Re: Topband: HEBA antenna

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 4/20/2024 11:57 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> No one has commented on the "High Efficiency" "Broadband" claims,

Unfortunately, "High Efficiency" and "Broadband" are relative terms
and have a different meaning to the AM broadcasters than they do to
amateurs.  They amount to nothing more than marketing terms.

To the broadcaster, "High Efficiency" simply means the same field
strength as a "standard" (typically 90 degree) antenna over the
standard 240 radial system.  The HEB, given the field measurements,
meets that standard.  Here one is simply trading one set of losses
for another.

Similarly, to the AM broadcaster, "Broadband" simply means sufficient
bandwidth to keep the transmitter happy and avoid distortion of an
IBOC digital signal.  That is far more narrow than even a "50 KHz
under 1.5:1" for amateurs on 160.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 4/20/2024 11:57 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
No one has commented on the "High Efficiency" "Broadband" claims, so I 
will.  No antenna of this size will simultaneously have both high 
efficiency and wide bandwidth, according to established limits in the

literature.  See K6OIK's Pacificon paper with the latest refinements
to these limits.  Additionally, narrow band antennas typically don't
handle a lot of power.  I doubt that this would be extensible to 50 kW.
not that it matters for ham radio.

When placed over ground, even with an elevated counterpoise, there
would still be ground losses, which would affect efficiency.

Also, although the antenna technically only occupies 1/8 acre, the
fields will be very high within 1/6 of a wavelength, about 50 meters
at 1 MHz.  This covers 2 acres.  I know my 90 foot 160m vertical,
complete with guys, ground screen and top loading wires neatly
fits within a 100 foot radius circle. about an acre.
What's not to like about this?

Rick N6RK




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

Re: Topband: 160 FT8

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2/19/2024 10:22 PM, n...@comcast.net wrote:
> Yes, I can earn  a 80m CW DXCC,  80m PHONE DXCC, 80m DIGITAL DXCC,

What makes you say that?

I have reviewed the DXCC rules, the DXCC (paper) application, the
Online DXCC Application, and the LotW DXCC Application and in none
of them do I find *any* reference to mode endorsements for *any*
of the single band DXCC Awards.  The only reference to endorsements
for the single band DXCC are for number of "countries" and that
applies to all single band awards.

Rule 5 speaks to the matter of endorsements for single band awards
and the only difference between 160/80/VHF/UHF and 40-10 is the
steps at which endorsement stickers are issued.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 10:22 PM, n...@comcast.net wrote:

Yes, I can earn  a 80m CW DXCC,  80m PHONE DXCC, 80m DIGITAL DXCC,

BUT NOT  160M CW DXCC !

Whatever you call it,  it is not right, not is no fair. PHONE I used my voice, 
CW I used my skills, FT* YOU used your PC.

Who will be the first  to claim # 300 on 160m FT*.

No shame on that!

73;s
N4IS





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

Re: Topband: 160 FT8

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2/19/2024 9:30 PM, Tree wrote:


But I do disagree with that statement.  You still used your ears with
SSB.

Go back even further ... when Phone came along.  Where was the
skill in phone (compared to CW)?   FT8 may be the modern Phone.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 9:30 PM, Tree wrote:

Agree that this is getting old.

"Go back and research the transition from AM to SSB.  It’s much the same."

But I do disagree with that statement.  You still used your ears with SSB.

Tree N6TR

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:10 PM Cecil acuff  wrote:


FT8 is here to stay….and there will be others!

Go back and research the transition from AM to SSB.  It’s much the same.
Complain as you will….if you cling to CW as the only valid mode of
communications on Top Band, you will fail.  You are willing to sacrifice
RTTY to FT8 just recently… in an effort to justify your position….to no
avail.  Technology moves forward….you stay behind.  All modes are valid and
there is nothing you can do to halt it.

AM, SSB, CW, RTTY, Digital modes including FT8….all valid. Doesn’t matter
if you used a bug or a laptop…all valid.

Fight about remote ops…a much more productive fight!…..that’s if you must
fight!

This discussion is getting old….

Cecil
K5DL






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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and 
might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the 
kitchen for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the

contact.

If you do not want your computer responding to delayed queue entries
while you are in the kitchen getting a beer, simply clear the DX Call
box!  Just like you told the computer to call the station, you can
tell it not to reply when you're not there.

RTFM!

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

  It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many are.  Technically, some 
"I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in attendance.  When I can disable transmit 
and walk out to the kitchen to get another beer and come back to see that my software has tuned my 
radio to the Fox frequency and called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit.  If others want 
to, that's between them and their ethics.  Why do I make the contacts then? you may ask. 
Because one of my DX clubs has an internal competition where certain expeditions are 
designated as targets for "band slot Bingo", where we compete for the greatest 
number of slots worked.  You can't win if you don't play.
As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time.  Other modes, including RTTY, are 
simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both ends.  F/H is 
particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and might actually be in the 
queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen for that beer and come back and see 
that "you" made the contact.
Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters 
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc. 
and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement denial of this 
but I know it happens.
WSJT will never replace RTTY.

 On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown 
 wrote:
  




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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2/19/2024 3:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:
>
>
>

So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come
on earth :-


No, FT8 has provided a way to compensate for the 20 dB in increased
noise floor over the last 40 years.

I was around in the late 1970's and early 1980s with a simple 1/4 wave
sloper and short Beverage antennas on a couple of suburban acres.  I
know from first hand experience what all the switching power supplies,
plasma displays and sloppy power line maintenance has done to the noise
level on 160 and 80.  Even if I had multiple RX antennas on my current
five acre suburban plot, I could not come close (DXCC #50 and second
not on the east coast) to what I accomplished before we were allowed
high power on 160.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 3:42 PM, uy0zg via Topband wrote:




"Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna

situations and noisy locations."


So this is exactly where I started the topic - soon heaven will come on 
earth :-

In the future, there may be no need to build antennas at all...


So friends, we should be happy and not nervous :-)))

---
Nick, UY0ZG
http://www.topband.in.ua

Joe Subich, W4TV писал(а) 2024-02-19 22:29:

On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:


After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.

Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the calling ("hound") station does not hear the acknowledgement
and sends his report again, the third party software is too "dumb"
and treats the repeated report as another QSO.  When this happens
the DXPedition can rack up multiple QSOs - generally one minute apart.

This is a problem of sloppy programming on a noisy band ... not DXers
who are intentionally making multiple QSOs.

Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV




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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:


After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in
their LOG, found also same.

Unlike the official WSJTX software, some third party variations will
log a QSO every time it sends an acknowledgement (RR73) for a report.
If the calling ("hound") station does not hear the acknowledgement
and sends his report again, the third party software is too "dumb"
and treats the repeated report as another QSO.  When this happens
the DXPedition can rack up multiple QSOs - generally one minute apart.

This is a problem of sloppy programming on a noisy band ... not DXers
who are intentionally making multiple QSOs.

Like it or not, FT8 has been a boon to many DXers with limited antenna
situations and noisy locations.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 3:10 PM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

I am not sure 100% about robot, but it is very similar to what I wrote.
After, I found few QSOs with me, just checked few known call signs in their
LOG, found also same.
Sam LY5W

2024-02-19, pr 21:54, Jim Brown  rašė:


On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:

Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.


It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a
replacement for RTTY, not CW.

It should be observed that no less a great engineer and operator than
AA7JV is a strong believer in the mode. George is one of the best
operators and most innovative engineers I know. And he's got great big
balls! Check out his history. This is a guy who would swim hundred of
yards to to his boat anchored offshore to upload the log, which was on a
thumb drive in a baggie in his mouth. And who designed very effective
topband antennas specifically for the conditions on the islands where he
planned to set up. And who designed and built diplexers for Topband
transmitting antennas so that both CW and FT8 stations could be active
simultaneously every night, so that the "magic" openings that usually
occur one or two nights out of 3 weeks would not be missed. And who
invented "Radio In A Box," drastically reducing the cost and physical
difficulty of expeditions to islands.

I made several QSOs with the CB0 team this weekend during ARRL DX CW.
Great ops made it easy to work them. I did not work 160 this weekend --
storms have taken out all of my RX antennas.

73, Jim K9YC





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

Re: Topband: Using 4 - 6 elevated radials in lieu of 120 buried wires

[Joe]

I guess this list doesn't pass images sorry.

Joe WB9SBD

On 1/5/2024 9:55 AM, Joe wrote:

I beg to differ on the High Maintenance possibility.
I live in Southwest Wisconsin the Deer hunting capital of maybe the 
world.

There are deer in my yard every day.
We have wind storms,
We have Ice storms, Bad ones like take down professional broadcast 
tower Ice storms.


Yet my 40 meter 1/4 wave vertical has been up for 20+ years.
The base is up 10 feet,
The radials act as sloping guy wires. the ends only 2 feet above the 
ground. So prime Deer attack prey.

 It has yet to have issues from Deer or weather,
View from base looking up.

And view  during a 60 Mph+ storm.


Joe WB9SBD

On 1/5/2024 9:38 AM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
  Not me.  My radials are all on the ground and they are all 
appropriately shortened.


 On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 08:05:47 AM MST, Jeff 
Blaine  wrote:

    There is another practical issue here.  I would agree that elevated
radials can work great.  But in practice, MAINTENANCE of the elevated
radials is a non-ending headache.  Around here we have deer and ice and
wind and on and on.  I ran various 40m 4SQ elevated radial schemes for
years and eventually went to an in-ground installation because I was
tired of the hassle.

You are probably a far better mechanical and electrical hand than I am.
But this maintenance aspect of elevated radials is something I don't
think gets enough mention.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com

On 1/5/2024 8:42 AM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
I was about to recommend Rudy's work. He is a prolific experimenter 
and writer; reading his stuff will answer almost anything you ever 
what to know about vertical antennas, ground systems and receiving 
antennas.

I have a folder on my hard drive with 30-40 of his papers.



     On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 01:03:55 AM MST, Jim 
Brown  wrote:



Some thoughts about that particular installation and why it worked 
well,

based on my study of Rudy Severns' excellent work on the topic.

   _
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: Using 4 - 6 elevated radials in lieu of 120 buried wires

[Joe]

I beg to differ on the High Maintenance possibility.
I live in Southwest Wisconsin the Deer hunting capital of maybe the world.
There are deer in my yard every day.
We have wind storms,
We have Ice storms, Bad ones like take down professional broadcast tower 
Ice storms.


Yet my 40 meter 1/4 wave vertical has been up for 20+ years.
The base is up 10 feet,
The radials act as sloping guy wires. the ends only 2 feet above the 
ground. So prime Deer attack prey.

 It has yet to have issues from Deer or weather,
View from base looking up.

And view  during a 60 Mph+ storm.


Joe WB9SBD

On 1/5/2024 9:38 AM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

  Not me.  My radials are all on the ground and they are all appropriately 
shortened.

 On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 08:05:47 AM MST, Jeff 
Blaine  wrote:
  
  There is another practical issue here.  I would agree that elevated

radials can work great.  But in practice, MAINTENANCE of the elevated
radials is a non-ending headache.  Around here we have deer and ice and
wind and on and on.  I ran various 40m 4SQ elevated radial schemes for
years and eventually went to an in-ground installation because I was
tired of the hassle.

You are probably a far better mechanical and electrical hand than I am.
But this maintenance aspect of elevated radials is something I don't
think gets enough mention.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com

On 1/5/2024 8:42 AM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

I was about to recommend Rudy's work.  He is a prolific experimenter and 
writer; reading his stuff will answer almost anything you ever what to know 
about vertical antennas, ground systems and receiving antennas.
I have a folder on my hard drive with 30-40 of his papers.



     On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 01:03:55 AM MST, Jim 
Brown  wrote:


Some thoughts about that particular installation and why it worked well,
based on my study of Rudy Severns' excellent work on the topic.
   
_

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

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

Re: Topband: Using 4 - 6 elevated radials in lieu of 120 buried wires

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 1/5/2024 12:53 AM, Robin wrote:


One thing to bear in mind throughout any analysis of such designs
for 160M is that the total focus of the Broadcast designs and
measurements and proofs is energy at zero degrees elevation.  Our
needs benefit from low angle radiation, for certain,  but,  little
attention is paid by the broadcasters and by the modeling programs to
position and shape of elevated lobes, or for that matter, the shape
of the main lobe above zero elevation

Not exactly true.  Many "modern" broadcast facilities are designed to
minimize high angle lobes that cause destructive *self-interference*
at the outer edges of the [night time] ground wave coverage.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

On 1/5/2024 12:53 AM, Robin wrote:
Milt Jensen, N5IA (SK) constructed his original (circa 1990s) 160M 
station TX antenna based on a similar design I encouraged him use.  He 
built a 180 ft tower with an insulator at 50 ft,  Four elevated quarter 
wave radials, each  made of a box of four pieces of # 12.  This was on 
his "city" lot where buried radials were impossible


It worked very well,  We did not have the tools to make real field 
strength measurements to compare to a model, but on air performance was 
excellent


It worked well enough for him to use the concept in several similar 
installations and to make his 8 circle array


The radial height above ground clearly did not need to be 50 feet,.  It 
did need to be high enough to easily be well above a tall truck, or more 
commonly, a horseback rider.


We used a single element elevated radial 160M TX antenna, and for the 
80M 4 square at XZ0A with considerable success.


The concept of exciting a tower from the inside is very interesting.  
The reposting this article a has me thinking about one situation I have 
available to me that can not have a complex installation outside the 
general dimensions of the tower (large but not tall)


One thing to bear in mind throughout any analysis of such designs for 
160M is that the total focus of the Broadcast designs and measurements 
and proofs is energy at zero degrees elevation.  Our needs benefit from 
low angle radiation, for certain,  but,  little attention is paid by the 
broadcasters and by the modeling programs to position and shape of 
elevated lobes, or for that matter, the shape of the main lobe above 
zero elevation


Robin Critchell, WA6CDR






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

Re: Topband: Digiwave feedline

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

>  And it doesn't matter if there's a preamp at the feedpoint.

It matters in one case ... if the preamp, combiner, relay switching
network is powered via the coax.  If the coax is aluminum foil/braid
and copper clad steel or copper clad aluminum, the resistance can
introduce enough DC losses that the available power is insufficient
to operate the remote equipment properly.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

On 8/11/2023 2:04 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

Okay thanks for the explanation.

Rob
K5UJ



Depends on the efficiency of the antenna and whether there's a preamp at
the feedpoint of those with low efficiency. It doesn't matter for higher
efficiency RX antennas like Beverages, or where local noise levels are
fairly high. And it doesn't matter if there's a preamp at the feedpoint.
Mostly it can matter for TX antennas.

73, Jim K9YC




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

Topband: Fwd: WSPR and topband

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Perhaps someone can define exactly what that means in the case of a
WSPR signal (or even FT8).


Attended means:

Present in the shack or a reasonable distance from the control point
and able to prevent/terminate transmission if necessary.

Count me as one who is opposed to beacons in general and unattended
beacons in particular on any frequency below *UHF*.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 4/26/2023 12:22 PM, TreeN6TR wrote:

So - it has been brought to my attention that unattended beacons below 10
meter are not allowed (although I guess that would not apply to VLF?).

More specifically:

A beacon
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840=800=true_id=40d9be5829ebfd04d54c322e5e44c122_occur=999_src=Title:47:Chapter:I:Subchapter:D:Part:97:Subpart:C:97.203>
may
be automatically controlled while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30
MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz or
432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm and shorter wavelength bands.

Therefore - this beacon will only be operated when it is "attended".

Perhaps someone can define exactly what that means in the case of a WSPR
signal (or even FT8).

Tree



On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:30 AM TreeN6TR  wrote:


Hi All -

I have recently purchased a WSPR transmitter that I will be putting on 160
meters soon.  It will be running 200 mw (at least for now) and be connected
to my TX antenna most of the time.

I know many of you are more experienced at using this "mode" than I am -
but wanted to help raise awareness of the benefits of having WSPR beacons
out there (hope that isn't a non-PC word to associate with them).

There is a database of reception reports that can be accessed to see what
openings are created.

I know a lot of people rely on FT8 for this purpose, but this unattended
method of monitoring conditions has value as well.

Look for K7RAT coming soon to 1836.6 kHz on the even minutes.

