helicopter measured data, we have to get it out where the NEC process
 predicts the notch and measure it there.  That will settle it.  If it
 maintains down to the ground, then we can beat the LLNL people to death
 with it and they will have to fix NEC.  Otherwise, we don't know.
 
 To the point in question, you are asserting that if the notch under the
 typical far field elevation plot was filled in, THAT would account for the
 4 dB?
 
 I give you that the loss would lessen if the gain at the ground was equal
 to say 15 degrees and smooth going up, but the integration of the spherical
 far field data asserts that OVER HALF THE POWER is going to loss.  The only
 way you get that back is to put it over sea water.  Anyone experiencing the
 marvelous increase in vertical performance at the edge of/over sea water
 will tell you emphatically that you DO get it over sea water and you
 decidedly DO NOT get that over inland dirt.  Frankly the difference seems a
 lot more than the difference in the plots.
 
 Filling up 20 degrees out of 360 will won't get you back to only 3 dB down.
 The original question still stands.  It is not related to your assumption,
 or not.
 
 Anyone wants to tackle the idea that the far field plot of NEC4 is off by 4
 dB, in order to keep from acknowledging heavy foreground induced ground
 loss, have at it.  It should be interesting.
 
 73, Guy.
 
 On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Richard Fry r...@adams.net wrote:
 
 Guy Olinger wrote:
 
 You can model a near perfect commercial grade radial field, with a radial
 system apparent series resistance of a few tenths of an ohm, and NEC4 will
 still come back with an overall loss of 3 to 4 dB.
 
 
 This is ~true only for a far field analysis (as defined by NEC software)
 for a vertical monopole -- which includes the propagation losses present in
 the radiated fields from that monopole, over an infinite, FLAT, real-earth
 ground plane.
 
 
 ___
 Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
 

___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Re: Topband: Fw: GAP VERTICAL QUESTION

[Ashton Lee]

This wonderful article written by L.B.Cebic W4RNL sure can make you a believer 
in a simple wire inverted L. It is the last antenna discussed. 
http://www.users.on.net/~bcr/files/backyard%20wire%20antennaes.pdf

A $3 wire pulled up into a tree will beat just about any commercial antenna… 
because it is longer. So on low bands it has increased band width and 
efficiency, and on higher bands it has gain. Yes, I know , some of that high 
band gain is horizontally polarized, but that's not all bad. Just get the 
vertical portion 33 feet or so and you'll be happy as Larry. The article shows 
that an extensive radial field may not be necessary.

And a wire is a lot less visible than a big hunk of aluminum. Without trees, 
just top load a 43 foot (or possibly even shorter) vertical. The top loading 
could be a T just as easily as an L. People can argue that one all day.




On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, k6xt k...@arrl.net wrote:

 My first antenna, still in use, on moving to CO is a GAP Titan, advertised to 
 load up 80 thru 10 including WARC bands. The Titan is a bit shorter than 
 Voyager, 28 feet or something like it. The advertising is correct, it loads 
 up 180 thru 10.
 
 But wait. Is it effective on all those bands? No.
 
 On 80 its a dummy load. On 40 it works extremely well after I added a one 
 foot extension to the bottom wire that encircles the antenna. In some cases 
 it is the equal of my shorty HyGain 40 at 70 ft - which probably says more 
 about the HyGain than the GAP. For the rest its better on the traditional 
 bands than the WARC bands. It worked a lot of DX for me for the couple years 
 it was my only antenna.
 
 Carrying my experience to the few feet taller Voyager, and from what I've 
 been told by Voyager users, the ant will meet its spec which is to load up on 
 the low bands. Expectation wise I'd expect it to be like the Titan. It loads 
 up but is otherwise a dummy load. Maybe with a batch of radials it could be 
 made to work as well as any other extremely short vertical or GP.
 
 Not to say there's anything wrong with GAP. My brother had up an R7 which he 
 rated about like the GAP on bands both cover. Those multiband halfwave short 
 verticals work but you get what you pay for.
 
