Topband: Topband remotes
Hans (PA5MW) … you nailed it with your comment: “No We all have to do it our own way and let the other do it their way,BUT dxcc is gone for ever as an important award.” I don’t even update my DXCC totals anymore as it no longer represents an accomplishment that I can share and enjoy with fellow operators. I used to compete on Topband with fellow hams and anxiously await the DXCC annual listings to see where we stood. No longer. I can’t control the behaviors of the W1 that remote through a W7 station for a 9M2 Topband Q. I can’t control an awards program that gives the FT8 op the same credit for DX Q where the computer does the heavy lifting, as I get working them on CW using what little remains between my ears. I can’t control the ethical practices of a Ukrainian station I heard working multiple Portland Oregon stations on 6M with a signal 20/S9. But, as you so correctly point out, we must do it our way .. I moved from Washington State (where my current DXCC, 9BDXCC and 200 5BWAZ was achieved) to Las Vegas. I am sharing a private remote station …my equipment … my antennas, in southern Utah. I could begin adding to my DXCC Topband totals but would that meet my personal ‘accomplishment’ needs? The propagation difference between the two QTHs is profound! I elected to not add anymore to my existing DXCC record. I didn’t need to. Actually, I decided to drop DXCC altogether because it means nothing without a plethora of footnotes, and just enjoy those great Topband contacts when they occur. It’s a pity …I think there could have been leadership by the awards folks to provide a space for everyone to enjoy their angle of the hobby. Unfortunately, that leadership was lacking. As someone in an earlier thread noted, ‘the train has left the station’. Dennis, K7FL Currently in Lacoste France listening on his remote in Utah _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Remotes
Hans … you nailed it with your comment: “No We all have to do it our own way and let the other do it their way,BUT dxcc is gone for ever as an important award.” I don’t even update my DXCC totals anymore as it no longer represents an accomplishment that I can share and enjoy with fellow operators. I used to compete on Topband with fellow hams and anxiously await the DXCC annual listings to see where we stood. No longer. I can’t control the behaviors of the W1 that remote through a W7 station for a 9M2 Topband Q. I can’t control an awards program that gives the FT8 op the same credit for DX Q where the computer does the heavy lifting, as I get working them on CW using what little remains between my ears. I can’t control the ethical practices of a Ukrainian station I heard working multiple Portland Oregon stations on 6M with a signal 20/S9. But, as you so correctly point out, we must do it our way .. I moved from Washington State (where my current DXCC, 9BDXCC and 200 5BWAZ was achieved) to Las Vegas. I am sharing a private remote station …my equipment … my antennas, in southern Utah. I could begin adding to my DXCC Topband totals but would that meet my ‘accomplishment’ needs? The propagation difference between the two QTHs is profound! I elected to not add anymore to my existing DXCC record, and start anew. I didn’t need to. Actually, I decided to drop DXCC altogether because it means nothing without a plethora of footnotes, and just enjoy those great Topband contacts when they occur. It’s a pity …I think there could have been leadership by the awards folks to provide a space for everyone to enjoy their angle of the hobby. Unfortunately, that leadership was lacking. As someone in an earlier thread noted, ‘the train has left the station’. Dennis, K7FL Currently in Lacoste France listening on his remote in Utah On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:11 PM Hans Hjelmström wrote: > Well, > > Topband and 6 meters is killed by FT 8 anyway. > > Hams seems not to carethere is not a single sound on qrg,BUT Hams > seems to > be happy to push a finger and let the computer make a so called qso for > them. > > Also the RIB business is as crazy. Having a station on a place,and > operators all over > the globe. Rather easy to handle a pile-up with a station in Pacific and > sitting operating that in > Finland. > > No We all have to do it our own way and let the other do it their way,BUT > dxcc is gone > for ever as an important award. > > 73 Hans SM6CVX > > > > 5 feb 2024 kl. 19:48 skrev David Olean : > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > The horse has left the barn. I have lost a bit of enthusiasm ever since > Maine became a hotspot for 160M into Europe a number of years ago. There > are so many "killer" remote stations in the state now. There is no way I > can really compete against it and it is very dis heartening to hear the W7s > using a Maine station