73 Tree N6TR



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

Re: Topband: WSPR and topband

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 4/26/2023 2:17 PM, Richard Karlquist wrote:
> Does anyone know how the NCDXF beacons on 20 thru 10 meters in a dozen
> plus countries are legal?

FCC rules do no apply outside the US (including 4U1UN).  I believe the
one or two NCDXF beacons in the US operate under a Special Temporary
Authorization.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

On 4/26/2023 2:17 PM, Richard Karlquist wrote:

Does anyone know how the NCDXF beacons on 20 thru 10 meters in a dozen
plus countries are legal?

Also, how did you arrive at 1836.6 kHz?  Why not say 1.990 MHz to avoid
QRM.

---
Rick Karlquist
N6RK

On 2023-04-26 09:22, TreeN6TR wrote:


So - it has been brought to my attention that unattended beacons below 10
meter are not allowed (although I guess that would not apply to VLF?).

More specifically:

A beacon
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840=800=true_id=40d9be5829ebfd04d54c322e5e44c122_occur=999_src=Title:47:Chapter:I:Subchapter:D:Part:97:Subpart:C:97.203>
may
be automatically controlled while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30
MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz or
432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm and shorter wavelength bands.

Therefore - this beacon will only be operated when it is "attended".

Perhaps someone can define exactly what that means in the case of a WSPR
signal (or even FT8).

Tree

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:30 AM TreeN6TR  wrote:


Hi All -

I have recently purchased a WSPR transmitter that I will be putting on 160
meters soon.  It will be running 200 mw (at least for now) and be connected
to my TX antenna most of the time.

I know many of you are more experienced at using this "mode" than I am -
but wanted to help raise awareness of the benefits of having WSPR beacons
out there (hope that isn't a non-PC word to associate with them).

There is a database of reception reports that can be accessed to see what
openings are created.

I know a lot of people rely on FT8 for this purpose, but this unattended
method of monitoring conditions has value as well.

Look for K7RAT coming soon to 1836.6 kHz on the even minutes.

73 Tree N6TR



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

Re: Topband: 1940 kHz Intruder

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2023-01-05 11:26 AM, A J wrote:

> It sounds like two station are there possibly more.

Intermodulaton (mixing) ...

> I heard a frequency 1610khz  said.

You have two frequencies, solve for the third.
1940 = 2 * x - 1610 = 1775 (out of band)
or  1940 = 2 * 1610 - x = 1280

I would start looking at the allocations for a community
where you have a 1610 and 280 close together (preferably
co-located).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

On 2023-01-05 11:26 AM, A J wrote:

Hi All

It sounds like two station are there possibly more.

I heard a frequency 1610khz  said.

No directional antenna to the south east. Just North and NE nothing 
heard on those. It is heard on the inverted V at varying levels.


The info draws a picture. See link below.

https://www.contesting.com/data/profile/ve3hj/photo.jpeg


AJ___ VE3HJ



On 1/5/23 00:09, Frank W3LPL wrote:

Hi Jim,

No one has yet reported a strong enough signal to be sure if its a mixing
product or a harmonic.  Because everyone -- so far -- is reporting a weak
signal I suspect its a mixing product.  Two reporters said that the audio
is badly distorted and appears to carrying two programs.

The signal it too weak here for me to analyze.

It appears to radiate from the vicinity on northern NJ, NY City or
southern NY

Perhaps a Topbander is that vicinity will report a stronger signal

73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -
From: "K9YC" 
To: "topband" 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:48:50 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: 1940 kHz Intruder

I'm much too far away to hear anything, but the obvious question is, "is
it a harmonic or a mix?"  So is anyone hearing it loud enough to tell if
there are two programs or only one?

73, Jim K9YC

On 1/4/2023 7:04 PM, sam...@epix.net wrote:

>From NE PA FN11VF bearing is roughly NNE. Too distorted to make out.

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


--
Knowledge is Power and Power is Knowledge.___AJ___1967

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

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

Re: Topband: Kites?

[Joe]

Good Luck meeting these requirements!


   § 101.15 Notice requirements.
   

No person may operate an unshielded moored balloon or kite more than 150 
feet above the surface of the earth unless, at least 24 hours before 
beginning the operation, he gives the following information to the FAA 
ATC facility that is nearest to the place of intended operation:


(a) The names and addresses of the owners and operators.

(b) The size of the balloon or the size and weight of the kite.

(c) The location of the operation.

(d) The height above the surface of the earth at which the balloon or 
kite is to be operated.


(e) The date, time, and duration of the operation.


   § 101.17 Lighting and marking requirements.
   

(a) No person may operate a moored balloon or kite, between sunset and 
sunrise unless the balloon or kite, and its mooring lines, are lighted 
so as to give a visual warning equal to that required for obstructions 
to air navigation in the FAA publication “Obstruction Marking and 
Lighting”.


(b) No person may operate a moored balloon or kite between sunrise and 
sunset unless its mooring lines have colored pennants or streamers 
attached at not more than 50 foot intervals beginning at 150 feet above 
the surface of the earth and visible for at least one mile.


On 12/20/2022 2:36 PM, Boye Christensen via Topband wrote:

Hi

Keep in mind a 1/2 wave vertical feeding inpedance 1-3 Kohm this means 
high voltage ?


ON4UN tried on his isolated tover for 164m 40m high to do so on 80 m, 
and only worked on low power ?


Ended up with 4 1/4 wave slopers on the top 80m  the best vertical 
will be a 3/8 wave concerning feeding impedance



73 Boye

On 20-12-2022 21:23, Cecil acuff wrote:
Keep in mind…FAA requires anything over 200’ be registered with them 
and have obstruction lighting. If near an airport that elevation may 
be much lower or even not allowed. 1/2 wave on 160m…260’+.


Cecil K5DL

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 20, 2022, at 1:39 PM, Chris Maness 
 wrote:


I am wondering what type of kite would produce the most consistent
result for a 1/2 wave vertical.  I am thinking 1/2 lamda so that I
don't have to fuss with a radial field.

--
Thanks,
Chris Maness
_
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

Topband: Non-Standard CW Spacing.

[Joe]

Hi Stan,
I even to help if the odd spacing is a skimmer issue, lately I have been 
using this for my long CQ message.


CQ TEST CQ TEST W9ET W9~E~T

There we have both worlds covered.

Joe WB9SBD

On 12/8/2022 12:40 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:

I tried that when I held the call ZF2ET and on that particular suffix i think 
it might have been a good thing.  I went back and forth on doing it or not but 
always paused slightly when sending by hand.

73…Stan ~ ZF9CW


On Dec 7, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Joe  wrote:

I'll differ on the half space thing.

I cut my repeat needs by at LEAST 75% and still get spotted by the RBN all the 
time, (well not much on 160 he he he)

But on bands where i got good signals my repeats are far less when I use

W9~E~T  than when I use W9ET

Joe WB9SBD


On 12/7/2022 9:13 AM, Mike ve9aave...@nbnet.nb.ca  wrote:
Lee et al,

Which just goes to further prove my point.  The RBN (& skimmers) are truly 
wonderful tech, but they are not perfect even if your CW is (or nearly so).

   Please do not be surprised by the occasional bust or dupe if you are doing something 
"weird" with your callsign by adding 1/2 spaces, slowing letters down and 
whatnot.

Human brains may (or maynot) be able to deal with that somewhat better (up for 
debate - I personally dislike it done to most callsigns), but computers don't 
'know' what the intent is with that type of sending.

VE9AA

==
I get spotted as KX4M and KK4TT all the time. It does not matter if I send by
hand or through N1MM / Winkeyer.

73 de Lee KX4TT



On Wednesday, December 7, 2022, 08:48:47 AM EST,  wrote:

Hi Ron,

The wrong call sign spotting and "run of dupes" happens a few times a
year to me.
Bob, KQ2M
_
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: ARRL 160

[Joe]

I'll differ on the half space thing.

I cut my repeat needs by at LEAST 75% and still get spotted by the RBN 
all the time, (well not much on 160 he he he)


But on bands where i got good signals my repeats are far less when I use

W9~E~T  than when I use W9ET

Joe WB9SBD

On 12/7/2022 9:13 AM, Mike VE9AA ve...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:

Lee et al,

Which just goes to further prove my point.  The RBN (& skimmers) are 
truly wonderful tech, but they are not perfect even if your CW is (or 
nearly so).


  Please do not be surprised by the occasional bust or dupe if you are 
doing something "weird" with your callsign by adding 1/2 spaces, 
slowing letters down and whatnot.


Human brains may (or maynot) be able to deal with that somewhat better 
(up for debate - I personally dislike it done to most callsigns), but 
computers don't 'know' what the intent is with that type of sending.


VE9AA

==
I get spotted as KX4M and KK4TT all the time. It does not matter if I 
send by

hand or through N1MM / Winkeyer.

73 de Lee KX4TT



On Wednesday, December 7, 2022, 08:48:47 AM EST,  wrote:

Hi Ron,

The wrong call sign spotting and "run of dupes" happens a few times a
year to me.
Bob, KQ2M
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector



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

Re: Topband: My new 9 Circle works great!

[Joe]

Any links to this system?

Joe WB9SBD

On 12/4/2022 1:34 PM, Jim Miller wrote:

Thanks to Steve's, VE6WZ, excellent YouTube videos, I decided to tackle a
better RX antenna. I've been using a 2 element array phased by an NCC-2
which is better than what I've had in the past (BOG, K9AY) but I wanted
better.

After evaluating my space available and finding it too small I asked my
neighbor for seasonal use of their adjoining lot and they graciously
agreed! My N, NW and W elements are on their property.

Steve's videos include KiCad files for the combiner and preamps and he was
very helpful by email with any of my questions.

I just completed the array last night and got it on the air and I was
astonished by how well it worked.

Of course it isn't going to create signals out of thin air but it is much
quieter due to better RDF and the front to back is very impressive. Strong
signals on the waterfall just disappear when the antenna is reversed!

I'm very happy to get such an improved antenna for 80 and 160 in a 120ft
diameter circle!

As a bonus I use it with PSTRotator and a USB controlled relay box so no
manual switch box is required on my desk. Just a mouse click selects the
desired direction or it can track my logger automatically.

FYI, most of the cost is in the aluminum, the combiner and preamps were
pretty cheap to build.

Many thanks to VE6WZ!!

73

jim ab3cv
_
Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: Signal source flown under my drone

[Joe]

We used to fly those as a beacon on our high altitude balloons.

used 28.322 one. on ten meters and  full sized dipole with no matching 
or anything.


when at 100,000 feet it was heard over 400 miles away!

Joe WB9SBD / W9ET

On 11/8/2022 2:41 PM, fmoeves wrote:

Steve, Awesome video and cool project. I'll be building a few of these. Thank 
you Fred KB4QZH
 Original message From: steve_VE6WZ  Date: 
11/8/22  12:01 PM  (GMT-05:00) To:topband@contesting.com  Subject: Topband: Signal 
source flown under my drone Here is a short video showing some of the small signal 
sources I have built and how I can fly them under my drone for testing my RX antennas 
on 160m.Using these simple clock oscillators as a 160m signal source is not new, but 
I show a couple of small units I built up using the old legacy DIP cans as well as a 
SMD that can be flown under my small Mavic Mini drone.I include some PCB Gerber files 
and a BOM.https://youtu.be/EGAIrhGG51Y73, de steve ve6wzSent from Mail for 
Windows_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: Skirted vertical antennas for MF broadcast

[Joe]

That's a very interesting antenna. I wish it had a spec of freq in the 
drawing so it could be scaled to 160 or 80 meters.


Joe WB9SBD

On 4/6/2022 7:00 PM, Radio KH6O wrote:

I'm surprised that the broadcast industry is just discoving this topic. My
library of decades-old antenna handbooks covers this quite well:

https://www.radioworld.com/show-news/nab-show/why-well-dressed-towers-may-wear-flared-skirts?utm_source=SmartBrief_medium=email_campaign=33CCA446-266B-43B6-8A18-118AF7B202FA_content=E5518F4E-90C4-40BF-B705-81A7DB3E8C14_term=5e35c2b9-3044-4235-9961-04d879406e09

73,
Jeff KH6O
_
Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: Series LC to notch AM broadcast ?

[Joe]

I will try if you are or anyone is interested getting the design of this 
filter we use on a AM radio broadcast antenna when we use it on 160 Meters.


This is NOT just a matching unit to match the antenna for us to use on 
160 meters. BUT also a pass band filter for 160, a High pass filter 
blocking anything below 160 meters, AND a notch filter tuned to the AM 
Transmitters frequency.


WHY? The Notch?  Because we use this WHILE THE AM TRANSMITTER IS STILL 
TRANSMITTING!!!


Yes we have played on 160 meters with this magic box while the AM 
station is still on the air.


Talk about isolation!

Joe WB9SBD / W9ET

On 2/20/2022 11:41 AM, jim.thom jim.t...@telus.net wrote:

Has anybody tried using a simple series L-C to notch out ONE offending AM
broadcast station ?  I'm talking about wiring from hot side of coax...to
chassis / groundlike via a T connector etc.

On paper, it should work. Did some minor research, and one comment was that
by using higher values of L would result in  higher Q..and a deeper notch.
Another comment stated to use some initial values, like what spits out on a
L-C  online calculator for practical values. then  multiply one value
by the other...then take the square root of the result.   Then you ended up
with 2 x numerically equal values of L + C. and supposedly the greatest
notch depth.

On software, I tried several values..from one extreme to the other, and
they all resonate on the same freq.   Also tried in software,  using 2 x
numerically same values..and it too, also resonates on the same freq.

The rationale behind all of this is... in some cases, there is only one
offending AM broadcast station.  Typ  HP  filters offer little rejection
towards the top end of the AM broadcast band. like  1200-1710 khz.

I would like to try it, but am still confused as to which combo (using
practical values) will result in the deepest notch.  It would have to be
wide enough to remove the 20 khz wide AM signal.  A fixed coil + variable
cap, or padded variable cap could be used to fine tune the notch freq.

Perhaps   2 or more LC filters could be used in parallel, to notch out 2 or
more offending stations ?


Jim   VE7RF
_
Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: TV coax + F-connectors

[Joe]

Greetings.

I do not know if they still do use them.

But the MAJOR Amateur AND PROFESSIONAL antenna maker M Squared uses "F" 
connectors in their antennas ALL the time.


They even use a variation that is weatherproof.
They use them from below 1 meg antennas up to antennas in the Gig 
ranges. Mainly at the feedpoint to connect the phasing line in the 4 to 
1 balun feed design.



Joe WB9SBD / W9ET

On 2/20/2022 9:46 AM, Radio KH6O wrote:

Colleagues,

I was very happy to see the discussion regarding the use of television
feedline and F-connectors. I thought I was the only ham in the
universe using that combination. While it's true that the connectors
are not weather-resistance, a coating of black asphalt sealant* takes
care of that.

Reading the comments about possible lack of uniform impedance and
other short-comings, I remind myself that I'm an amateur, not a
professional. A few milliwatts loss doesn't concern me.

* For 
example:https://www.lowes.com/pd/Henry-Company-Asphalt-Emulsion-1-Gallon-Waterproofer-Roof-Sealant/50255565

73, Jeff KH6O
_
Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: 8 Circle question

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2022-02-07 4:45 PM, Jim Miller wrote:
> I was doing the YCCC version which uses 9 antennas to form a 3 element
> endfire in each direction.

The 9 circle (3 element endfire) uses approximately 1:2:1 element
"drive".  Removing one of the end elements will not yield a "clean"
pattern but you would need to model both 0:2:1 and 1:2:0 arrays to
see if the remnant pattern would be acceptable.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2022-02-07 4:45 PM, Jim Miller wrote:

I was doing the YCCC version which uses 9 antennas to form a 3 element
endfire in each direction.

I'm obviously limited in space here...

Thanks and sorry for the confusion

jim ab3cv

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:43 PM  wrote:


Jim,

Which 8 circle version are you referring to?? The HiZ-8 or the Broad
Side-End Fire (BSEF) 8 vertical array?

The HiZ-8 uses all 8 verticals for each direction but the BSEF array
only uses 4 verticals for each direction.