 73 Art K6XT~~
 Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.
 ARRL, GMCC, CW OPS, NAQCC
 ARRL TA
 
 On 12/12/2012 10:00 AM, topband-requ...@contesting.com wrote:
 With the prospect of downsizing and moving into senior housing in the future
 I am starting to look at vertical antennas that will allow me to continue
 this wonderful hobby.? I have heard some good things about the GAP series
 of antennas but the company says they do not need radials on most of them
 and that worries me.? Over the years I have become very skeptical about
 claims and the other BS put out by most companies ( maybe it is a function
 of age I dunno) so I wonder if these antennas really work.? The two antennas
 that I am interested are the Voyager DX for 160/80/40? and the Eagle DX for
 the rest of the bands.
 
 So my question is does anyone have actual experience with these antennas
 (especially the voyager) as compared to other antennas for a specific
 frequency.? Now guys .. I know you cant really compare a 6 element beam to a
 vertical of this kind but I am talking about a comparison that is
 realistic.. like how does it hear, tune, match  get out compared to
 something like another vertical or a dipole up some reasonable distance.
 
 I sure hope this has not opend another can of worms.. some how I seem to do
 that .. private emails are ok..especially it the topic gets out of hand and
 we get a large volume of comments (Tree please dont shoot me before
 Christmas my wife will miss me.)
 
 ___
 Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
 

___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Re: Topband: Fw: GAP VERTICAL QUESTION

[Ashton Lee]

The question is not How would you set up a contest station?… it is What is 
practical to keep on air in a Senior Living situation? 

Now if you have a bunch of grand kids you can talk into installing radials all 
the better. Or if you have a fence along which you could install an elevated 
counterpoise all the better. 

But my central contention is that wire is going to outperform a GAP below 40 
meters.


On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net wrote:

 With the following caveat:  The very sparse and short buried radial systems 
 he is showing are FAR more lossy in practice than shown in his gain tables.  
 Four twenty foot buried radials beneath a 1/4 wave L on 160, could place you 
 down 20 dB.  You really can't do that as your 160 meter counter poise and 
 expect decent results.  You can end feed the same wire on 80/40/30 meters 
 (full wave worth of wire in the L on 80m) with four buried 20 foot radials 
 and it will be an excellent antenna.  This is due to the high Z feed at the 
 ground with current max AWAY from the feed point.  
 
 A quarter wave L on 160 MUST deal with the counterpoise loss issues, one way 
 or another.  
 
 73, Guy
 
 On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Ashton Lee ashton.r@hotmail.com wrote:
 This wonderful article written by L.B.Cebic W4RNL sure can make you a 
 believer in a simple wire inverted L. It is the last antenna discussed. 
 http://www.users.on.net/~bcr/files/backyard%20wire%20antennaes.pdf
 
 A $3 wire pulled up into a tree will beat just about any commercial antenna… 
 because it is longer. So on low bands it has increased band width and 
 efficiency, and on higher bands it has gain. Yes, I know , some of that high 
 band gain is horizontally polarized, but that's not all bad. Just get the 
 vertical portion 33 feet or so and you'll be happy as Larry. The article 
 shows that an extensive radial field may not be necessary.
 
 And a wire is a lot less visible than a big hunk of aluminum. Without trees, 
 just top load a 43 foot (or possibly even shorter) vertical. The top loading 
 could be a T just as easily as an L. People can argue that one all day.
 
 
 
 
 On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, k6xt k...@arrl.net wrote:
 
  My first antenna, still in use, on moving to CO is a GAP Titan, advertised 
  to load up 80 thru 10 including WARC bands. The Titan is a bit shorter than 
  Voyager, 28 feet or something like it. The advertising is correct, it loads 
  up 180 thru 10.
 
  But wait. Is it effective on all those bands? No.
 
  On 80 its a dummy load. On 40 it works extremely well after I added a one 
  foot extension to the bottom wire that encircles the antenna. In some cases 
  it is the equal of my shorty HyGain 40 at 70 ft - which probably says more 
  about the HyGain than the GAP. For the rest its better on the traditional 
  bands than the WARC bands. It worked a lot of DX for me for the couple 
  years it was my only antenna.
 