and not signing as portable. I have heard all the > same stuff you were hearing this morning. There is really nothing you or I > can do about it. Some follow the rules, and some will bend them severely. > As for radio awards, W6PO commented years ago"It is just like > collecting matchbook covers". I set my own internal goals. > > > > Dave K1WHS > > > > On 2/5/2024 11:57 AM, Steve Harrison wrote: > >> This growing practice of hiring a remote in another call area far from > >> your own QTH, then working wild and exotic DX wile preventing deserving > >> locals operating from their home stations from working same DX, is > >> abominable and just plain unethical. I lost what respect I had for a > >> couple people I heard work 9M2AX this morning when I heard them do that. > >> I heard another guy do that last week that I've only just barely heard > >> on 160 in the past across the country; he was at least two hours beyond > >> his own sunrise, so obviously hiring a remote, probably that big one up > >> near Carson City, Nevada, same station these two guys this morning were > >> probably using. The week before last, there was another east coaster, at > >> least 2-1/2 hours past his sunrise, who did the same thing at, most > >> likely, the same station. I bet the owner of the station is advertising > >> it as "WORK 9M2AX on 160 from here!!! Only $XXX for a half hour!!". > >> > >> I hope these guys are putting an asterisk on their 9M2 QSL cards to > >> indicate they didn't work Ross from home; but I won't hold my breath > >> that they do. > >> > >> Steve, K0XP > >> > >> > >> > >> _ > >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Ground conductivity discussions … oops
> Hi Jim … thanks for the info. Rudy’s latest method is the one I was > planning to employ. Brian, K6STI also mentioned Rudy’s method. Good > consensus on which method to use! > > Yes, all other elements were either de tuned or on the ground. I have > checked each vertical one at a time (with others decoupled) and read 25 > ohms on all 4 elements. Such a head scratcher! I’m beginning to the my > aluminum elements are doped with Nichrome! :-) > > Dennis, K7FL > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM James V Redding PE > wrote: > >> Here is a link to a method of actually measuring the soil complex >> conductivity characteristics and it is focused on 80M: >> >> https://rudys.typepad.com/files/soil-characteristics-qex.pdf >> >> Since the depth of the measurement is a function of frequency, the >> numbers for 80M may be quite different than for other HF bands. >> >> Was also curious whether the elements were detuned for their individual >> impedance measurements like would be done with a BCB array or if the 25 >> ohms is a common point measurement. >> >> Jim/VEZ >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dennis Ashworth >> wrote: >> >>> I meant to post this to the TowerTalk group. It still may be relevant to >>> Topband ops. >>> >>> Dennis, K7FL >>> >>> -- Forwarded message - >>> From: Dennis Ashworth >>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM >>> Subject: Ground conductivity discussions >>> To: >>> >>> >>> Very interesting and timely discussions on radials and ground >>> conductivity. >>> I’m currently rebuilding an 80M broadside array (with shortened, top >>> loaded >>> elements) in SW Utah that I’ve modeled at 12 ohms impedance. The current >>> antenna was tested and the impedance measured was 25 ohms. Each element >>> in >>> the array (4 total) also measured 25 ohms. What accounts for additional >>> system loss? >>> >>> Upon consulting the original builders, I learned they had also predicted >>> an >>> impedance of approximately 12 ohms. I’m not clear what methods or models >>> they used for their prediction. There are 4:1 baluns at the base of each >>> vertical which begs the question whether the array impedances were ever >>> checked post-install. I suspect not … and I doubt anything has changed >>> over >>> the years that would equally affect the impedance *on all 4 verticals.* >>> >>> Where I don’t blindly trust models (antennas or otherwise), I do believe >>> the 12 ohm figure is reasonable given the short, top loaded elements. I >>> reviewed the FCC conductivity tables for the locale and they indicate >>> 15-30 >>> millimos/meter. That’s pretty good! I would think the loss from a ground >>> system of 32, 1/4 wave plus radials would NOT account for the 12 ohms of >>> loss ground losses. But what if my ground conductivity is less than the >>> FCC >>> tables report? >>> >>> I’m going to the site again next week to install 26 additional 1/4 wave >>> radials on one of the verticals and see if (and how much) the measured >>> impedance drops. I’ll share my results here. >>> >>> This loss has to be a ground system issue. If so, adding radials and >>> seeing >>> a corresponding drop in impedance should confirm my suspicions. >>> >>> At some point, I’ll measure the ground conductivity, but it needs to wait >>> for warmer temps (current temp at site is 19F!). >>> >>> Insight from the masses always appreciated. >>> >>> >>> Dennis, K7FL >>> Las Vegas, NV >>> _ >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >>> Reflector >>> >> _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: Fwd: Ground conductivity discussions … oops