73 Joel W5ZN


On 2022-02-07 14:38, Jim Miller wrote:

I'm looking at putting out an 8 circle but three of the antennas on the
circumference may need to be seasonally placed since they would be on
my
neighbor's property.

If those three were removed would the remaining 2 elements for each
(opposite) direction left in place still produce a cardioid pattern if
switched toward those directions?  I'd terminate the removed lines with
75
ohm terminations of course.

I would leave the center element and the remaining 5 elements on the
circumference in place year round to minimize seasonal work if needed.

73

Jim ab3cv


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

Re: Topband: Guy line affecting SWR/match

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2022-01-07 2:37 PM, Raymond Benny wrote:
1, I am using Dacron, non-conductive cord at three points to guy the 
verticals. Top guy is about 10ft from the top. It seems that about

the start of our winter rains, the SWR and all changed. The guy lines
are attached directly to the vertical with a thimble, no insulators.
Could the wet guy lines be creating a leak to ground?

Yes.  Spiderbeam originally used Dacron covered kevlar for their element
ends and the wet Dacron seriously de-tuned the elements.  They went to
PVDF (monofilament fishing line).  I would suggest that you not only
need insulators at the guy attachment points but probably need to make
sure the bottom portion of the guy wire is not resonant anywhere in
2.8 - 5 MHz.


2. Could the ground conductivity and therefore the matching have
changed because of the rain?

Absolutely.  Anything less than a "broadcast quality" (120 half wave
radials) *can* show changes with changing moisture levels.  Broadcasters
see changes with moisture levels when their ground systems start to
deteriorate.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2022-01-07 2:37 PM, Raymond Benny wrote:

All,

I have a situation that I have not encountered before and do not understand
the cause. I am building an 80m 4 square TX antenna system. I put up the 4
- 65ft irrigation pipe verticals between Sept and November when the
ground/earth was quite dry. I installed 48 - 67ft radials on each vertical.
At the time I resonated the vertical to 3.640kHz. Using my AA55 Antenna
Analyzer, X=0 and R was around 46 ohms.

Because I have not dug the trenches and laid conduit for the Comtex control
cable, I am feeding just one of the verticals so that I can get on 80m.
This has worked fine, SWR 1.2:1,  until we started having our winter cold
and rain/snow weather. The SWR is now near 4:1, and if I remember, the
vertical is resonant at above 3.8 kHZ, the R & X  have changed too, but I
have not measured them recently.

I am at a loss as to what is causing this change There are 3 or 4
thoughts/questions I have as to this situation:

1, I am using Dacron, non-conductive cord at three points to guy the
verticals. Top guy is about 10ft from the top. It seems that about the
start of our winter rains, the SWR and all changed. The guy lines are
attached directly to the vertical with a thimble, no insulators. Could the
wet guy lines be creating a leak to ground? I am planning to install egg
insulators at the guy points very soon, depending on the WX.

2. Could the ground conductivity and therefore the matching have changed
because of the rain? I am direct feeding the vertical with a K9YC 1:1:
toroid balun at the base. The ground here is a mix of typical soil: dirt,
small rocks and hard clay. When I installed the verticals, you could only
dig about 4 - 6 inches without much effort - there is no moisture in the
soil. With the rains, I can dig about a foot without much effort. The
ground below about 2 - 3 ft has not seen moisture since it was laid
down eons ago.

3, All  radials for the 4 verticals are lying over each other. I did not
trim or solder the radials together where they cross. The radial layout is
the same as before our rains.

4, I detached the coax at the base and placed a 1500 watt dummy load to it.
There was no reflected power.

As a note, for almost 8 years I had the single 72ft irrigation pipe
vertical with 4 - 30ft top hat loading wires for 160m. Also, I had a 65
foot drop wire spaced just 16 inches from the main vertical for 80m. I used
the same radial field, and had two separate coax and matching inductors at
the base. I did have to ground the main vertical (160m) in order for the
80m section to work properly.  All worked well and I did not see the effect
as mentioned above during those 8 years.

So I'm stuck for an explanation and a remedy for my situation.

Any thoughts, comments or suggestions?

Ray,
N6VR/W7YA

PS, Please excuse me for posting this on the Top Band reflector, but I
think there is more knowledge and experience on this site than any other.

Near Prescott, AZ
Nice rural, quiet location,
On 5 acres at 4800 ft elevation,
Winter low temps can vary from 15 to 35 degrees, with light rain and snow.



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

Re: Topband: Balloon Supported Vertical

[Joe]

And as someone who has been doing these balloon stuff since 1985 or so, 
real Helium, expect to pay about 300 bucks for a tank of the real stuff. 
and that's if you can find anyone willing to sell it to you if you have 
not been a customer already for years. https://youtu.be/YHAr7F1w-aE


Joe WB9SBD

On 11/8/2021 4:21 PM, Adrian wrote:
Also the disposable party balloon bottles are a waste of $ and would 
only inflate 2 to 3 of the balloons here.


Industrial gas supply is required to make it viable.

"

ABN 95 000 029 729
Riverside Corporate Park
10 Julius Ave, North Ryde NSW 2113
Tel: 131 262 www.boc.com
Email: cont...@boc.com
2nd June 2021
Dear Adrian Fewster,
BOC special offer on compressed gas for Adrian Fewster.
Thank you for your enquiry regarding the supply of gases and equipment 
from BOC Limited. Our customers
are assured of BOC's genuine commitment to providing premium gas 
products and services in addition to
ongoing technical support, and the convenience of our large national 
distribution network.
Pricing for products which are purchased by you but which are not 
listed in the special offer pricing table
below will be charged at BOC's standard or list prices for each such 
individual product as varied from time
to time unless otherwise agreed. The gas pricing for the products 
listed in the special offer pricing table
below will be varied in proportion to changes in BOC's standard prices 
for each individual product and the
rental pricing will vary in line with BOC's standard charges unless 
otherwise agreed. This does not apply to
prices for LPG, Refrigerant, Helium and Acetylene products which will 
vary in line with Supplier increases as

they are incurred.
All prices below are GST exclusive. Price may vary if purchased from a 
different BOC Gas & Gear or Gas

Agent.
Gas CodeDescriptionCylinder
Volume
Annual
Quantity
Delivered
Price**
Rental (per
day)##
124GBALLOON GAS G SIZE7.1m31$398.31$0.6822
For refrigerant products a refrigerant reclaim and fluoro activity 
levy of $2.38/kg also applies.

** Where a standard local delivery option is available
## Rental Pricing is described as Service Charges in BOC's General 
Terms and Conditions of Supply

Rental Pricing
Cylinder CodeRental (per day)
'G' Size$0.6822
You may accept the special offer pricing above in the manner set out 
in the last paragraph of this letter. By
accepting the special offer pricing above, you warrant that you do not 
have a binding exclusive supply
arrangement with another supplier for any or all of the products 
listed in the special offer pricing table
above (or for products substantially similar to those listed) 
applicable to your site(s) where the products are

to be used.
The Agreement so formed between BOC and you for the supply of the 
products listed in the special offer
pricing table above will consist of the terms and conditions set out 
in this special offer pricing letter
together with the BOC General Terms and Conditions of Supply. (as 
amended from time to time) (accessible

from our website (www.boc.com.au)).
Under this Agreement we will supply and you will purchase all of your 
requirements for the products
covered by this Agreement. This Agreement will commence on the date of 
formal acceptance and continues
until you or we terminate it by giving a minimum of 6 (six) months' 
notice expiring at the end of the
minimum period of 1year(s) or by either party giving a minimum of 1 
(one) months' notice after the expiry
of the minimum period, or until it is terminated under the BOC General 
Terms and Conditions of Supply.
At BOC we believe that our business is here to help your business so 
if you have any queries please feel

free to get in touch with me at jamie-lee.pale...@boc.com.
This offer will be loaded to your customer account within two business 
days. "



vk4tux


On 9/11/21 07:54, W7TMT - Patrick wrote:

Regarding the helium…

Be advised the gas used by the party stores these days is almost 
always a mixture and not pure helium. That’s means considerably less 
lift. You’ll likely need to source the good stuff from a industrial 
gas supplier.


W7TMT

From: Topband on 
behalf of Mark - N5OT

Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 1:17:53 PM
To: TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: Balloon Supported Vertical

Been There Done That

You might want to figure the weight of what you have to lift. One would
think it was, like, duh, you make a wire vertical and fill a balloon
full of helium and ... but it turns out you need to be careful about the
weight of the wire and insulators and you need to project how much
helium you can use and how much lift you will need and ... all that.

Just saying all that because the last thing you want to find out is,
after you've got it all together, you just can't get it up in the air.

I seem to recall I needed more like a 3 or 4 foot balloon to lift mine.

And be careful of the sticker shock on the gas.  I thought it was a lot
of mone

Topband: 160 M portabel antenna

[OZ0J Joe]

Hi

 

I do hope that the world will be reopened also for DX-peditions. I still
hope to visit OC again since I was QRV from KH0 and T8 (2014) and KH8 (2019)
- and not working 160 meter cause to the time of the year.

 

I visit regular my radio neighbour OZ1LO. Most of the DXCCs that Leif are
missing, are from OC. I guess he is not the only one in all 3 Regions. 

 

Based on the above I am looking for a 160 M - or combined 160 / 80 M
antenna, with these demands:

 

Travel length either max 75 cm (approx. 30 inch.) - fits in a large suitcase

or travel length max 130 cm (approx. 51 inch.) - fits in a ski box.

 

Spiderbeam makes fiberglass poles in many sizes and present I am waiting for
delivery of the new 10 meter fiberglass pole. That pole fits to a large
suitcase during travel.

 

The weight must be a low a possible and the antenna should be installed by
one or two persons.

 

Any suggestions to a 160 meter antenna here or direct to me off the list are
welcome. 

 

 

73 Joe, OZ0J 

 

 

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

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Reminds me of the Engineers' interpretation of the glass being half
> empty or half full - It's actually larger than it needs to be.

Or the difference between an engineer and mathematician ...

Place an engineer and mathematician on one goal line of a football
field with a comely cheerleader on the other goal line.  If you tell
the engineer and mathematician the can go to her but can only go half
the distance at a time, the mathematician will walk off the field
saying "I can't get there".  The engineer will walk toward the
cheerleader saying "I can get close enough!"

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-09-27 4:30 PM, Gene Smar via Topband wrote:

Gents:

      I've heard Engineering described as the art of approximation. 
Reminds me of the Engineers' interpretation of the glass being half 
empty or half full - It's actually larger than it needs to be.



73 de
Gene Smar  AD3F, PE




THAT'S what good engineering is all about! It's not about esoteric 
details of theoretical concepts, but rather applying fundamentals to 
our own individual problems and resources.


73, Jim K9YC



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

Re: Topband: JT5DX - JT1CO confirmations

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Recently (last year - 18 months) there have been no flights into
or out of Mongolia due to COVID.  Don't know if they have resumed
- and along with them mail to/from the country.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-09-10 8:12 AM, Jorge Diez - CX6VM wrote:

hello

How do you get confirmations from these stations?

No logs on Clublog, no answer SASEs and no answer emails  jt...@yahoo.com

Thanks for any information!


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

Re: Topband: RX loop antenna RX protector

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

The MFJ-1708 can be used in that manner.  Connect the loop to the
"ANT" port and the SDR to the SDR port and configure the CTRL input
for PTT.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-06-06 9:49 AM, N4ZR wrote:
I recently saw, in an e-mail from someone, a reference to a commercial 
device designed to protect a receiver on a magnetic loop antenna.  IIRC, 
the device uses PTT from a transceiver to disconnect and/or short the 
input of an SDR.  I think it was made by a company whose main product is 
magnetic loops.


I can't find it now - can anyone help?


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

Re: Topband: Aluminum fence wire for Beverage

[Joe]

Did you use real Aluminum electric fence wire? The real stuff is 
tempered to be very strong under tension.
Geez 2000+ pound Bulls wont go through it. I have had tree branches 4" 
dia break before the wire breaks.


Last wire I used this with was a 1500 foot loop up about 60 feet.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
<http://www.idle-tyme.com>
On 4/13/2021 10:49 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 4/13/2021 9:04 AM, Peter Krulewitch wrote:
I tried the wire with some success but sag due to stretching created 
a problem. Wonder what your experience is and also use of steel fence 
wire.

W2LL

Sent from my iPhone
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector




Did you use the tensioning springs at the ends that are
made for electric fences?  I had beverages up for years
with these springs and never had a problem with sagging,
even with supports spaced every 200 feet .

73
Rick N6RK
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector




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

Re: Topband: 43’ 80 Meter Vertical

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2021-04-11 5:25 AM, r...@dj0ip.de wrote:
Let's put this in perspective:  for the short pole Bob is using, the 

> top-hat wires are going to be in the neighborhood of 100 ft. long.

So we do need a lot of space for this.


That is for 160 meters.  Bob is building for 80 meters (3545 KHz) so
use the info here:
   <https://www.dj0ip.de/vertical-antennas/80m-on-12m-pole/>

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-04-11 5:25 AM, r...@dj0ip.de wrote:

I agree with Rick; its better to use 4 top-hat wires.

On my Vertical Antenna page, I originally showed plans for verticals with 2, 3, 
and 4 top-hat wires.
I now only show the 4-wire version, except for the Inv.-L.

Let's put this in perspective:  for the short pole Bob is using, the top-hat 
wires are going to be in the neighborhood of 100 ft. long.
So we do need a lot of space for this.

The more top-hat wires, the shorter they need be.
But try to keep them equally spaced around the pole and at equal heights.

And, if space is an issue, the only solution is a longer pole.
For instance, with the 60 ft. Spiderpole, the 4 top-hat wires are only about 82 
ft. long.
And with the 85 ft. Spiderpole, the wires are about 23 ft. long.   (If not for 
darn HOA's . . . )

With these longer poles, the top-hat wires should not exit from the top; these 
poles are too thin.
Drop down one segment and connect the top-hat wires there.

73 - Rick, DJ0IP
(Nr. Frankfurt, Germany)
May the Sunspots be with Us!

-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of 
Richard (Rick) Karlquist
Sent: 11 April 2021 00:35
To: Chortek, Robert L. ; TopBand List 

Subject: Re: Topband: 43’ 80 Meter Vertical


On 4/10/2021 1:16 PM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote:

Hoping to get some guidance from the antenna gurus here.


Can someone tell me if I added two top hat wires 16 GA THHN sloping at 45 
degrees “about” how long they would need to be to resonate at 3.545 MHZ.

Bob/AA6VB
Robert L. Chortek


After SWR, the most overrated goal for ham radio antennas is resonance.  You 
should use the amount of top loading that maximizes the radiation resistance.  
Then put an appropriate reactance in series with the antenna to provide a 
resistive load to the transmitter at 3545.  The reactance may be turn out to be 
inductive or capacitive.  You will also want to make the series reactance 
variable somehow unless you only ever want to operate on 3545.

You would also be advised to use 4 top loading wires instead of just two.  
There is a substantial advantage for 4 vs 2.  Beyond
4 top wires (say 8) the benefits aren't worth the trouble.
This is explained by the fact that 4 is the maximum number of top wires that 
don't couple to each other.

It is also advantageous to pull out the top loading wires to a more gentle 
slope if you can.

You can use bare aluminum electric fence wire to reduce weight and wind loading 
on the vertical.


73
Rick N6RK
_
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: Great Engineering by AA7JV

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> What will the ARRL think of this?

It's no different that the current system of "rent-a-remote" that
allows the well healed to chase propagation.

As long as the person/group "placing the boxes" has the necessary
licenses and landing permits consistent with the current rules, I
do not see ARRL refusing credit for shipboard (or even home)
operation of "DXPedition in a box" stations.  Even "at the dock"
operations are currently accepted if the antennas are located
on the wharf (and the necessary license/landing permission have
been obtained).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-04-05 3:15 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Elon Musks' starband internet could open up the entire world to the 
internet and change DXpeditions forever.  And a few will think it is the 
end of the world kinda like that digital mode that has yet to kill off 
the hobby.


What will the ARRL think of this?  They are slow to change with the 
times.  I would expect push back especially by those that are already on 
the top and do not want other to reach that plateau.