  Carrying my experience to the few feet taller Voyager, and from what I've 
  been told by Voyager users, the ant will meet its spec which is to load up 
  on the low bands. Expectation wise I'd expect it to be like the Titan. It 
  loads up but is otherwise a dummy load. Maybe with a batch of radials it 
  could be made to work as well as any other extremely short vertical or GP.
 
  Not to say there's anything wrong with GAP. My brother had up an R7 which 
  he rated about like the GAP on bands both cover. Those multiband halfwave 
  short verticals work but you get what you pay for.
 
  73 Art K6XT~~
  Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.
  ARRL, GMCC, CW OPS, NAQCC
  ARRL TA
 
  On 12/12/2012 10:00 AM, topband-requ...@contesting.com wrote:
  With the prospect of downsizing and moving into senior housing in the 
  future
  I am starting to look at vertical antennas that will allow me to continue
  this wonderful hobby.? I have heard some good things about the GAP series
  of antennas but the company says they do not need radials on most of them
  and that worries me.? Over the years I have become very skeptical about
  claims and the other BS put out by most companies ( maybe it is a function
  of age I dunno) so I wonder if these antennas really work.? The two 
  antennas
  that I am interested are the Voyager DX for 160/80/40? and the Eagle DX for
  the rest of the bands.
 
  So my question is does anyone have actual experience with these 
  antennas
  (especially the voyager) as compared to other antennas for a specific
  frequency.? Now guys .. I know you cant really compare a 6 element beam to 
  a
  vertical of this kind but I am talking about a comparison that is
  realistic.. like how does it hear, tune, match  get out compared to
  something like another vertical or a dipole up some reasonable distance.
 
  I sure hope this has not opend another can of worms.. some how I seem to do
  that .. private emails are ok..especially it the topic gets out of hand

Re: Topband: GAP VERTICAL QUESTION

[Ashton Lee]

I don't know about the Gaps, but a 43' vertical fed through a 4:1 unun works 
very well for me on 40-10 meters on a remote hilltop. On 80 and 160 I simply 
top load it with a long wire. When not in use the wire can either be wrapped 
around the antenna, or in the summers, removed. Yes there is minor signal loss 
(some would argue more than minor) due to swr in the feed line, but the unun 
transformer greatly reduces that, and in return you get some gain on most bands 
vs a 1/4 wl vertical. I don't use the unun on 80 and 160, but one could with 
non-resonant top loading.

For low visibility at my home QTH in an antenna restricted neighborhood I use a 
43' wire up a tree instead of a freestanding vertical… I also have a 23 foot 
wire which I use above 20 meters, and a longer inverted L for 160. Those three 
invisible antennas are imperfect but have managed to work almost every 
DX-pedition in the last 2 years. I believe that they can outperform any 
commercial vertical.

KQ0C




On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Doug Renwick ve...@sasktel.net wrote:

 The GAP Voyager is not much better than a dummy load on 160m.  On 80m and
 40m it received fairly well compared to my other 80 and 40 antennas.
 
 Doug
 
 Original Message-
 
 With the prospect of downsizing and moving into senior housing in the future
 I am starting to look at vertical antennas that will allow me to continue
 this wonderful hobby.  I have heard some good things about the GAP series
 of antennas but the company says they do not need radials on most of them
 and that worries me.  Over the years I have become very skeptical about
 claims and the other BS put out by most companies ( maybe it is a function
 of age I dunno) so I wonder if these antennas really work.  The two antennas
 that I am interested are the Voyager DX for 160/80/40  and the Eagle DX for
 the rest of the bands. 
 
 
 
 So my question is does anyone have actual experience with these antennas
 (especially the voyager) as compared to other antennas for a specific
 frequency.  Now guys .. I know you cant really compare a 6 element beam to a
 vertical of this kind but I am talking about a comparison that is
 realistic.. like how does it hear, tune, match  get out compared to
 something like another vertical or a dipole up some reasonable distance. 
 