I meant to post this to the TowerTalk group. It still may be relevant to Topband ops. Dennis, K7FL -- Forwarded message - From: Dennis Ashworth Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM Subject: Ground conductivity discussions To: Very interesting and timely discussions on radials and ground conductivity. I’m currently rebuilding an 80M broadside array (with shortened, top loaded elements) in SW Utah that I’ve modeled at 12 ohms impedance. The current antenna was tested and the impedance measured was 25 ohms. Each element in the array (4 total) also measured 25 ohms. What accounts for additional system loss? Upon consulting the original builders, I learned they had also predicted an impedance of approximately 12 ohms. I’m not clear what methods or models they used for their prediction. There are 4:1 baluns at the base of each vertical which begs the question whether the array impedances were ever checked post-install. I suspect not … and I doubt anything has changed over the years that would equally affect the impedance *on all 4 verticals.* Where I don’t blindly trust models (antennas or otherwise), I do believe the 12 ohm figure is reasonable given the short, top loaded elements. I reviewed the FCC conductivity tables for the locale and they indicate 15-30 millimos/meter. That’s pretty good! I would think the loss from a ground system of 32, 1/4 wave plus radials would NOT account for the 12 ohms of loss ground losses. But what if my ground conductivity is less than the FCC tables report? I’m going to the site again next week to install 26 additional 1/4 wave radials on one of the verticals and see if (and how much) the measured impedance drops. I’ll share my results here. This loss has to be a ground system issue. If so, adding radials and seeing a corresponding drop in impedance should confirm my suspicions. At some point, I’ll measure the ground conductivity, but it needs to wait for warmer temps (current temp at site is 19F!). Insight from the masses always appreciated. Dennis, K7FL Las Vegas, NV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: Ground conductivity discussions
Very interesting and timely discussions on radials and ground conductivity. I’m currently rebuilding an 80M broadside array (with shortened, top loaded elements) in SW Utah that I’ve modeled at 12 ohms impedance. The current antenna was tested and the impedance measured was 25 ohms. Each element in the array (4 total) also measured 25 ohms. What accounts for additional system loss? Upon consulting the original builders, I learned they had also predicted an impedance of approximately 12 ohms. I’m not clear what methods or models they used for their prediction. There are 4:1 baluns at the base of each vertical which begs the question whether the array impedances were ever checked post-install. I suspect not … and I doubt anything has changed over the years that would equally affect the impedance *on all 4 verticals.* Where I don’t blindly trust models (antennas or otherwise), I do believe the 12 ohm figure is reasonable given the short, top loaded elements. I reviewed the FCC conductivity tables for the locale and they indicate 15-30 millimos/meter. That’s pretty good! I would think the loss from a ground system of 32, 1/4 wave plus radials would NOT account for the 12 ohms of loss ground losses. But what if my ground conductivity is less than the FCC tables report? I’m going to the site again next week to install 26 additional 1/4 wave radials on one of the verticals and see if (and how much) the measured impedance drops. I’ll share my results here. This loss has to be a ground system issue. If so, adding radials and seeing a corresponding drop in impedance should confirm my suspicions. At some point, I’ll measure the ground conductivity, but it needs to wait for warmer temps (current temp at site is 19F!). Insight from the masses always appreciated. Dennis, K7FL Las Vegas, NV _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Misbehaving verticals (update)