W0MU

On 4/5/2021 12:55 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
At the most recent Visalia in 2019 (and later at Dayton, I think), 
George presented two feats of engineering excellence that blew me 
away. First, his "Radio In A Box" has the potential to revolutionize 
DXpeditioning to islands, drastically reducing their cost, the number 
of hams needed, man-hours spent on the island, and the resulting 
impact on the island's natural state. All of this has the potential to 
make it far easier to obtain permissions from authorities.


Second, his observations that during DXpeditions, topband openings 
tend to occur on one night out of a couple of weeks, and that since CW 
and FT8 are the dominant modes for weak signal work, both need to 
active whenever there is the likelihood of propagation (that is, 
between the daylight sides of the terminator), led him to devise a 
system to achieve that.


Both of these achievements are described on the qrz page for C6AGU. If 
you've missed them up to now, by all means check it out!


73, Jim K9YC



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

Re: Topband: 160 meter 1/8 wave

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Are the vertical sections of both antennas the same?

What size hat?

What length is the "L"?

Does either antenna have coil loading and, if so, where
is the coil located and what is its "Q"?

The top loaded vertical is likely to have less high angle
radiation.  However, the ground losses and, possibly, coil
losses of one vs. the other will impact which is the more
efficient.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-04-01 4:09 PM, doug dietz wrote:

Is a 160 meter 18 meter vertical with hat equal or better than an inverted l 
over the same ground plane
Doug. WD8Z




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

Re: Topband: CQ Zones

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2021-03-09 3:30 PM, Wes wrote:
> He said, "or machine."

And there he just blew up his own argument.  The "machine" (computer)
actually copies the callsign(s) in an FT4/FT8/JT9/JT65/FST4 QSO just
as it does with RTTY (MMTTY or 2Tone) or PSK##, Olivia, MFSK### (fldigi,
DM780, etc.) or a specialized modem copies the callsigns in
Pactor/Amtor.

While the operator may be able to narrow the IF filters and actually
"hear" the individual signal, I doubt that there is *any* operator
who can decode *any* of the digital modes "by ear" sufficiently to
conduct a complete QSO without any software assistance.  However, that
applies to a large percentage of the "no code Extras" on CW these days.
Ever stop to count the number asking for help to make the CW decoder
in WriteLog work, or to interface CWget/MRP40/fldigi, etc. to N1MM?
I'd bet the number of "machine CW" entries in most CW contests is now
in the double digit percentage range - what's the difference between
that and modern digital modes?

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-03-09 3:30 PM, Wes wrote:

He said, "or machine."

On 3/9/2021 12:49 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

On 3/9/2021 10:56 AM, Preston Smith wrote:

RTTY,
Pactor, Amtor etc) the operator or machine must actually copy
the call sign of the station being worked.


Are you telling us that you can copy RTTY, Pactor, Amtor with your own 
ear/brain? WOW! I do a lot of RTTY in contests and I've never 
developed that skill.


73, Jim K9YC


_
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: CQ Zones

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2021-03-09 1:56 PM, Preston Smith wrote:


In the JT modes with weak signals the program copies a portion of the
call and completes the call by comparing the partial call to a call
sign data base.


*THAT IS NOT TRUE* you need to study Joe Taylor's modes/code more
carefully.  Joe Taylor's current software does not use any list of
calls or callsign database although some versions allow *EME* operators
to add previously worked/copied calls to a short list of callsigns -
much like a human operator might have a notepad with a list of rare
DX known to be on a given band at a particular time.

Some of Joe Taylor's protocols will also accumulate partial calls or
partial exchanges until a full exchange is completed - again like a
human operator assembling a call prefix, call suffix, report and
state over multiple transmissions even though no one transmission
is complete and without errors.

There is nothing in Joe Taylor's software that "makes up" complete
QSOs where the information has not been transmitted and received.
Anyone who says otherwise is simply slandering K1JT and his team.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-03-09 1:56 PM, Preston Smith wrote:

Note: Below I refer to the various modes developed by K1JT
and his team as JT modes.

Yes the JT modes should have their own categories for awards
and NOT be mixed with traditional modes. Reason being that
all the JT modes (FT4/8, JT65, JT9, FST4 and others) are
unlike traditional modes. In traditional modes (CW, SSB, RTTY,
Pactor, Amtor etc) the operator or machine must actually copy
the call sign of the station being worked.  In the JT modes
with weak signals the program copies a portion of the call
and completes the call by comparing the partial call to a
call sign data base.

In JTDX that call sign data base file ALLCALL7 presently
contains more than 93,000 calls and is periodically increasing.
WSJTx has a similar call sign data base.

A curious op could copy the data base file, rename it, and
delete all but a few calls in the original. Then see how
well the JT modes copy weak signals. My hunch is they wouldn't
copy much better than a good CW op but that is TBD.

The transition from AM to SSB was quite different in that
the two modes were identical in what they achieved, two way
chatter back and forth between operators. It was clear that
SSB would prevail. That useless carrier had to go.

All that being stated this op has worked JT65, FT8 and now
FST4 almost exclusively outside of contests for ~2 years.
That's where the action is for better or worse.

73 back to 28074
Pres, N6SS



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

Re: Topband: CQ Zones

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Oh PLEASE!  You sound just like AM phone operators when SSB came
along.  And spark operators when CW started to replace it.

The first DX was nothing more than single letters ...

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-03-09 10:10 AM, Karel Matousek wrote:

I agree wit Martin OK1RR.

I cannot endorse FT4, FT8 for the ARRL DXCC Program.

IMHO, this should NEVER be allowed unless qualified in a separate rules 
category!


Karel OK1CF
__

Od: "Martin Kratoska" 
Komu: topband@contesting.com
Datum: 09.03.2021 15:37
Předmět: Re: Topband: CQ Zones

Oh, FT8 should be proclaimed as illegal for DXCC (WAZ, WAS etc.) in 
mixed categories.
This "mode" should be counted completely separated from traditional 
modes like CW or SSB.


73,
Martin, OK1RR


Dne 09. 03. 21 v 15:16 Ian Fugler napsal(a):
 > Hi, Dave
 >
 > Zone 23 - JT5DX will be your man.  He is active in contests and puts 
out a good signal.

 >
 > Zone 24 - will be more of a challenge.  I have worked XX9D and a 
couple of BY stations.  But you may need to use FT8 for the BY stations, 
since they seem strongly to prefer that mode.

 >
 > 73 and GL!
 >
 > Ian G4iiY
 >



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

Re: Topband: The Magic-T

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2021-02-10 5:25 PM, P H via Topband wrote:


A loss of 3 dB may be like "to be or not to be" of a QSO on 160
meters.


That is extremely unlikely.  The limiting factor on 160 meters is
signal to noise ratio, not absolute signal levels.  Most amateur
receivers have absolute sensitivities of -130 dBm or greater while
the background noise is as much as 20 dB higher than that.

Since 3 dB loss in a splitter applies to both the signal and the
noise component, there is no net loss in signal to noise ratio.
In fact one may want to apply attenuation at the receiver input to
reduce strong adjacent (broadcast) signals and prevent receiver
overload.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-02-10 5:25 PM, P H via Topband wrote:

My impression is that a hybrid combiner, which introduces 90 degree shift 
(hence two identical signals of amplitude A fed to its inputs will give in 
total a signal with the amplitude of 1.41*A) is 3dB less efficient in 
comparison to a simple combiner where A+A gives 2*A at the output.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
A loss of 3 dB may be like "to be or not to be" of a QSO on 160 meters.
Regards
Piotr, SP2BPD


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

Re: Topband: ground loop

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Definition of Ground Loop
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity

Article is more properly titled "improper bonding."

As K9YC stated, there is no such thing as a ground loop.  What is
called a ground loop in this article and in colloquial electronics
is nothing more or less than improper bonding or poor circuit
design.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-01-15 12:22 PM, Jim Borowski wrote:

Definition of Ground 
Loophttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity%29Jim K9TFSent 
from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device



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

Re: Topband: Cage wire performance

[Joe]

So this is more or less like the Bow Tie Dipole antenna that is used 
like in UHF TV antennas.


Sometimes two wires on each side like cat whiskers.
and other times a solid triangle on each side.

Now I wonder, is there a limit say ratio wise to length vs width at the 
far end, where you don't get any more bandwidth, or it no longer even 
acts like a dipole?


Joe WB9SBD

On 1/4/2021 9:32 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:


On 1/4/2021 7:05 AM, Kenny Silverman wrote:
where the wires connect at a point on the top, but with a 4 foot 
spread of the wires near the ground. This adds about 15-20 kc to the 
2:1 bandwidth per the model.


Will a 2-wire section like this always behave as a wide/fat conductor 
or do I have to worry about voltage/current in Each wire?


Regards , Kenny K2KW


Just a guess:  I would think with 2 wires, you would be fairly
successful with getting good current sharing, as long as there
wasn't some unbalancing effect, say due to having the vertical
running along side a tower.

With 3 wires, there is some reason to think that the middle
wire wouldn't carry much current if the three wires were
in a plane.  OTOH, if they formed a triangular cross section,
then it would seem likely that current sharing would be good.
In general, you want to emulate a round conductor, as opposed
to a strap.  When straps are used to make inductors, the
current crowds to the edges.  Round conductors don't have
such edges, hence they have good current sharing.

I don't believe NEC is good for modeling this.  You have
to use a tool called "HOBBIES" if you want to do this.
K6OIK has written some articles about this tool.

73
Rick N6RK
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector




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

Re: Topband: Stew Perry

[Joe]

The Exchange,,, I know it is officially only the 4 digit grid square.

RST optional.

Some people like to see the RST as a more or less get ready to copy my 
grid square is next thing.


What does most people do in this event?

Joe WB9SBD

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

Re: Topband: Suggested Frequency

[Joe]

Our club is working on a project where we will be able to use a AM 
Broadcast antenna on 160 meters.


It should be fantastic! on 160 the antenna will be almost a perfect 5/8 
wave antenna.
Between that and the incredible AM broadcast band radial system, it 
should be incredible.


BUT And there always is a BUT isn't there?

The system works and works great! We can use the antenna even while the 
AM station is still running!


Between the matching part, the 160 meter passband part, and the AM 
broadcast freq notch filter, it works great, BUT...


And there is that word again. With everything being so high performance 
that allows us to actually run with the AM station still being on, with 
no degradation of performance. The bandwidth is extremely narrow. We can 
move maybe 10 Kc plus or minus, before the performances start to fall 
apart.


This being said. If we were to go ahead and try this setup in a average 
160 meter contest, (wont be the one coming up we are not that ready yet) 
but if we were to try to use this, and have only a 10 to 20 Kc window, 
what center freq would be the best for us to park on?


Joe WB9SBD

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Topband: cONTEST

[Joe]

TEST
de WB9SBD



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: OT - LG Dryer RFI

[Joe Galicic]

Steve, 

I have a LG DLE-7300WE clothes dryer that makes RFI when it's running. I have 
not checked on every band but I know it makes noise on 40 meters.  My noise 
level rises an S unit or so with RF hash when it's running. 

Joe
N3HEE


> On 11/20/2020 5:12 PM Steve Lawrence via Topband  
> wrote:
> 
>  
> Please excuse the OT. Anyone using an LG DLG7301 Clothes Dryer? Any RFI 
> detected 160-6m?
> 
> Please reply off list only.
> 
> TU & 73 - Steve WB6RSE
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: K9AY amplifier

[Joe Galicic]

The preamp in my K3 and Flex 6600M was plenty for my K9AY loop.  More 
importantly chokes should be used on the coax near the antenna and probably 
before it enters your house.  I used 6 or 7 turns of feed line coax around a 
stack of 5 large FT-240 mix 31 cores.  Also, I keep the control line separated 
from the feed line by a few feet.  Make sure both are flat on the ground for 
the entire run if possible. These steps will enhance the performance.


> On 11/05/2020 11:25 AM Bill Shell - N6WS  wrote:
> 
>  
> Tom,
> 
> I use the DX Engineering DXE-RG5000HD receiver guard and DX Engineering 
> DXE-RPA-2 receive preamplifier ahead of my FTDX101MP. They are both 
> located in my shack.  I changed from the internal K9AY preamp for better 
> use on 60m.  I can tell a difference if I turn the preamp off.  I don't 
> know how well it would be to locate the preamp at the antenna.
> 
> 73, Bill
> N6WS
> 
> On 11/5/2020 2:09 AM, Wojciech Tomczyk via Topband wrote:
> > Hello OMs,
> > I plan to build a K9AY antenna.My question is about location of its 
> > preamplifier.I consider locating it inside the control box at the base of 
> > the antenna.Does it have any advantage/disadvantage? I am concerned about 
> > signal strength loss in coax between antenna and radio if amplifier is 
> > located at the receiver side.I do appreciate any comments-
> > Tom, SP7WT
> > _
> > 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: Little Pistol Report-Oct 9/10

[Joe Galicic]

Hi Bill,
 
Sounds like you and I are both having lots of fun on 160 meters with very 
modest setups !  I have also worked many VK's and a ZL with 100 watts the past 
two weeks as well as hearing many JA's.  I have been working some EU in the 
evenings.

I'm just getting my 160 meter antenna up here in SC which for now is a 
converted (bypassing the 49:1 matching transformer) 80-10 end fed half wave 
with 21 longish radials on the ground.  Apex is around 50.  All hidden in my 
tall pines.  

Amazing conditions on 160 for sure ! 

73, 

Joe
N3HEE/4


> On 10/10/2020 8:57 AM Bill Stewart  wrote:
> 
>  
> GM All, 
> I usually sit on the side line and read the postings, but wanted to throw in 
> my 2 cents worth on 
> this mornings condx. I thought the band would be noisy due to the remnants of 
> the storm west 
> of NC, but the band was quiet. I also was able to work a few VK's...four to 
> be exact. The strongest, 
> by far, was VK4KW. He peaked around 7:10AM here in NC and was a real 589. I 
> was able to work 
> two other VK's last week. Last night I worked the first EU stn of the season, 
> OK1CF. He was quite 
> strong, but no other EU stns were head. The setup here is quite simple...a 
> TS-440S, 100w and a 
> avg. inverted L, with a four wire CP, all of which are covered over with tall 
> pines. Sure hope condx 
> are good for another top band season. Little pistols can have fun toohi. 
> 73 de Bill K4JYS 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: VK6LR Kevin sigs 559-569 from 1111z-1145z this morning on 1821.4 (cw)

[Joe Galicic]

I worked VK6LW with 100 watts at 11:33 Z this morning.  He was peaking nicely 
here at SC sunrise.  WOW, that was fun !  

I'm in the process of putting up antennas for 160 at my South Carolina QTH.  
Inverted L with apex at 50 feet with 14 longish (75-100 feet) radials so far.  
No RX antennas yet.  No amplifier at this QTH yet either.

I heard other VK's over the past couple of mornings as well as JH1HDT this 
morning, I was surprised how strong HL5IVL was yesterday morning. I called 
several times but he did not hear me.  VK2WF got a partial call sign for me but 
we didn't make the QSO. He was very strong at my sunrise each morning I heard 
him.

Getting ready for the upcoming 160 contest season.  

Fun stuff !!

Joe
N3hEE


> On 10/04/2020 8:10 AM w3...@roadrunner.com wrote:
> 
>  
> worked Kevin on first call, simplex. He was in there pretty well from
> -1145z, although qsb at times took him into the noise, here in
> central Ohio.
> 
> Our Twilight-SR times today were 7:03 local- 7:30 local. or
> 1103-1130z.
> 
> A second VK6 was spotted but I never heard him. 
> 
> But those SR tables really work! His strongest sigs peaked right at SR
> and were about the same for 19 mins before and 15 mins after SR. 
> 
> Heard a very faint JA but not well enough to call. Think it was HDT
> 
>   -From:
> topband-requ...@contesting.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday October 3 2020 12:06:06PM
> Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 214, Issue 2
> 
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
>  topband@contesting.com
> 
>  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 
>  --
> 
>  Subject: Digest Footer
> 
>  ___
>  Topband mailing list
>  Topband@contesting.com
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Rotator Potentiometer shunt fed twr

[Joe]

Has anyone thought of trying to make up a rotor position indicator using 
like a home brew encoder as described in the latest QST?