 
 
 I sure hope this has not opend another can of worms.. some how I seem to do
 that .. private emails are ok..especially it the topic gets out of hand and
 we get a large volume of comments (Tree please dont shoot me before
 Christmas my wife will miss me.) 
 
 
 
 Jim WA3MEJ 
 
 
 Long Live Seal Team VI 
 
 http://www.qsl.net/wa3mej/index.htm 
 ___
 Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
 
 ___
 Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
 

___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Topband: Top Loading a 43 footer

[Ashton Lee]

I do this with great success.

Just put the longest wire you can (up to 85 feet) and run it as horizontal as 
you can. I assume you already load your antenna through an unun, So shorter 
than 85 feet will work as long as it is longer than say 43 feet. Attach it with 
a hose clamp, but perhaps shy of the top, if your version of the antenna is 
lightly built. I have the super heavy duty version of the Zero Five and I still 
load it about 5 feet from the top. When not in use you can just wrap the wire 
around the antenna.

I top load mine to be resonant on 80 meters so I take the unun out of the 
circuit. But I have also op loaded it for 160. In that case I built a way to 
add extra length to the 80 meter wire using a clip.

No one has a much better antenna on 160 than you will get. Last night on an 
inverted L I worked everything on the band from the bottom of a valley in 
Western CO. That included Chile, France, PJ2T etc.

KQ0C
Ash




___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Topband: Beverage on Ground

[Ashton Lee]

No, I didn't spill my beer. 

But I am having very good experience with the roughly 300 foot Beverage on 
Ground that I just put in at my house. It is fed through a 300 ohm transformer 
and runs in the only direction where I can get a 300 foot run. It is made of 
insulated #14 wire and unterminated, as I would prefer a more omnidirectional 
pattern since I can have only the one compromise receive antenna. Also I 
couldn't get a ground rod in to experiment with. In Western Colorado we aren't 
all that big on soil… but we sure have great rocks.

So far the BOG out receives both a K9AY I had up briefly (which, of necessity, 
was probably too close to my transmitting antenna) and a tuned loop I tried.

Now I want to put up a similar antenna on the remote hilltop where I have a 
cabin and contest site-lite. That location is ideal for transmitting antennas 
since it is on the absolute top of a mountain with cliffs down to the North and 
East of the property, and steep hillside to the South and West. But it makes 
running Beverages a bit of a trick. I also have 200 elk running around so it 
isn't easy to install wires above ground. This whole place is on rocks dusty 
soil where getting any sort of grounding requires a jack hammer. So I want to 
install one or two BOG's there as well. Which prompts several questions:

1) Should I again use insulated wire or can I use the cheap electric fence wire 
I can get at our ranch coop?

2) How do I get enough signal to noise without getting excessively directional. 
Is there anything like an optimal length for a less directional BOG?

3) My first experimental BOG works much better on 160 than 80. Is there 
anything unusual about that or that I should do differently?

4) I have essentially no local noise in either my regular home or at the cabin. 
So I am mostly concerned with suppressing atmospheric noise. Any implications 
for that in my design.

I know that both my current and my contemplated antennas are sub-optimal. But a 
lot of what you have to do on 160 is less than optimal if you live anywhere but 
a large farm. The first test antenna is working so much better than receiving 
on my transmit antenna that I think sub-optimal antennas, of a reasonable 
quality, can work pretty well for me.

Incidentally for anyone experimenting with BOGs I am using an old MFJ active 
antenna tuner on the antenna I just built. It serves as a preselector and 
possibly a preamp it would seem. It gives me better performance than sending 
the antenna directly into the rig. One always suspects that if an MFJ product 
works OK there could be something else which would work a lot better. But early 
days so far. So far the BOG really cuts down on the noise while giving me 
enough signal.

After all the help I got yesterday with one antenna question I was prompted to 
ask another.

KQ0C
Ash
___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Re: Topband: Inverted L SWR Jumps ???

[Ashton Lee]

Ok, everyone thanks for all the help.

