Re: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ??? (RX Front End Protector)
Makes sense, Lee Charlie -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lee K7TJR Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:44 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ??? (RX Front End Protector) I believe the point of having the transformers in their circuit is to limit the maximum output. A transformer (ferrite in this case) can only output whatever maximum current determined by the core saturation level. They are relying on this property of the transformers to limit the current into the clipping diodes. I believe it was ICE that came up with this technique sometime way back. The diodes set the voltage level of clipping and the transformers limit the maximum current or power into the diodes. The combination realizes a somewhat soft clipping level with a fixed maximum output. Common mode isolation comes for free along with the design. Lee K7TJR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ???
I have also used bi-directional 1N4148 diodes across the antenna path, but I'm re-thinking that approach - If the diodes are not preceded by a good bandpass - or at least, a hipass filter in the antenna lead, I'd be concerned in some instances about the possibility of intermod from nearby, or strong BC stations. 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike Waters Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 3:52 PM To: Charles Cunningham Cc: topband; Tom W8JI Subject: Re: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ??? How about back-to-back 1N4148 diodes (2 in series) across the RX path, and a #47 incandescent lamp between those and the Beverage? That's what I do here, among other things. Those are in series with my preamp, which is almost always on. There's also some variable resistance in series with the lamp and the Beverage switching relays. I do that so that the signal from the Beverage is equal with the RX signal from the inverted-L. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Charles Cu nningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: It seems to me that a very fast operating preamp protection circuit could be constructed employing a good fast saturating NPN switching transistor across the antenna path. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ??? (RX Front End Protector)
Well, that's certainly true, Lee. I was just wondering aloud, if the transformers were indeed 1:1, if the point might be common-mode isolation like we work to achieve in the transformers of our flag, pennant and KAZ antennas - although in those cases the matching transformer also matches the 50/75 ohm feedline to a higher impedance of 800-1000 ohms. 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lee K7TJR Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:17 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ??? (RX Front End Protector) Sorry Charlie, I don't think I made my thoughts very clear. James was quoting from a QST article that there was an impedance transformation because of the transformers. This was to make a higher voltage at the diodes. My point was that if the transformers being used on their circuit board are 1:1 then there is no impedance transformation and the diodes are fed with the straight RF from the RX antenna at the 50 ohm level. The design must have changed after the QST article or something. The QST description is incorrect if they are using 1:1 transformers as shown in their circuit board pictures. Lee K7TJR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ???
Hello all It seems to me that a very fast operating preamp protection circuit could be constructed employing a good fast saturating NPN switching transistor across the antenna path. In receive mode the collector-base junction would have substantial reverse bias and the transistor can be chosen for low collector-base capacitance. With a fast switch like a 2N708 or something similar the switching time will, of course, FAR outperform a relay closure time. One can also add a few ohms in series with the antenna lead to reduce the requirements for collector current in the saturating switch. That approach should help with the switching speed and contact bounce issues. However, if the radio design is poor and there are T/R sequencing issues - those will require additional means to correct or deal with the improper T/R sequencing problems. The turnoff time for the saturating switch, even at low forced gains should be fast enough to cope with very fast keying speeds. Just a thought. 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 6:14 PM To: topBand List Subject: Re: Topband: KD9SV-OK1RR relays ??? Your FT-747 only has one antenna input. It does not have a second receiver. It doesn't even have a receive-only antenna input. You cannot transmit and receive at same time. Why do you need a front end saver? It needs a preamp saver or a receiver antenna saver, not a front end saver. Any old relay will not work. Here is what the sequence is: 1.) The radio antenna port is connected through a small relay to the receive preamp output, or to the receive antenna 2.) The key is closed 3.) At time X, after the key is closed, something tells the receiver relay to release 4.) At the same time as the key is pressed, something tells the transmitter to transmit. Let's call this delay time Y. Now this is where the problem is. Many radios, especially the less expensive radios with a single antenna, have a Y time as short as X time. Some have X a little longer than Y, some have Y a little longer than X. There is no guarantee without looking at the radio on ALL modes if X time is shorter than X. Almost all radios are not 10mS, the relay time you suggested as a limit. Almost all radios are shorter than that, and some actually transmit while the external relay line is held low. There is an additional problem in a few radios. There are a few radios that tell the relay control line to release while they are still transmitting. At the end of a transmission, when you stop transmitting, a few radios will actually turn the external circuits off **before** they stop putting out RF power. I actually had to add a RF interlock in T-R relays for amplifiers just for those radios. Any relay used for this application should be as fast as possible. It should NOT have a diode across the coil, because that slows the release time down considerably. I would say the safe minimum speed for most radios would be about a 5 mS relay transfer, including bounce. A few radios will be worse than that, and have almost no delay. They would require a very fast relay, or a sequencing system. Some radios are designed so poorly they tell the external things to transfer while RF is present. Those radios cannot be fixed without external interlock systems. By the way, if this does not damage the RX system, it will cause contact spark clicks. It will also fold some radios back into SWR protect because the relay transfers with TX RF applied. The crummy interface timing in radios has been a nightmare ever since the first transceiver came out, and continues to be a problem today. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