Joe WB9SBD

On 8/23/2020 6:18 PM, Larry via Topband wrote:

I use wire wound pots in both my rotators and have experienced problems with 
them burning out on certain TX frequencies.
Wound some small toroid transformers and soldered them at each of the three pot 
leads (at the rotator). Problem solved.
larryn7dd


-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 23, 2020 10:17 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Rotator Potentiometer shunt fed twr

On 8/23/2020 2:39 PM, Phil Duff wrote:

Aren't most rotors and their masts normally grounded thru the rotor body
and mast clamp & mounting bolts to their tower/support?

Antenna current at the joint between the two pieces of the rotator is a
common source of IMD, as first articulated by W3LPL (although he calls
it something else).

73, Jim K9YC
_
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: RFI

[Joe]

tHE buzz IN THE FIRST PART OF THE VIDEO IS DEFINITELY POWER LINE 
NOISE. THE PULSING ONE AT THE END i HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS.


oops sorry caplock was on.

put it in AM mode, and look at the signal on a scope, if it's power line 
it will be obvious.



Joe WB9SBD

On 6/24/2020 3:44 PM, fmoeves wrote:

Hoping someone can help me identify this noise.It's on 160 80 40...most times 
stronger on 40.I called the power company..they found nothing.The video is just 
after some rain. When it rains it goes away. 
https://www.riverbendphotos.com/UnlistedGalleries/Web-Photos/n-mMvp3/i-7fKDp6sThanks
 Fred KB4QZH
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Joe]

Speaking of broadbandedness.

OK, what differences would it be bandwidth wise?

Where does it matter to get the wider bandwidth/

At the feedpoint?

At the far end?

In other words, you get broader bandwidth using Rohn 25 than using say a 
4" irrigation pipe.


Now how about if you have a broad base like a self supporting tower 
where the base is like 6 feet apart legs and then it tapers down to only 
a foot at the top.  Would that be broader than the Rohn 25?


Or take it the other way, take that same tower but put it up-side-down..

It is 12" across at the base at the feedpoint, but it is 6 feet wide at 
the top.


what would the bandwidth be like with that?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/15/2020 10:52 AM, Ken Claerbout wrote:

I would favor using an inductor.  Tune it for the lowest part of the
band.  Then using a relay or two, you can short out turns if you want
to move higher in the band.  Although I think you will find using Rohn
25, it will be pretty broad.

73
Ken K4ZW


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:28 AM  wrote:


Hi Ron,



A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.


How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?


A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for
resonance around 1820 kHz

If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the
vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet
of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.



Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band.


73
Frank
W3LPL





- Original Message -

From: "Tree" 
To: "Ron WV4P" 
Cc: "160" 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.

Tree N6TR

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:


I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115'
- 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short
? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)

Thanks in advance,
Ron WV4P
_
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



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

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Joe]

Myself I like longer,

Yes gotta use a cap, But not too big a deal, I find more variable caps 
at hamfests than roller inductors.


PLUS, longer raises the natural impedance too closer to 50 ohms. Of 
course NOT 50 but higher than 1/4 wave resistance.


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/15/2020 10:18 AM, Tree wrote:

Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
difference.  If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.

Tree N6TR

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:


  I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115'
- 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short
? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)

Thanks in advance,
Ron WV4P
_
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: FT8 clutter on the DX Cluster

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

The solution is to switch to DXLab Suite (DXKeeper for logging,
and SpotCollector for cluster/spotting).  SpotCollector allows
the operator to block spots based on digital mode - e.g., one
can block JT9/JT65/FT4/FT4 spots and still display RTTY spots.

The mode of a given spot is identified by the notes field and/or
frequency.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2020-05-13 10:44 AM, Wes wrote:
I think it is probably automatic.  Some are even posting every spot 
twice.  I emailed one guy and asked him why and he was clueless.


Mind you, I only occasionally look at spots on the web (DXScape) so 
mental filtering is just fine for this Luddite.


Wes N7WS


On 5/13/2020 7:24 AM, pwhel...@earthlink.net wrote:

Yea, not sure why they have to post ever contact.  Maybe it's done
automatically by their software but again I would think it should be
configurable.

Regards,

Pat - KZ5J



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

Topband: KV4FZ

[Joe Dube]

Sorry to hear about Herb.  He was my first DX contact on topband.  He will be 
missed.

Joe Dube K4TR
830 Darby Lane
Brooksville, Fl., 34601
352-232-0281
www.k4tr.com


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted V vs inverted L

[Joe]

An Inverted "L" is more or less a vertical, but the upper half got bent 
over correct?


So a major part of an inverted "L" just as in a regular vertical is the 
ground system.

Correct?

Now how elevated radials work great in a regular vertical, only need 
like 4 to equal miles of wire in ground mounted radial field.


Will elevated radials work  for an inverted "L"?

How about few and shorter than full length elevated radials as in a N6BT 
design?


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/19/2020 11:35 AM, daraym...@iowatelecom.net wrote:
The inverted L will out perform and inverted vee, hands down, 90% of 
the time.  The few exceptions will probably be near your local SR (and 
other times) when horizontal polarization can work better.    
73. . . Dave, W0FLS


-Original Message- From: Peter Krulewitch
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 11:28 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Inverted V vs inverted L

Have used inverted L with 90 apex for several years but wonder whether 
comparison tests or experiences with inverted V at that height 
compares. Tnx fer your ideas.W2LL


Sent from my iPhone
_
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: BCB Filter Recommendation?

[Joe]

What makes me most angry?

Is radio manufacturers that include steep filters and even attenuators 
in their radios to block AM Broadcast band signals. Then advertise that 
their radio covers from 50 KC to 60 Mhz!

Sorry NO IT DOES NOT!!!

Yes make the filters and or attenuators but make them so WE can choose 
when to have them on or not!

Make them switchable! There is no reason why this can not be done!

Some people do not live near a station they have to worry about. And 
like to do AM Band DXing!


It is extremely sad when a ten buck radio with it's internal ferrite bar 
antenna performs better than my $4000.00 dollar radio using a 600 foot 
loop up 60 feet antenna!


LET US decide if we need the filtering or not!

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/17/2020 6:16 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

Most AM plants have been where they are for decades.  I remember being
at the local 670 site several years ago.  That tx site has been there
since the 1930s.  This is a ~800 foot tower, now with two signals on
it, 670 and 780, each 50 KW which means the total peak power on
positive modulation is roughly 400 KW.  I recall seeing a little 60
foot ham tower about a block away with a 3 el. beam on it, and
wondering how any ham could be dumb enough to buy a house in the
shadow of a major market ND class A-1 station.I would not even
consider buying a house near a 1 KW daytimer.   I'm about 10 miles
from the 670 site and that's bad enough.  Being a quarter mile from it
would be a nightmare.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Topband: 300 ohm twin lead for bidirectional Beverage antennas

[Joe Giacobello, K2XX via Topband]

I'm considering putting up two bidirectional Beverage RX antennas.  It 
appears that most of the recommendations for Beverages consider the 
close spacing of 300 ohm twin lead undesirable for reasons that are not 
entirely clear, but the consensus if far from unanimous.  I'd like to 
hear the judgment of this list's Beverage experts on the question?


Thanks for your input.

73, Joe
K2XX
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 4SQ Arrays in proximity

[Joe]

I wonder if say the 160 4SQ was positioned as a + with the antennas at 
the ends of the lines N S E W


and then the 80 meter one 45 degrees rotated IE: X so they are an odd 
maybe less frequency related spacings?


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 1/28/2020 2:48 PM, Ilmo Anttil wrote:

I have had for about 20 years 160 m four square and 80m four square inside. 
There is in center 50 high tower and both antennas are of wire elements with 
elevated radials. 160 directions are North East, South East, South West and 
North West. 80m elements are turned 45 degrees; North, East, South and West.
160 meters works very well with about 15dB F/B and sometimes more. 80 meters is 
not that good F/B is about 10dB.
All elements are connected all the time to couplers.
I do see my 80m antenna is good in performance anyway as here is a clear 
interaction to 160m antenna.
I have not used modelling or carried out any precise measurements of 
performance of these antennas.

73
Ilmo, OH2BO

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Topband 
[mailto:topband-bounces+ilmo.anttila=qualisys...@contesting.com] Puolesta Jan 
Erik Holm
Lähetetty: 28. tammikuutata 2020 20:29
Vastaanottaja: topband@contesting.com
Aihe: Re: Topband: 4SQ Arrays in proximity

I once was thinking about a deal like this. In my case I wanted
to put a 40m 4SQ inside my 80m 4SQ.
I did model it and saw a slight gain loss, think it was just
around 1 dB or so. I didn´t like that so I instead did put
the 40m 4SQ 300m/1000ft away from the 80m array. I´m sure
I could have bettered the situation by detune the 80m
antennas but I never did look in to that.
Gain loss was on the 40m array, the 80m didn´t get hurt.

/ Jim SM2EKM


Den 2020-01-28 kl. 17:43, skrev Mpridesti via Topband:

I had heard several negative mentions of placing an 80 m system inside a 160 m 
4 square.  At my place, I placed my 80 m 4 SQ northeast of my 160 m 4 SQ. 
Closest elements are 75 feet away. Thinking I might get some negative 
interaction, I took K3LR’s suggest of opening the feed points of the 80 m array 
while I am using 160. Built a relay box that shorted the cable ends (1/4 wave 
75 ohm lines) so electrically opened the feed points. Pretty simple.

Then spent a lot of time listening to WebSDR receivers in EU and switched that 
relay box on/off to see if I saw any gain variation with the 160 antenna. I saw 
no difference. However I have found a very slight improvement in F/B or F/S 
when the 80 m array was open circuited (shorting relays engaged).

On the flip side of this, I have not seen any impact on 80 to the SW as I beam 
through the 160 array. I have reference antennas on each band to check array 
performance.

I continue to experiment on 160 - fun retirement project with lots of exercise!

Seems array interaction varies with different stations.  I did not model my 
setup.

Regards,

Mark, K1RX



On Jan 28, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Tree  wrote:

W7IV asks:

" --I am planning a 160m TX 4SQ and another for 80M.   Their centers are
going to be about 300' apart - is this far enough away?  I have a little
bit of room to move them apart, but am lucky enough as it is to have the
space to get this.  The closest verticals will be about 200' apart."

My experience supports the post K9YC just made that you don't need to worry
about this.

I used to have an 80 meter 4 square with my 160 meter TX antenna right in
the middle of it and
everything worked great.  You can also see this in the ON4UN antenna
system.

73 Tree N6TR


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:33 AM Paul F. Merrill 
wrote:

HI - I have a couple questions -

--I am planning a 160m TX 4SQ and another for 80M.   Their centers are
going to be about 300' apart - is this far enough away?  I have a little
bit of room to move them apart, but am lucky enough as it is to have the
space to get this.  The closest verticals will be about 200' apart.

--I'll be using N6BT vertical dipoles, so there will be no radial issues.

--WRT TX chokes - I'm worried about constructing feedline chokes for the
feedpoints and still having enough cable (.85vf) to get to the phasing
box.  How have others done this?  Do you have a choke and did you add it to
pre-cut phasing lines or did you wind the chokes and work backwards towards
the center to get the required electrical or physical length?  Did you used
magnet wire for the choke instead of coax?

I've come across N6RO's helpful 2017 writeup of his 4SQ refurbishment and
it touches on these issues.  Anyone else have time to share some wisdom?

Thanks in advance, Paul / W7IV
_
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

Re: Topband: ARRL 160m

[Joe Galicic]

Steve, I'm sure glad you stayed in the chair long enough to hear and work me.  
I was running 5 watts.  I called you many times throughout the contest before 
you heard me Saturday evening during prop enhancement.  Thrilling to work 2000 
miles QRP on 160 meters. You did all the heavy lifting for me ! :)  TU es 73  
-Joe N3HEE


> On December 9, 2019 at 11:35 AM VE6WZ_Steve  wrote:
> 
> 
> This was the first time I made a serious attempt at the ARRL 160m contest. 
> Usually I will just poke around and hand out mults.  Since condx were looking 
> pretty good, I decided to stay in the chair a bit longer.
> 
> I must say I forgot how this contest is really more like SS with some DX 
> thrown in rather than a real DX contest. I knew the band was in great shape 
> to EU because of how loud the EU callers were, at least 4 of which were 
> dupes. At around 4 AM, John SM5EDX called in to tell me I had a great signal 
> at his local NOON! So I knew the band was in good shape over the pole at my 
> morning. The band was wall-to-wall during prime-time, but I could usually 
> find a CQ hole somewhere.  If you left a run spot to go pee, it would be gone 
> within about 1 or 2 minutes.
> 
> 1319 QSOs (1381 total QSOs but 62 dupes!!! some guys just kept duping me, 
> multiple times…I just kept logging them)
> 83 sec (I worked all sections  before I went to bed Friday night)
> 
> 52 DXCC:
> 
> EU- 114 QSOs, 25 DXCC
> 
> AS- 97 QSOs, 5 DXCC: 86 JA, 7 UA9, 2 HL, 1 BY, 1 JT
> 
> OC- 8 QSOs, 2 DXCC: 7 KH6, 1 5W
> 
> SA- 3 QSOs, 3 DXCC: 1 CE, 1 YV, 1 PJ2
> 
> AF-1 QSO, 1 DXCC: 1 D4
> 
> I was operating my remote station using the Flex 6600, ACOM 2000a, 2 el TX, 
> and multiple RX.
> My preferred radio is the K3s because it has superior weak signal RX, but it 
> has no waterfall via the remote.
> 
> My remote station is a challenge to operate a contest like this. Here is some 
> info on how things are set-up.
> 
> I am not "a boy and his radio",  I am "a boy and his PC".  I use the Flex 
> 6600 PC software on one monitor, and the remote station PC is on the other 
> monitor where I log with N1MM and control the station.  There is no physical 
> radio or switching at the operating table. Just the PC, a mouse and a 
> keyboard.
> I always use diversity RX with my 9 circle array in one ear, and the 
> Beverages in the other. Each has 8 compass directions and each are controlled 
> with a clickable rotor compass dial on the PC.  SO...to change directions I 
> need to click the 9 circle, then click the Beverage selector, and then click 
> the TX array direction, then get the cursor back to N1MM to log. Often I 
> would be RX in multiple directions in each ear which was handy, but boyIm 
> pretty sure I'm developing carpel tunnel syndrome from using that mouse!  
> During the morning run was really crazy...JA, OC, NA, N polar and EU all 
> possible signal arrivals!
> If I was RX for JA, and some polar EU would call if I had one ear on EU I 
> might hear them, but then if they are weak, I need time to switch the other 
> RX to have good copy.  If the callers are only dumping their call once…I 
> might not get it.  Same with NA calling from the back of the RX.  The 
> Beverage broadside phased pairs are very sharp, and the difference can be 
> copy-no copy just between N to NE.  I may consider adding my RBN skimmer 30m 
> loop into the RX mix so I can have “omni” rx, but it does not hear as well.
> So if I missed any callers, or seemed really slow responding, it was probably 
> because I was busy switching my RX and struggling to get the mouse back into 
> N1MM to type in a call.  This is one disadvantage of the remote compared to 
> having a physical direction switch so I could keep the focus on N1MM.
> There were some very exceptional EU signals, some of which when they called I 
> was sure they were NA.
> On Friday night at 0730z JE1BMJ and JE1CKA got my attention even though I was 
> RX for EU. This was just at JA sunset. I switched to JA and had a nice run on 
> 41 JA till I went to bed at 0830z.
> Congrats to Joel VE6WQ at VE6JY and Eric VE6BBP who were both rocking the 
> band during the contest.
> 
> Thanks to those how called me and could hear me.
> Lets hope these great conditions persist throughout the season.
> 
> 73, de steve ve6wz
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: PreStew coming next weekend

[Joe Galicic]

Hi Nick, Nice to work you in Stew Perry.  You were my best DX !!  -Joe N3HEE

> On October 21, 2019 at 4:25 PM uy0zg  wrote:
> 
> 
> In southern Ukraine, there was heavy fog at night and in the morning.
> 
> I heard VE / W very quietly.
> 
> Audibility from 3 to 6, qsb..
> 
> In any case, it was very interesting!
> 
> 
> ---
> Nick, UY0ZG
> http://www.topband.in.ua
> 
> Kenneth Grimm писал 2019-10-21 23:07:
> > Nick, when you called me, you were very readable and easy copy.  I
> > think I even said "good sig" or something like that.  You should have
> > had no difficulty running. I agree that the problem wsn't with your
> > sigs, but with receiving conditions in the  US.  I worked over twice
> > as many Europeans when I was running than when I was S/P.  There were
> > lots of Europeans that I could have easily worked that were busy
> > trying to work the DX near 1.825 or so.  I think it must have been
> > VP6R who I worked for zero points since he only sent a sig rpt.  I'm
> > sure that conditions will be better for the Big Stew!  Weather
> > conditions should have quieted down by then.
> > 73 and thanks for the QSO Nick.  I think you were the longest distance
> > for me.
> > 
> > Ken - K4XL
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:32 PM uy0zg  wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi
> >> 
> >> In southern Ukraine it was very weak with North America.
> >> 
> >> None of the NA answered my CQ TEST.
> >> 
> >> All QSOs are the result of my search.
> >> 
> >> Many quickly disassembled my signal.
> >> 
> >> Super RX - K1KI, NO3M.
> >> 
> >> Doesn't hear anyone K3CCR.
> >> 
> >> CX6VM I listened only to the vertical!
> >> 
> >> After sunrise, the XE2X heard me.
> >> 
> >> _
> >> 
> >> I am very pleased - good Contest.
> >> 
> >> ---
> >> Nick, UY0ZG
> >> http://www.topband.in.ua
> >> 
> >> Tree писал 2019-10-13 19:12:
> >>> The popular PreStew event is coming on Oct 19/20th next weekend
> >>> starting at
> >>> 1500Z and running for 24 hours.
> >>> 
> >>> The band has been improving with good signals from Europe into
> >> West
> >>> coats
> >>> of North America and daily openings from VK to North America and
> >>> Europe.
> >>> 
> >>> Full rules and previous results available at
> >> http://www.kkn.net/stew
> >>> 
> >>> Tree N6TR
> >>> _
> >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >>> Reflector
> >> _
> >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> >> Reflector
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Ken - K4XL
> > BoatAnchor Manual Archive
> > BAMA - http://bama.edebris.com
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Shunt feed question

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2019-10-15 4:30 PM, Marty Ray wrote:
I can obtain a good match using the 65 ft tap point, but my question 

> is why my analyzer is measuring a change in the feedpoint resistance
> (real component of R + jX).