Thanks for all who responded. I’ve taken the liberty of sharing my response to Hank, K7HP who touched on many of the potential issues posted by others: My comments are inserted below: On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:03 AM hp wrote: > > I wonder how much coupling between the top loading wires ??I guess you > have looked at base > resistance too with one or all of the others tied to the radials to see > how much change 0 > or if you could drop a couple of the top loading wires down next to the > vertical so it would > not be resonant . I am wondering about them looking like a parasitic > element. > Interesting point. I believe the only thing I did to isolate the remaining elements when testing a specific element was to open them at the base (disconnect the ground system). I like your idea of dropping the top loading wires. It certainly doesn’t hurt and may provide an important clue if the impedance changes. > > You did not say what the element spacings were - if you have an EZNEC > model for all 4 or just made > a model of a couple you could play with seeing what the effect is. > The rectangle measures 144’x58’ (the array is for 80m). I’m sure how the Topband list handles attachments, but I can share the EZNEC model for the array off line if interested. > > Reason I am thinking about the coupling is I have been doing some > modeling of the effect of my 80M INV VEE on a two element 80M active vert > phased RX array spaced as far away as I can get it in my yard and the > coupling is incredible -the two el array is crap until I get the 80M inv > vee effective "open" impedance at INV VEE feedpoint to at LEAST 500 ohms . > The site is >120 acres of flat, arid land. Although there are many antennas on the property, there are none within what I’d consider the near field. The closest is a multiple element 160M vertical array, probably 3 wavelengths distant. > > Also I assume that you know about the issues with radials and "ground" > with radials in EZNEC unless you go to the EZNEC4 with the license or you > can raise them an inch or so above ground and be fairly OK. Unless you > raise the radials a tad in your model . > Yes. Here’s a helpful note from Terry, N6RY who modeled some of the ground options/variables. Good work, and indicates to me that ground assumptions made in the model above are probably close: *“I modeled a single element from “your” array with 32 x 80 foot radials. I used #12 for all conductors (including the mast) to get rid of errors in NEC2 from mixing conductor diameters.Here are the variations of gain and Z. “Sandy" soil is 0.002 S/m, diel constant 10. “Pastoral” is much better at 0.01 S/m, diel const 14 (perhaps more likely for Beryl).Free space 0.68 dBi, 6.83 ohms … (and with zero loss conductors, the average gain is -0.03 dB, which indicates the model is fairly decent).Radials 6” high, Sandy -0.58 dBi, 12.44 ohmsRadials 1’ high, Sandy -0.26 dBi, 11.02 ohmsRadials 4’ high, Sandy -0.26 dBi, 10.48 ohmsRadials 6” high, Pastoral 1.02 dBi, 12.05 ohmsRadials 1’ high, Pastoral 1.09 dBi, 11.81 ohmsRadials 4’ high, Pastoral 1.10 dBi, 11.52 ohmsSo at least from the NEC2 perspective, there’s nothing even close to 25 ohms and your mystery continues.”* I think what I’ll try next is to be absolutely certain the other elements in the array are detuned electrically from the vertical under test. Stan Stockton (call?) suggested adding additional radials to see if the impedance drops. This probably makes sense too, once I’m sure the decoupling mentioned above is complete. Thanks all for the input! Dennis, K7FL Las Vegas _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: Misbehaving verticals
I have 4 identical short verticals (part of a broadside array) where EZNEC predicts a 12.5 ohm feed-point impedance. That seems reasonable, but my actual measurements indicate 25 ohms at resonance. My first thought was something lossy in the ground system. The ground system consists of 32 copper wires, .3 wavelength long, laying on the ground. The ground connections are via a 3/8” copper tubing ring; all radials are soldered. Additionally, the FCC tables used for ground conductivity assumptions on MF frequencies shows the area to exhibit between 15 and 30 millimhos (or millisiemens) per meter … quite good. I just don’t believe I have 10 ohms of ground loss. The radiator(s) are built of 3” aluminum tubing, 1/8 wavelength tall, top loaded with two top hat wires sloping away at about 45 degrees (180 degrees apart). Top hat lengths adjusted for resonance. How do I know the 25 ohms is real? An SWR bridge at the base indicates a 2:1 SWR. Two MFJ analyzers read 25 ohms. As mentioned above, there are 4 identical verticals/ground systems. I measured each vertical impedance and found consistent results. Measurements were made with the other 3 verticals floating. No other antennas, power lines, fences are in the near-field. There are no RF sources nearby that could affect the MFJ readings. I am wracking my brains on this issue. The ground system should be fine as configured. Somewhere I'm burning up half my power in this unknown source of loss. Ideas? Thanks Dennis, K7FL _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