'Scuze me, guys! I had to take a break for something to eat! Larry - important point! I'll forward my comments to ARRL. Greg, I don't have a problem at all if you are operating your own station remotely, using the same antennas, radios etc. What I would object to would be if you were operating Super Station in the Phillppines to gain some advantage into Asia, the Indian Ocean, VK/ZL etc. I do know of a JA that does exactly that with a Super Station in the Phillippines. I won't mention his JA or DU call here, but I have worked him from here in NC on 17m, when the band should NOT have been open into DU!! All good points guys - but, of course the ARRL willdo whatever they and the Old Boys' Club damn well pleases, just as they have always done! At this point I have worked all but P5 and I missed KH8,Swain's Island when it was active. But with work pressures etc., I was sort of haphazard with my QSLchoresover the years and now I'm trying to round up 4 more cards for CW DXCC Honor Roll and I need to submit some 80m cards for 8-band CWDXCC. Hope I get those last 4 soon! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg Zenger Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:11 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Bob and the others, I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.) Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award. Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT. Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle. 73, Greg N2GZ On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon k...@pacbell.net wrote: Mike, I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable for DXCC. (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority ! Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) 73, Bob K6UJ On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Hi, Mike Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a Sport for the Rich like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to offering conventional DXCC credit for remote operations! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony K1AMF Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. Original message From: ARRL Members Only Web site memberl...@www.arrl.org Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT
Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's RHR? -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Stallman Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to hear from you ! The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread . Ed N5DG On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote: Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your Director and his contact information here: http://www.arrl.org/divisions - Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Harmon Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Mike, I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable for DXCC. (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-) I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the majority ! Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each category, home station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue) 73, Bob K6UJ On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Hi, Mike Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a Sport for the Rich like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to offering conventional DXCC credit for remote operations! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony K1AMF Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. Original message From: ARRL Members Only Web site memberl...@www.arrl.org Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: k1...@live.com Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Hello, Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. Thank you. 73 de Mike N2YBB ARRL Hudson Division Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB n2...@arrl.org To unsubscribe from messages, go to: http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com
Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
Hi, Mike Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a Sport for the Rich like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to offering conventional DXCC credit for remote operations! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony K1AMF Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or comments. Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector. Original message From: ARRL Members Only Web site memberl...@www.arrl.org Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: k1...@live.com Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input Hello, Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit. I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations. I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit. If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know. Thank you. 73 de Mike N2YBB ARRL Hudson Division Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB n2...@arrl.org To unsubscribe from messages, go to: http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A Bit Off Topic
Well, a few things to keep in mind, Mike: .Each time an MOV breaks down, Its breakdown voltage decreases a little, taking its break down voltage closer to the peak voltage of the line cycles. .Regarding ground rods - if the ground rods take lightning strikes, the soil around the ground rod can glassify become glass from the heat of the lightning surges. As the soil glassifies, the rod is then surrounded by an INSULTOR - making it rather ineffective. It can be a pain, but it's worth checking ground rods from time-to-time for degradation. A network of multiple gro und rods can reduce the tendency to glassify the soil surrounding the the ground rods because of the reduced current in each rod. In very sandy soil, ground rods often need t go VERY DEEP! 20' or more!! Many of the ground rods used by utility companies are designed with threaded ends, to one can drive say 10' of rod, and then use a coupler to add another 10' and then repeat if necessary. I once watched a utility guy down in the sandhills of NC crack the ground rod through the grass surface with the slam-pipe and then literally PUSH the rod down 10' with his GLOVED HANDS! He THEN ADDES ANOTHER 10' of rod. I don't know whe he might have reached the water table or bedrock! .In keeping with Tom's remarks, the meter-base suppressors ARE common-mode surpressors that sit directly across the 240 volt line phases with a direct common-mode ground return. GL! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike Waters Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 3:37 PM To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: A Bit Off Topic Hi Charlie, Thank you very much for your advice. I agree, and this reminded me of my forgotten intention to put MOVs (for now) in the meter pole panel. It's some distance from the house and the wires run underground to the house panel. I added a ground rod at that outdoor pole, and it's time to pour more magnesium sulfate on it to help reduce the ground resistance. The #6 CU from it to the ground bus is as short and direct as possible. The rod apparently didn't do a thing, the lamp sockets still arced and CFLs still blew on my living room ceiling fan. I'm not real proud of the photo of my breaker panel on qrz.com. After regularly losing various electrical devices in this house, it was a matter of doing that or doing nothing. :-) Maybe it's a coincidence, but since adding those MOVs, the lights no longer brighten during a close thunderstorm. Of course, I cannot trust those. I doubt that any $100 device is worth buying. You get what you pay for. And I have a real problem with those surge suppressors with fuses in series with the MOVs. Yeah, let's protect those MOVs, they're more important than my color laser printer, computers, and ham equipment. :-( 73, Mike http://www.w0btu.com www.w0btu.com Having spent decades of my engineering career working with electric power distribution systems and equipment, especially electricity meters, I would have MUCH more confidence in a meter-base suppressor with a GOOD local ground and of course an additional power system ground back at the riser pole or pad-mount transformers on the distribution system. Of course, if He wants to, God has the punch to take that meter off the wall! AND none of this is going to help in case of a power-cross that I have also seen when a truck accidentally brought down a 7700 volt distribution line that fell across the residential service drop!! I would have much less confidence in a device at the breaker panel with a longer, higher impedance, and potentially questionable ground return path through the residential wiring! Much better to take care of the surges right there at the load terminal of the meter!! That would prevent the surges from entering te residential wiring. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A Bit Off Topic
Thanks! From: Mike Waters [mailto:mikew...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 6:20 PM To: Charles Cunningham Cc: topband Subject: Re: Topband: A Bit Off Topic EHam is back up; here it is: www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,102393.msg834797.html#msg834797 It's a long post, but no one complained since there's so much good info in it. John is a smart fellow. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Charlie, On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Charles Cu nningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Well, a few things to keep in mind, Mike: ·Each time an MOV breaks down, Its breakdown voltage decreases a little, taking its break down voltage closer to the peak voltage of the line cycles. Understood. That Sycom meter base surge suppressor has been replaced three times at my request. The last time, I made sure that it was a brand-new unit for the very reason that you state. Still, it didn't work like I thought it should. Regarding ground rods – if the ground rods take lightning strikes, the soil around the ground rod can “glassify” become glass from the heat of the lightning surges. As the soil glassifies, the rod is then surrounded by an INSULATOR – making it rather ineffective. It can be a pain, but it’s worth checking ground rods from time-to-time for degradation. WOW! That's something that never occurred to me. Here's a class-act company that specializes in very low resistance grounding systems for as-good-as-it-gets lightning protection. http://www.lyncole.com A local friend of mine (W0PM, Rayfield Communications) has successfully Lyncole's products on several tall commercial towers. They use a special ground rod along with a thick layer of a powdered(?) chemical mix that surround it. John is quite knowledgeable about this. If eHam were up, I'd send you a link to something he said there. In keeping with Tom’s remarks, the meter-base suppressors ARE common-mode suppressors that sit directly across the 240 volt line phases with a direct common-mode ground return. I cannot think of a way of (or reason for) wiring a 240 volt 3- wire surge suppressor so that there is only common mode protection but no differential mode protection. How could that be the case? If there are two 130 VAC MOVs from each leg to ground, wouldn't both of them conduct if a HV spike was present across both legs? 73, Mike _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes
I agree. We really don't want the coax shield to be part of the antenna, regardless of whether the antenna is vertical or horizontal. If the coax shield is part of the antenna, it can seriously distort the resonance and the driving point impedance - hence the need for some common-mode isolation. Regards, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Harmon Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:21 PM To: Top Band Contesting Subject: Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes Jim, It will be interesting to see what others say but my take on this is that the tuner function is to provide an impedance match to the vertical and doesnt provide any choking. You still should have the choke. 73, Bob K6UJ On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:42 AM, James Rodenkirch rodenkirch_...@msn.com wrote: I seem to recall, while reading up on common mode chokes, where I wouldn't need one if I employ an autotuner at the base of the antenna...is that true/factual? I have an LDG Z11ProII autotuner right at the base of my vertical - I did add a common choke at the input to the autotuner (21' of my LMR-400 coax wound around a piece of 4.5 PVC for the low bands) but wonder if that is really necessary. 72, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV _ 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: Antenna relays
Thanks, Tim! I'd be interested to see the pics and your results with the new relays! I'll have a look at the Struthers-Dunn Data sheet also. Thanks for sharing1 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 10:55 PM To: topBand List Subject: Topband: Antenna relays I think I posted some details here about how I was using Omron G6RN antenna relays (same as used in AC0HB's QEX article) for antenna switching of my coax cables. These are very affordable (circa $3) 8A SPDT relays and they held up OK for me in heavy contest usage - until I got a legal limit amp. Since then I have at first intermittent and then increasing problems especially at higher power levels. To be fair AC0HB never conjectured that these relays could handle legal limit! I had guessed that the failure mode was arcing at the open contact gap, but when I opened up a failing unit I found it was more complex. The relay is a SPDT unit and the common current is carried by a super thin flexible springy sheet conductor that also doubles as providing spring tension. Under repeated legal limit usage it appears that heat on this conductor was so high, the tension is no longer high enough to operate the relay reliably. I will be constructing a new 6-way relay switch from far beefier (but still affordable) Struthers-Dunn DPDT T92 relays - will open them up and make pics along the way especially if I figure out how to strap them for common-shorting-bar operation. Tim N3QE _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