Because the *shunt* capacitor creates an L network with the impedance
(R +/- jX) at the bottom of the gamma arm.  Mathematically you are doing
a series to parallel conversion.  For normal gamma operations where the
tap point can be set to achieve close to a 50 Ohm 'real' impedance one
wants the single capacitor *in series* with the gamma arm to "tune out"
the residual (typically) series inductance (+jX).

The alternative is an *OMEGA* match (two capacitors - one shunt from the
gamma arm to ground then another in series with the center conductor of
the coax to the junction of the gamma rod/shunt capacitor).  The omega
match is generally used with an antenna too short that has a high real
"R" at the end of the gamma rod - the shunt capacitor transforms the R
down to 50 Ohms and the series capacitor (or inductor in some cases) 
tunes out the residual X.


73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-10-15 4:30 PM, Marty Ray wrote:

Thanks for the response Herb. I can obtain a good match using the 65 ft tap 
point, but my question is why my analyzer is measuring a change in the 
feedpoint resistance (real component of R + jX).

Regards,
Marty


On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm  
wrote:

Best to use a 3 or 4 wire cage feed and you will find the match easier.  You 
should tap the tower at 50 feet and work down till you find the sweet spot.  A 
500 to 750 vac variable will take care of any measure inductive component.

Herb, KV4FZ


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:10 PM Marty Ray  wrote:
I am shunt feeding a 70 ft Trylon tower with a Tennadyne T12.10-30HD LPDA at 70 
ft and a full size 40m rotatable dipole at 79 ft, (the top of the mast is ~85 
ft). Both antennas have relays that electrically bond them to the tower when 
the shunt feed is in use.

I have tried two shunt tap points, one at 65 feet and another at 45 feet. Using 
a Rig Expert AA-55 Zoom, the Rs measured a little over 100 ohms on the 65 foot 
version and 49 ohms on the 45 foot version. In both cases, adding the shunt 
capacitor caused Rs to drop by approximately 50 percent, (to around 60 ohms and 
23 ohms respectively).

I expected Rs to not change much, if any. I tried a vacuum variable, an air 
variable and a silver mica. Same result.

Has anyone seen this happen before?

Regards,
Marty N9SE



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

Re: Topband: Inverted L in contact with leaves

[Joe Galicic]

Hi Pete. My inverted L over K2AV FCP was in the trees touching limbs and 
leaves.  Although it worked OK it wasn't until I moved it into the clear that I 
realized how much signal I was loosing having it in the trees.  Nearly 3db 
increase according to RBN after the move.  RBN testing was done immediately 
before and after the move.  Of course this test is just a relative indicator 
but it did show a lot of improvement after the move.  I know Guy K2AV has done 
similar test with similar results.  -Joe N3HEE


> On August 29, 2019 at 11:23 AM N4ZR  wrote:
> 
> 
> My inverted L is taking shape - about 60 vertical, the rest horizontal.  
> For a couple of months anyway, it is touching a number of leaves in the 
> vertical section.  I assume that's not a concern, but thought I'd ask 
> before I get a lot of radials down. First short radial is down and 
> MFJ-259 results look promising.  It's just a problem of waiting for lawn 
> mowing to stop hi.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
> at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FYI Robot contacts "outlawed" by ARRL

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2019-08-21 2:22 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
So I don't see anything preventing someone from seeing and clicking 
on half a dozen calls before bedtime and waking up with all or many 
of them worked.

No to press the subject but "contemporaneous" in the new rules would
prevent that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-08-21 2:22 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:

Actually, I think this topic is very relevant to the "fringe bands" like
160M and 6M.

  


The way I read the purposely non-detailed direction from the board
"contemporaneous direct initiation by the operator on

both sides of the contact.".  With the known software in mind, that would
look to say that as long as you click on the callsign to be worked, it
counts, even if it got worked hours later while you slept.

  


But after it is worked, the next callsign has to have been clicked.  Which
could be the next on the stack of calls of what you saw before you went to
bed.

  


So I don't see anything preventing someone from seeing and clicking on half
a dozen calls before bedtime and waking up with all or many of them worked.
Since 160M is a nighttime band and often the peak is in the middle of the
night local time for EU or AF, it's a very relevant 160M DX topic.

  


Is this okay?  I don't think so.

  


Ed  N1UR

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


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

Re: Topband: Effect of trees on vertical elements?

[Joe]

A Few years ago there was a detailed article all about this in QST.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/19/2019 6:49 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

Hi John,


Horizontal polarization isn't very effective on topband except for local
QSOs. It would be far better if you could install an inverted-L vertical


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "John Harper" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:57:49 PM
Subject: Topband: Effect of trees on vertical elements?

I'm thinking of installing an end-fed half-wave dipole as an "inverted U"
for 160m. My tree geometry is such that the antenna would be fed at the
base of a tree, then go up it to 120 feet. Then about 90 feet to another
tree and down it to complete the length of the antenna.

Would the close proximity of the vertical portions to the two trees
adversely affect the antenna's performance?

Last year I used my 80m dipole-110-foot vertical feedline as a top-loaded
vertical on 160 - it worked well as a transmitting antenna but was a poor
receiver due to noise so looking for another option.

Tnx/73,

John AE5X
https://ae5x.blogspot.com
_
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: FT*???

[Joe K2UF]

It would be like having a conversation with someone half way to mars.  ;o)

Joe K2UF


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

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

Re: Topband: WAR !

[Joe]

I thought an Automatic Station was never ever legal at all.  Except for 
a Beacon.


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 10:22 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

It depends on that specific countries rules.

ARRL is not allowing automated contacts for their awards programs 
anymore.



On 8/3/2019 9:17 AM, Joe wrote:

What I do not understand on all this is.

If the station is running on itself UN-attended.

Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 9:20 AM, Mark Lunday wrote:

Dave, that's interesting.

If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the 
Pacific with an HF rig on it.  Hams could call the buoy and work it 
on FT8.  Because it reported grid location, callers could work 
different grids as the thing floated with the currents.


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





_
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: WAR !

[Joe]

What I do not understand on all this is.

If the station is running on itself UN-attended.

Is that just not even legal. Never mind ethical?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/3/2019 9:20 AM, Mark Lunday wrote:

Dave, that's interesting.

If I remember correctly, there was a data buoy floating in the Pacific with an 
HF rig on it.  Hams could call the buoy and work it on FT8.  Because it 
reported grid location, callers could work different grids as the thing floated 
with the currents.

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




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

Re: Topband: 160

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is
sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are
different from those required for the traditional modes.


Absolutely not!  All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common
than they have differences.  There is more difference between CW and
SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXCC
Mixed.  The key for any mode is knowing what band/time to choose
(when propagation is most favorable) and understanding where the
other station is listening.  Those apply to FTx as much as CW or SSB.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-08-02 8:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! 
FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x 
are different from those required for the traditional modes. A new award 
category would reflect that.

I would go further, but I don't think too far:
FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini DXpedition 
I asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. He said, 
sure, give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one that was part 
of the FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, while using his 
laptop to watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, and he was in chats 
with friends (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was somewhat peeved, until I 
came to realize that this is how the new generation lives: 
multi-threading using their electronic devices. Unlike us, most of them 
are not willing to put on the head-phones and concentrate on weak CW 
signals for hours, to the exclusion of everything else. They don't live 
like that and they will not enjoy a hobby like that. It is not my place 
to judge whether this is good or bad. It is what it is. But to attract 
this new "multi-activity generation" to HAM radio (an entire 
generation, not just the odd kid), the hobby must offer a mode that is 
compatible with how they live. FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be 
operated remotely from a smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or 
train and doing other things... And, yes, it can be automated.
There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in a 
month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix his 
achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to be 
very analog these days.)

73,
George,
AA7JV





On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
  Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:

This is nonsense


That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is 
cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers 
and creative software writing to any of the digital modes including 
CW


That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
participation for all users.


Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom 
or grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second 
that the FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a 
couple hours and come back later to tally up your take as you describe 
you are showing your lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.


Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a minute.  
Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the legal 
limit when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 meters, 
or not using a remote station element to gain an unfair advantage to 
add a new one...nope.

But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility 
exists that someone will cheat...I think not.


I for one think you should rethink your article before submission Alan...

Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL
On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  
wrote:


. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and 
come back after some other activity and see how many new countries 
and QSOs that the computer made, 


_
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: 160

[Joe]

Anywhere this auto list is viewable?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/2/2019 4:03 AM, Ross Johnson wrote:
To Carl , my computer is not cleaver enough to work 60 countries FT8 
on its own.
I have to check grey line, put many hours in on band, check 
DXpeditions  ETC

Don’t forget hardware and radio gear.

To Nick and George. K1JT has put out a list identifying call signs 
they believe  are using automated stations, you cant tell me others 
have not cheated. There was callsigns mentioned on these pages recently.


To problem solver Kevin K3OX ,you  have helped some here by pointing 
out Mix DXCC is not CW  DXCC or SSB DXCC


Well done

73  Ross   ZL3RJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


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

Re: Topband: Beverage length

[Joe]

Thanks Drew,

I thought for some reason it was behaving like a dipole. At short 
lengths more boradside to the antenna and as it gets longer the lobe 
gets smaller and more pointing towards the end of the wire.


Now, a BOG.

if you do NOT terminate it, does it behave like a Rohmbic where it's Bi 
directional?


BOG does the wire need to be insulated? or can it be bare/

Joe
WB9SBD
On 8/1/2019 2:27 PM, Drew Vonada-Smith wrote:

Joe,


For a simple Beverage, you just point the antenna (unfed end) at the target.  For length, 
"longer is better" is approximately true, but the ideal lengths are about 1 to 
2 wavelengths.  Much longer than that, and phased shorter Beverages work better.  Much 
shorter than that, and you might as well use some other type of RX antenna.  One Bev can 
work pretty well on both 160 and 80, and will occasionally be useful on other bands also. 
 During spring/summer precip static, common in KS, the Bev is often my only usable RX 
antenna on ANY HF band!


A Beverage has negative gain.  But you don't care about absolute strength, you 
only care about S/N, as any modern radio has enough gain on 160M for the 
smallish Beverage signal to be fine.  Some, like me, use a preamp just so the 
various RX antenna gains are approximately equal when switching between them.  
A 15 dB preamp brings my 600 ft Bev signal strengths to the level of my TX 
Inv-L on 160.  But you don't need it.


Beverages are not in the great favor they once were, mostly due to the advent 
of excellent vertical arrays.  But they still have the big advantage of being 
the simplest RX antenna one can imagine, that nearly always works as described 
without difficulty, assuming you have the space.  And cheap!


Reversible Beverages are only slightly more complicated and give you another 
direction with no more space required.  Lots of good articles out there for a 
Google.


73,

Drew K3PA




--

Message: 18
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:25:25 -0500
From: Joe 
To: Wes , topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: BOG height
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

beverages have always fascinated me. But I have never had the property
to have one.

I might now, BUT, how do you know how long and what direction to lay it
out to maximize signal to the desired direction?

I assume the longer it is, the higher gain it has and more towards the
ends the lobe is?

Joe WB9SBD

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




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

Re: Topband: BOG height

[Joe]

beverages have always fascinated me. But I have never had the property 
to have one.


I might now, BUT, how do you know how long and what direction to lay it 
out to maximize signal to the desired direction?


I assume the longer it is, the higher gain it has and more towards the 
ends the lobe is?


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 8/1/2019 1:01 PM, Wes wrote:
Doesn't "BOG" mean, Beverage On Ground?  If so, isn't the answer, "on 
the ground"?


Wes  N7WS

On 8/1/2019 10:08 AM, Paul Mclaren wrote:
Just a ‘simple’ question hopefully - How close to the ground should a 
BOG

be for best/good performance?

I am looking for any additional info that I can get to supplement what I
have found online already so good on the balun, wire type and 
termination

resistor.

My single unterminated beverage I have at the moment was 
transformational
compared to a Wellbrooke loop but the location it is in will soon be 
80 new

homes so time to look elsewhere.  Current plan is a small number (maybe
three) BOG antennas switched by a remote relay but distance is 
limited to

200ft maximum in any direction.

Plan is to use the BOGs for 160 but also 80,40 and maybe 30m.

Regards

Paul MM0ZBH
_
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: Ticks

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2019-07-16 12:33 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> I live in an area prone to Lyme disease, but we've never seen a deer
> tick here, only dog (wood) ticks.

You may not see a deer tick.  They are much smaller than the more common
dog tick - the deer tick is about the size of the period at the end of a
printed sentence.  Unfortunately, we have both even down here in Florida
and my wife has already experienced the "bullseye" rash.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-07-16 12:33 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:

Note that Permethrin is deadly fatal to cats. I didn't know that until I read 
the label on the bottle, after which I threw it away (we're very fond of our 
cat.)

I wear knee-length gators, long pants, a long sleeve shirt and a hat when 
working outside, and always strip down and check my body for ticks when I go 
inside. Important to carefully check in your hair, as they like to crawl up 
there and hide.

I try to do most of my antenna work in the fall when it isn't so hot, but near 
as I can tell, ticks are present from when the snow melts to when it falls 
again.

I live in an area prone to Lyme disease, but we've never seen a deer tick here, 
only dog (wood) ticks. But that doesn't mean they aren't here. We have deer and 
mice on the property every day.

73, Dick WC1M



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

Re: Topband: K2AVQ FCP antenna

[Joe Galicic]

Richard,

  The FCP is very sensitive to any variations from it’s design specifications.  
You would do well to keep it at least 8 feet off the ground from the bottom 
wire.  Also keep it away from ANY dielectric materials such as wood, wooden 
fences, trees, etc.  

The aerial wire must also be installed as far away from dielectric materials.

I have mine mounted eight feet above ground with 6 inch plastic standoffs 
attached to wooden 2x4 supports.  This is a compromise installation.

It made a big difference when I added the 6 inch standoffs.  I should use PVC 
supports.  I also have a wooden fence right below my FCP.  Nothing I can do 
about that.