I rebuilt the antenna from new wire, built a two insulator termination at the 
end of the horizontal section where the high voltage is, I rehung the new 
antenna so that it doesn't touch anything… and the problem persisted. I then 
looked into Tom W8JI's suggestion about a bad lightning arrestor, and indeed 
that was the problem. I had blown the little cartridge in my Alpha Delta 
lightning stopper.

I don't know why the issue only showed up on a single antenna of the many I 
have fed through that device. But it did.

So Tom, thanks in particular.

I did leave the choke balun in place. Who knows if that makes a difference? 

Everyone, please listen for the weak signal from Western Colorado this weekend.

KQ0C
Ash


On Nov 28, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote:

 Remove the balun. It's not doing anything for your and is a potential source 
 of loss and problems. Coaxial cable is unbalanced, as is a ground-fed 
 inverted L. No need for a balun. 
 
 Unfortunately, that is not a universally true statement.
 
 MOST antennas are in a neither world of being neither perfectly balanced 
 nor perfectly unbalanced.
 
 Perfectly balanced would be equal and opposite currents entering and leaving 
 each conductor at each end of a balanced line, with equal voltages to the 
 world around the line from each conductor.
 
 Perfectly unbalanced  would be the same equal and opposite currents entering 
 and leaving each conductor (shield and center) at each line end, and zero 
 voltage from the shield to the outside world around the line.
 
 Very few antenna systems meet that criteria, although Marconi systems with 
 many radials are close enough to be nearly perfectly unbalanced. Significant 
 departure from UNbalanced occurs when radial systems are sparse, or 
 truncated, or the feedline exits above the plane of the radials. There isn't 
 any clear boundary, but a slow system dependent transition from the perfect 
 case (feedline exits below the radial plane and an infinite full size radial 
 system) to the worse case (a single radial of any design). Even four 1/4 wave 
 radials have significant voltage to ground at the common point.
 
 Choking impedance required varies with the number, configuration, and length 
 of radials and how the feeder is routed and grounded, and in nearly all cases 
 a few hundred ohms is enough. An exception might be if the ground system 
 common point has abnormally high voltages to earth (for example, a single 
 truncated radial) or if the coax is elevated and coupled to the antenna.
 
 73 Tom
 
 
 
 

___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Topband: Inverted L SWR Jumps ???

[Ashton Lee]

So I am trying to get set up better on 160 meters. I now have two antennas up 
(pretty well separated). One is an Alpha Delta DX A sloper hung in a tree with 
a grounding wire led to a ground rod and small radial field. The other is an 
inverted L on a good radial system of about 2000 feet in various lengths of 
about 50 feet each as fit the yard. Both are resonant at about 1.830 .

The sloper loads fine all the way up to 1500 watts. The inverted L loads just 
fine to about 700 watts and then causes the Alpha amp to fault out. I think I 
am getting a sudden change in antenna impedance. The antenna is fed through a 5 
KW rated choke balun. The feed line exits the base between radials. I've tried 
various feed line lengths, I've replaced every component in the system except 
for the antenna wire. The antenna does climb along the branches of a tall pine 
before L-ing outward at about 55 feet. I think the problem is worse at night 
time when things are cold (and perhaps more humid).

What I see on the amp is output power suddenly seem to surge to 2500 watts, and 
reflected power jump from a few watts to over what the amp can read… then in a 
flash the amp faults out. This all happens with only about 20 watts of drive, 
so the amp can't actually be putting out 2500 watts unless something very 
strange has happened. As I noted, using the other antenna all is good.

I need to get the inverted L working since it seems to have substantial receive 
gain vs the sloper, so I assume it will be equally better on transmit.

All advice is welcome. Am I likely to be arc-ing to the tree branches? Could 
the wire be the problem? Do inverted L's have trouble with full power? The same 
wire worked fine for the last few years, but fed against a much lesser radial 
field and run through a less dense, lower tree.

I'll be trying everything I can think of tomorrow afternoon, starting by trying 
to minimize contact with the tree branches. All suggestions welcome.

73
KQ0C
Ash
___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com