When installed properly the FCP will work much better than a compromised ground 
radial system on a small lot.

The FCP made a big difference for me on 160 meters !

Joe 
N3HEE




> On June 9, 2019 at 2:04 PM Richard McLachlan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Can anybody who has put one of these up advise me?
> 
> The original article specifies a counterpoise height above ground of 8 feet. 
> I am going to try one but it would be much better in the intended location if 
> the lowest wire was at 6 feet rather than 8. Has anybody experimented with a 
> lower height and if so was the performance much degraded? Other than that I 
> am following the build instructions to the letter.
> 
> Richard G3OQT
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: #1 W1BB

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

There was no reply and to this day, nearly 50 years later they have
never allowed such an award.

To the contrary - ARRL offer endorsement plates for 160, 30, 17, 12
and 6 meters that can be attached to a 5BDXCC plaque turning 5BDXCC
into 6BDXCC - 10BDXCC.  Mine is missing only the 6 Meter plate.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-05-29 2:27 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

Yes indeed about Stew Perry.  The  ARRL really fooled around with the
160-meter DXCC award. But even worse, when they issued me mine I realized I
had the first ever 6-band DXCC. I asked the powers that be if the would
issue me this.  The answer was "no way."  I said then "If a 5-band DXCC was
such an accomplishment then why would a 6-band DXCC be also?"  There was no
reply and to this day, nearly 50 years later they have never allowed such
an award. So I made one up on the computer and just hung it to the wall.
Case closed. as the ARRL is not very member-friendly but you already
knew that.

Herb, KV4FZ

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 1:35 PM Greg Chartrand via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:


The first time I met with Stew he had his 160 DXCC application in ARRL
hands for quite a while and they would not issue the certificate or tell
him whether they would or not.
His position was in effect, I guess I have some enemies there. He was
quite a gentleman about the whole thing again saying in effect I know I was
the first if they acknowledge it or not.
Quite a man!
G.



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

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 197, Issue 25

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

According to the list as published in K1ZM's book "DXing on the Edge -
The Thrill of 160 Meters" (c) 1997, the first five 160 DXCCs are:

1) W1BB
2) W1HT
3) W8LRL
4) KV4FZ
5) K1PBW

Due to a clerical error there were two #25 G3RPB and OK1ATP.  There was
no #99 to compensate.

Jeff lists the first 250 certificates issued - many calls will be very
familiar to old-timers on top band.


73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-05-28 6:45 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

The real question is not why W1BB is #1 or W8LRL is #2 but why there are
two #3's and no #4.  This goes right to the heart of how the ARRL has been
wrongfully playing favorites.
Herb, KV4FZ


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

Re: Topband: FCP versus loaded or "T" radialsradials

[Joe Galicic]

Pete.  I use an inverted L over K2AV FCP on my tiny quarter acre lot in Point 
Of Rocks, MD. It has made all the difference in the world for my results on 160 
meters.  Before the FCP I used and inverted L with limited ground radials.  
Once I installed the FCP and worked (many many hours, thank you Guy) with Guy 
(K2AV) to get it working properly my performance on 160 meters went through the 
roof.  It is responsible for finishing DXCC + and WAS in the course of a year.  
I can’t say enough for the K2AV FCP on small lots !!  Please go forward with 
confidence that the K2AV FCP will work well for you too.  -Joe N3HEE


> On May 4, 2019 at 12:14 PM N4ZR  wrote:
> 
> 
> At the risk of setting off a food-fight, I'm interested in opinions on 
> shortened radials (T or loaded) versus the K2AC/W0UCE folded 
> counterpoise design.  W8JI has an interesting unfinished page 
>  attacking the FCP.  
> Tom's a combative fella, but he's also very smart.  I am putting up an 
> inverted L, trying to avoid having to lay down 6000 or even 750 feet of 
> on-the ground radials, and don't really have room for resonant elevated 
> radials on 160.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
> at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
> For spots, please use your favorite
> "retail" DX cluster.
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: FT-8 vs CW

[Joe]

To:   WSJT-X users interested in testing FT4
From: K1JT, K9AN, and G4WJS

Soon after the "FT8 Roundup" held on December 1-2, 2018, we started serious
work on a faster, more contest-friendly digital mode that can compete with
RTTY-contesting QSO rates while preserving many of the benefits of FT8.  The
result is FT4 -- a new digital mode specifically designed for radio
contesting.

Over the past month a small group of volunteers have been conducting
on-the-air tests of FT4.  The early tests were very successful and helped us
to make a number of important design decisions.  We believe
FT4 has considerable promise for its intended purpose.

We'll soon be ready for testing by a larger group.  If you might be
interested in participating and offering your considered feedback, please
read the descriptive document "The FT4 Protocol for Digital Contesting",
posted here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_Protocol.pdf

We plan to post downloadable installation packages for WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 on
April 29, one week from today.  The document linked above includes

  - Instructions for installing WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5 and FT4 configuration

  - Operating instructions for FT4

  - Basic description of the FT4 protocol, modulation, and waveform

  - Detailed sensitivity measurements for FT4 under a wide variety of
simulated propagation conditions

  - Schedule for upcoming test sessions

Please consider helping us to make FT4 a successful mode for digital
contesting

With best wishes and 73,

-- Joe (K1JT), Steve (K9AN), and Bill (G4WJS)

Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/24/2019 12:34 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Someone on 75m this morning said that there was a new FT-4 mode, meant for
contesting. I know nothing about it.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector




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

Re: Topband: Transmit antenna de-tuning relay.

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2019-03-23 1:57 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

My tower is a Rohn 45 90 footer and there must be some way of
detuning it via the skirt adjustment means to make it non-resonant at
1825 kHz This is similar to electrical towers being detuned near a
direction AM station so their pattern is FCC compliant.

Herb,

Calculate the impedance of your skirt and tower as a coaxial line
with outer diameter = diameter of the skirt and inner diameter = the 
effective diameter of the tower.  Once you know the Z of the trans-

mission line, calculate the inductive impedance of that length of
shorted transmission line.  When you have the XL, calculate the
capacitor necessary across he open end of that line to create a
parallel resonant network.  You have detuned (or anti-tuned) the
tower (the shirt/tower/cap becomes a parallel tuned circuit between
the feedline and any part of the tower (or antennas) above the
connection of the top of the skirt.

You can, of course, use a variable cap and connect an antenna analyzer
across the cap and adjust the cap for maximum impedance/zero reactance
if you want to be "right on the nose" (that's what the broadcast guys
would do - using a bridge an tuning for minimum on frequency RF).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-03-23 1:57 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

My tower is a Rohn 45 90 footer and there must be some way of detuning it
via the skirt adjustment means to make it non-resonant at 1825 kHz  This is
similar to electrical towers being detuned near a direction AM station so
their pattern is FCC compliant.   In some cases, the power companies used
some drop wires to get the electrical pole to resonate outside the AM
frequencies range. But we are talking about a pattern shift here and not
reradiated noise.  There must be a way other than moving the RX antennas
250 feet away from the tower.

Herb, KV4FZ.'


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

Re: Topband: 4 Square Receiving at 3V8SF

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> The vertical is 130m away from the array center.

Ash, at less than 1 wavelength the TX antenna is still within the
near field and can most certainly impact the receiving array.  The
real questions are how much does it impact the shortened verticals
(pattern impact) and how much noise does it radiate because it is
resonant.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-03-02 5:56 AM, Ashraf Chaabane wrote:

Clive,

The vertical is 130m away from the array center. I'm presuming this is a 
good distance to avoid interaction.


73 Ash 3V8SF

-- Original Message --
From: "Clive GM3POI" 
To: "Ashraf Chaabane" ; topband@contesting.com
Sent: 02/03/2019 11:54:48
Subject: RE: Topband: 4 Square Receiving at 3V8SF

Ash model in also your TX antenna and see whether you need to isolate 
that

vertical on RX with a relay.  73 Clive GM3POI

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ashraf
Chaabane
Sent: 02 March 2019 10:46
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: 4 Square Receiving at 3V8SF

Hi guys,

I built a 4 Square Receiving Array for 160m at 3V8SF. I put details in
my website: http://kf5eyy.info/topband.htm
The achieved F/B so far is 20 db and the F/S is 19 db. There is still
room for improvement with better matching of the elements. I'll need
time to do that.

Thanks to Ahmad 3V1B and Majdi 3V1M for helping me setting up of the
elements. Also to K7TJR, W3LPL and W0FLS
for the valuable support.

73 Ash 3V8SF, 3V8SS
www.kf5eyy.info
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector



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



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


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

Re: Topband: 4sq vs SAL 30 Mkii in a forest

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Any experience with the same or  thoughts?

I would recommend looking into the YCCC "9 circle" (or "5 square")
array.  Even though the kits are no longer available boards appear
to be available from the PI4CC group.

The vertical arrays are less susceptible to wildlife damage than
the SAL (due to the low horizontal wire of the SAL) and provide
a higher signal level (before the preamp).

I like the YCCC design because it has a cleaner pattern than the
4 square (the center element is not "split" and thus does not
cause a spurious sidelobe response).  Further, the "9 circle"
version provides 45 degree pattern selection (vs. 90 degrees for
the 4 square) and if 90 degree steps are acceptable, the 5 square
version provides the higher RDF in the same space (60' diagonal
square).

As long as you keep the verticals (or the ends of the SAL) 10 - 15'
or so from tree trunks and keep the "brush' out of the array any
degradation should be minimal (mostly as additional losses) with
any of the antenna designs.

If you are comfortable with NEC (antenna modelling), I urge you to
run the models of all three designs and make your own choice.  Based
on the models, the SAL appear to be "unstable" and more prone to
environmental factors that the "amplified" vertical arrays.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-02-18 2:56 PM, Mike Fischer wrote:

Hi all, newb to the topband 160 reflector here so thank you for any coaching or 
corrections on protocol…

I live on a heavily forested (douglas firs - almost all of which are 100’+) 
piece of land.

I have enough room left to put up either an SAL 30 or a  4sq of 20’ verts with 
80’ spacing. HiZ probably

Problem is regardless of which I choose, there will be at least one or two 
trees in the “infield“ and foliage around the edges.

Any experience with the same or  thoughts? Grateful for the coaching please 
feel free to reply direct to  mikebfisc...@comcast.net

73
K7XH




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

Re: Topband: ARRL DX contest

[Joe Galicic]

I was one of the 160 meter ops at W3LPL this weekend.  Conditions were 
spectacular both nights and Sunday evening!  Very loud signals and plenty of 
activity.  We managed 428 Q's with 85 countries.  It was lots of fun !  


> On February 17, 2019 at 6:59 PM Tim Shoppa  wrote:
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought the first night was FANTASTIC on 160M. But the last hour on
> Sunday was CRAZY. Especially northern Europe sounded like it was in my
> backyard. Scandinavian stations just booming in, rest of Europe doing great
> too!
> 
> Tim N3QE
> 
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:50 AM W7RH  wrote:
> 
> > Greetings All,
> >
> > Spotty openings to Europe from the SW with one surprise contact LZ2WO
> > just before sunset. Otherwise 1 G4, and a few EA stations. Also Q5 at
> > Sunset was IK2CLB with no QSO.
> >
> > After 0300 no further EU DX worked. The band went downhill rapidly. Off
> > to bed. In the morning only a few JA and RT0C were worked.
> >
> > Regarding V84SAA. Comments on the reflector were not cool. If you are
> > going to work one in the contest then work them all as a multiplier is
> > just that. Sorry if it's a dupe. However at my Sunrise you were doing
> > contest exchanges. IMHO
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Bob, W7RH
> >
> > --
> > W7RH DM35os
> >
> > "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
> > humanity." - Albert Einstein
> >
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> > Reflector
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: V84SAA SR report 15 Feb - ANd final schedules of operation

[Joe Reisert]

Hi Mike,

Jeff said they had preamp problems yesterday and are working on a fix.

73, Joe, W1JR


On 2/15/2019 6:06 AM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:

Jeff,

  


You guys had a good signal on 80m y'day at NA Maritime/New England SS (your
SR). LP to the SE from here.

  


AFACT, the 80m op did not ask for NA (a shame) and continued to work EU all
the way through greyline.

  


Just at my SS -5mins and for at least 30mins afterwards, until just after
your SR, the LP opening\

was good to very good(at times).  First signals peaked on 80m, then suddenly
the 160m signals were much better than 80m for about 20mins.  Crazy.

  


There were LOTS of guys from NA calling you on 160m.(mostly W1/2 and me) It
was speaker quality Jeff

and definitely 419-519 (saw the S-meter actually move a few times-others
reported much louder signals).

Some reports on the on4kst chat, and lots of (frustrated) callers, hi hi ! I
should've recorded it, but was out snowblowing and raced in prior to SS and
forgot all about it. It was so good, had there not been any QRM, I am sure I
could've carried on a QSO. Anyways..with an inverted L on 160m I am not
surprised from my end.  At one point, I thought it may have been a slim..
..

  


I suspect some one way prop or something . You CQ'd in our faces (hi hi)
many times. :-O

  


A couple claimed to have worked you, but due to occasional QRM on your TX
freq I cannot say whether

you actually did or not.

  


Fingers crossed!

  


Keep up the good work.

  


Mike VE9AA

  


Yesterday it looks like 203 additional qso's were made on Topband.  Condx
were

good to NA from 1025z - 1100z - but rather poor later into EU.

We did manage to work 33 qso's into NA during the SS opening - after 1100z

signals drop rapidly though (like a rock) - so it is best to be there BEFORE
we

go into darkness.  We have seen this for several days now - and while there
are

guys still hearing us and calling us - we just cannot decipher the calls
after

1100z - they are about RST 119 at best after 11z.   Once SR occurs in W5 W7
and

W6 - signals get loud enough again to have a chance to figure out a
callsign.

GL to all

there are 4 more chances to work us from NA - 2 on SS and 2 on SR

Most of us depart on the 18th in the Am - so teardown is set for all day on
the

17th  -our  last operations  160m will likely end at SR our time on the
17th.

73 JEFF

  


Jeff BriggsDXing on the Edge: The Thrill of 160 Meters Available worldwide

through BookBaby, Array Solutions, DX Engineering, Radio Society of Great

Britain, & Amazon

  


Mike, Coreen & Corey

Keswick Ridge, NB

  


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



--
Joe Reisert
Amherst, NH
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Locating Problem Signals

[Joe]

Did we ever find out for sure what and where that was?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 2/9/2019 11:48 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

Simple TDoA techniques are useful for direction finding on
non-ionospheric propagation modes, but TDoA-only DF techniques
are very unreliable for ionospherically propagated signals


A recent example is the intruder that was continuously active on
14.000 MHz for several days. Operators on the Kiwi TDoA
network were convinced that the intruder was definitely located in
Indiana. The Kiwi DF network was off by more than 1000 miles...


An informal network of hams using simple 20 meter Yagi
was much more accurate.


73
Frank
W3LPL


- Original Message -

From: "Dick Bingham" 
To: "Topband" 
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2019 5:19:06 PM
Subject: Topband: Locating Problem Signals

If I remember correctly, there have been requests here for folks to listen
to an offending signal so its location can be determined.

There is a fairly inexpensive way to accomplish this task using a ~$200
"0-to-30MHz SDR" called "Kiwi". One of its operating modes includes TDoA
measurements using multiple Kiwi's located around the USA/world.

Check-out ==> 
*https://valentfx.com/vanilla/discussion/1196/tdoa-extension-operating-notes#latest
<https://valentfx.com/vanilla/discussion/1196/tdoa-extension-operating-notes#latest>
*
and ===> * http://kiwisdr.com/ks/using_Kiwi.html
<http://kiwisdr.com/ks/using_Kiwi.html>*
You can use one of these Kiwi's by checking here ===>
*http://kiwisdr.com/ks/using_Kiwi.html
<http://kiwisdr.com/ks/using_Kiwi.html>*
Contact me off-line if you want more info.

73 Dick/w7wkr at CN97uj
_
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

Topband: 4 SQ To The Ground

[Joe]

Hi Jeff,

You say,,

"I put down 5/8" CATV when I moved the 40m 4sq back down to the ground -"

It sounds like you had an elevated 4 sq, that you went back to the ground.

Can I ask why you went back to the ground?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com

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

Re: Topband: When is coax 'contaminated' beyond use?

[Joe]

Use the length,
At the far end put it into a dummy load.
Put your watt meter at the transmitter, make say 100 watts,
move watt meter to the dummy load and see how many watts are there.

Thats the losses.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 2/3/2019 9:54 PM, terry burge wrote:

Hi Folks,


A few years back some 9913 I was using apparently got water in the coax. I say 
this because of fluctuating SWR issues and I noted the shield when cut into was 
almost 'black'. So for my minor purpose of using spare coax for my dump power 
on an 80 meter 4-square can some of this coax be used? When I scrap the shield 
after exposing it with a knife will reveal the shinny copper again so is that 
sufficient to use some for reading dump power on my wattmeter at the shack? 
Seems if I try and get readings like what I had with the LMR-400 then it could 
be used. Coax is so expensive these days I want to use my valuable LMR-400 
elsewhere if possible. And having a convenient way of reading dump power is of 
course important too.


Terry

KI7M

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




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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

[Joe]

How about even lay it down?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 1/23/2019 7:14 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:

Disconnect the other antenna.  Let it float.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com

On 23-Jan-19 6:02 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
Okay, after many requests, on and off list, I disconnected the 43' T 
160m

antenna at its feed point and for good measure I disconnected the coax
feedline from the system too.

It made a pretty substantial difference in the measurements. The 1.5 SWR
range is now only about 35 kHz wide but the 2.0 SWR range is still 
100 kHz

which is probably still too wide.

Freq  SWR  R    X Z
1800 1.9 31.8  -18.6 36.8
1810 1.7 32.5  -14.1 35.4
1820 1.6 33.3  -9.6  34.7
1830 1.5 33.9  -5.3  34.3
1840 1.45 34.6  -0.7  34.6
1850 1.43 35.5  3.9  35.7
1860 1.47 36.1  9.0  37.2
1870 1.6 37.0  13.9  39.5
1880 1.7 37.8  18.9  42.3
1890 1.8 38.8  24.0  45.6
1900 2 39.9  29.5  49.6
1910 2.2 41.1  34.5  53.7
1920 2.4 42.6  40.5  58.8
1940 2.8 44.7  51.4  68.1
1960 3.4 47.6  63.0  78.9

I'll test it on the air tonight (using FT-8 and the RBN) with the 43'
antenna disconnected. Perhaps it will be better? The numbers look 
better,

right?

Should I ground the 43' antenna instead of leaving it floating?

Thanks guys.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
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

Topband: NAQCC 160 Sprint Tonight

[Joe Galicic]

Get on and have some QRP fun tonight !  



http://www.naqcc.info/sprint/sprint201901_160.html
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> I think theoretical is 32 ohms or so,

Theoretical impedance for a full height 1/4 wave vertical is 32 Ohms.
An inverted L (also "T" or other top loaded antenna) will be less
depending on the height of the vertical section and how much the
horizontal section slopes downward.


73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-01-16 8:00 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:


I read recently, maybe on this forum, that 32 ft radials were "long enough" if thats all 
you could get.I thought they needed to be longer as well, mine for my inv L are 132 ft long, 
but "bent" to keep them in my lot size.when we were talking about the feedpoint 
impedance of my L, thats when someone suggested that more radials 32 ft long, would be better than 
fewer radials that were longer

Mike, get rid of the 15' cable, try to measure the impedance with as short a 
piece of coax as possible, as close to the feedpoint as possible.thats what 
got me recently...ideal impedance will be mid to upper 30 ohmsI think 
theoretical is 32 ohms or so, add a few ohms for the ground.the more 
radials you add, the lower it will get


- Original Message -
From: "Mike Smith VE9AA" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 7:32:09 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3

Hi Todd and thanks for answering so quickly.

  


I am no expert. (I'm an Electronics Engineering Technologist and a ham for
40+ yrs,fwiw)

I won't debate the exact numbers on that table by K3LC referenced by K9YC,
(they are experts) but I will tell

you that it makes me go "hmmm" (as in a mild doubting tone)

  


A 42' radial on 160m is only something like 1/12th of a wavelength long.
(pretty short)

AM Broadcasters talk about the point of diminishing returns for on-ground
radials being

around 120 (or is it 240?) for full sized 1/4wl radials.  That would be the
equivalent of ~15,240feet on 160m.

You've laid out aprox 1260feet of wire (give or take).so aprox 1/12th or
.08% of optimum.

  


It's just not a lot of wire for a 160m antenna.  I have 2x 160m antennas
here.  One with about 7500' of wire on/in the ground and another with 2
raised radials (tuned, raised, 1/4wl each) and I can tell you the one with
7500' of wire under it always works better in true A/B comparisons. Not by a
lot, but it's noticeable.

  


I can't imagine you're anywhere' s near optimum.

  


I know "tone" doesn't come across in emails and postings, so I am not saying
this all in a sarcastic or snarky tone.  Just as a "matter of fact" type
tone.

  


With what you've described, it's probably as good as you'll get if you have
a typical small city lot and average soil.  You could play around with
chicken wire, tying your pool and well casing, fence, metal garden shed and
neighbours dog-run ,in to give you just as much conductive material under
the antenna as humanly possible or you can accept the limitations of a small
lot.

  


Personally, I don't give up easy..if it were me, I'd buy another couple
thousand feet of wire and put it down.

  


Something is just not right.

  


I'll let the *REAL* experts chime in, but my experience (such as it is),
tells me you're warming the ground or there's something else going on we
aren't yet aware of. (ginormous metal bldg. next door, hi).

  


GL with it Todd.  I hope there is an epiphany~!

  


truly.

  


Mike VE9AA

  


   Hi Mike,

  


Yes, it is a space issue. The presentation I was referring to is

http://audiosystemsgroup.com/160MPacificon.pdf where it has a table the

references a paper by K3LC that has "Optimum Use of Wire On/In Ground Over

Average Soil" and it lists 12 radials at 42' each to essentially use a 500'

spool of wire. I had more wire than that but not much more room. I could

run out a few wires in few directions to about 100' if that might help.  I

did use the antenna for a couple of evenings with only 12 radials and

yesterday I tacked on the additional 18.

  


That is why that decision was made.

  


I didn't think that SWR curve was good at all. But another guy just emailed

me and said that the BCB filter is probably messing up those readings and

they aren't accurate.  I can take SWR readings from my radio (in the shack)

with the filter not in line. Maybe that will show different values but it

will be attached to a 150' long piece of coax after the choke.

  


73,

Todd - NR7RR

  

  

  


Mike, Coreen & Corey

Keswick Ridge, NB

  


_
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: FT8 - How it really works

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-12-20 11:45 AM, K4SAV wrote:
> In the case of a crowded band it becomes obvious that CW is much
> superior to decoding a weak signal because all those strong signals
> limit the ability of FT8 to decode a weak signal.

That is only true if you leave AGC enabled and the strong signals
result in the AGC decreasing the overall sensitivity.  The WSJT-X
Users Guide (instructions) recommend turning off AGC.  It is
possible (depending on the transceiver design) to reduce the IF
bandwidth to remove some or all of the strong signals to reduce
overload and minimize the gain reduction by using the RF Gain
control to introduce the least gain reduction necessary to prevent
distortion.

On 160 meters, typical nighttime noise levels are as high as -90 to
-100 dBm.  Using the RF attenuator and/or RF gain to set the recovered
audio from that noise approximately 15 dB above the sound card noise
floor should provide sufficient dynamic range to decode the weakest
signal (~ 10 dB below the 200 Hz noise floor) while not distorting on
the strong (S9+40 dB) signals if one has a *quality* sound card.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-20 11:45 AM, K4SAV wrote:

Thanks to the folks commenting on how FT8 works.

VE3KI said:
"The noise floor the wsjt-x signal is referenced to is the noise within 
the bandpass during the two-second period when no-one is transmitting, 
not the signal level when people are transmitting."


That was what I originally thought might be a possibility because that 
would result in a real S/N number.  However that doesn't seem to be the 
case.  That S9+40 dB signal I referenced would result in a huge S/N 
number, probably greater than 50 dB.  FT8 gives a report of -1 dB. Doing 
it that way would also have some problems produced by people 
transmitting at the wrong time and other out of band stations, however 
it seems that FT8 doesn't make that measurement.


Thanks to Arunas, LY2IJ .  Your comments agree 100% with what I 
measured.  As to your question of can FT8 decode signals below the noise 
floor and below the level that can be decoded by CW.  My experiment of 
adding audio noise which covered up the signals and the software still 
being able to decode signals says that under some conditions FT8 can 
decode signals below the noise floor.  Of course that experiment was 
done at audio levels, not at RF.  If you use CW you get the benefit of a 
much narrowed passband,  I can't run that test using audio mixing.


In a condition of only one weak signal on the band, I haven't run a test 
that says whether FT8 decodes better than CW or not.  NN4T said that 
using FT8 on 6 meter sporadic E that he observes signals being decoded 
with no audio in the receiver.  That is probably with a wide bandwidth, 
and it would be interesting to know if the signals would be audible with 
a narrow bandwidth.


In the case of a crowded band it becomes obvious that CW is much 
superior to decoding a weak signal because all those strong signals 
limit the ability of FT8 to decode a weak signal.  That was the basis 
for my conclusion that FT8 didn't seem to be useful for working weak 
signal DX because most of the bands are very crowded. However there may 
be a case where FT8 can beat CW, that is if you are tying to decode a 
signal on an essentially dead band.  Since FT8 seems to be able to 
decode below the noise floor, the noise floor in that case would just be 
real noise, not signals.  You could improve FT8's ability to decode by 
narrowing the bandwidth, although that's not normally done.  That would 
cut into CW's advantage obtained by using a narrow passband. I don't 
have a measurement with the results of that showdown of CW versus FT8 in 
dead band conditions but the answer would be interesting to know.


Jerry, K4SAV


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

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Is the definition of "noise floor" being changed for FT8?

WSJT-X (and WSJT before that) defines noise as the integrated value
of noise (noise power) across the 2500 Hz (approximately based on
the receiver filter) receive bandwidth.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 9:57 PM, K4SAV wrote:
Joe, thanks for the information.  I am not exactly sure what all that 
means. My conclusions were based on observed data.  It seems pretty 
obvious to me that a signal that is more than 50 dB above the noise 
floor should not receive a S/N number of -1 dB, which is what FT8 
gives.  I don't know how the information you provided can make a 
calculation like that.


I judge that a signal reading S9+40 dB on the S meter should be more 
than 50 dB above the noise floor when I can tune of to a spot where 
there are no signals and the S meter reads about S2 or S3 in SSB mode or 
less than S1 in a narrow bandwidth.  Is the definition of "noise floor" 
being changed for FT8?


Jerry, K4SAV

On 12/19/2018 7:27 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
> The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB
> below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the
> time.

No, that is a correct statement.  Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65
and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*. Note
that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less than 12 Hz or 
so wide so the SNR *for an individual tone in the DSP filter bandwidth*

at 0 dB is -23 dB relative to the *total noise in 2500 Hz bandwidth*.
The actual filter bandwidth will change from mode to mode due to the
differences in keying rated and tone spacing ... the actual SNR limit
is shown in section 17.2.7 of the WSJT_X 2.0 User Guide.

CW operators understand this from experience ... a quality 200 Hz filter
will have ~12 dB less noise than a 2800 Hz filter.  Thus a CW signal
with a 200 Hz filter will have 12 dB better SNR than the same CW signal
with a 2800 Hz filter (excluding any "processing gain" from the ear-
brain filter).

With FT8, JT65, JT9, etc. coding (forward error correction) provides
some additional SNR (called "coding gain") but the *measurement* is
based on strength of the individual tone to total noise.  Thus, the
lowest accurate report is -24 dB although some signals will be decoded
at levels below that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I 
did was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My 
only goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do 
and what it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be correct. 
It is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not an S meter 
reading.  What is it? That was the first question to answer.  It's 
obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a report of -1 dB 
for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I was unable to find 
any info on how the signal report was calculated so I tried to 
correlate those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to the 
same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set up my 
main VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to CW at 
about 150 Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and tune the 
second VFO to him and measure his signal strength.  I also look at 
the S meter for the signal level on the main VFO.  I also look at the 
signal report calculated by the software.  For stations calling CQ 
that report is calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal 
levels (VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and 
the second VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB. Note that the 
FT8 says that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode. With VFO1 = S9+10, 
that's about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  Observations 
agree. Those numbers will vary a little depending on how your S meter 
is calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, all those close USA 
stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB 
below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the 
time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 dB 
below the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the 
total of all signals on the band are below the noise floor, it would 
be interesting to know if FT8 will decode any of them.  I haven't 
observed that yet in a real situation. I did however try to simulate 
that condition by adding enough noise to the signals such that all 
the signals were below the noise.  The software did continue to 
decode signals.  All the 

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
> The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB
> below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the
> time.

No, that is a correct statement.  Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65
and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*.  Note
that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less than 12 Hz or 
so wide so the SNR *for an individual tone in the DSP filter bandwidth*

at 0 dB is -23 dB relative to the *total noise in 2500 Hz bandwidth*.
The actual filter bandwidth will change from mode to mode due to the
differences in keying rated and tone spacing ... the actual SNR limit
is shown in section 17.2.7 of the WSJT_X 2.0 User Guide.

CW operators understand this from experience ... a quality 200 Hz filter
will have ~12 dB less noise than a 2800 Hz filter.  Thus a CW signal
with a 200 Hz filter will have 12 dB better SNR than the same CW signal
with a 2800 Hz filter (excluding any "processing gain" from the ear-
brain filter).

With FT8, JT65, JT9, etc. coding (forward error correction) provides
some additional SNR (called "coding gain") but the *measurement* is
based on strength of the individual tone to total noise.  Thus, the
lowest accurate report is -24 dB although some signals will be decoded
at levels below that.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-19 4:28 PM, K4SAV wrote:
While sitting around being bored and recovering from a gall bladder 
operation, I decided to do some experiments with FT8.  First thing I did 
was upgrade the software to WSJT-X v2.0.


I hope this post doesn't turn into another FT8 bashing session. My only 
goal was to understand how this mode works and what it can do and what 
it cannot do.


The official description of FT8's signal reporting cannot be correct. It 
is obviously not a signal to noise number and it is not an S meter 
reading.  What is it? That was the first question to answer.  It's 
obviously not an S/N number because how do you give a report of -1 dB 
for a signal that is S9+40 dB on a quiet band.  I was unable to find any 
info on how the signal report was calculated so I tried to correlate 
those reports to observations.


I think I have figured out a method that results in very close to the 
same number that FT8 reports.  Here is the experiment.  I set up my main 
VFO to USB 2500 Hz bandwidth and set the second VFO to CW at about 150 
Hz bandwidth.  I look for a station calling CQ and tune the second VFO 
to him and measure his signal strength.  I also look at the S meter for 
the signal level on the main VFO.  I also look at the signal report 
calculated by the software.  For stations calling CQ that report is 
calculated by the software in my computer.


The FT8 report is usually very close to the difference in signal levels 
(VFO1 - VFO2).   For example if the main VFO reads S9+10 and the second 
VFO reads S9, the FT8 number will be -10 dB.  Note that the FT8 says 
that -24 dB is the lowest it can decode.  With VFO1 = S9+10, that's 
about S7 for the smallest signal it can decode.  Observations agree. 
Those numbers will vary a little depending on how your S meter is 
calibrated.  In order to decode a weak signal, all those close USA 
stations will have to go silent.


The official documentation for FT8 says it will decode signals 24 dB 
below the noise floor.  That is not a correct statement most of the 
time.  That statement should be that FT8 will decode signals 24 dB below 
the sum total of everything in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. If the total of all 
signals on the band are below the noise floor, it would be interesting 
to know if FT8 will decode any of them.  I haven't observed that yet in 
a real situation.  I did however try to simulate that condition by 
adding enough noise to the signals such that all the signals were below 
the noise.  The software did continue to decode signals.  All the 
reports were -24 dB.  This was a very crude test because I don't know 
how exactly much the signals were below the noise.  This should be of 
benefit to those people that have S9+ noise on the bands they operate. 
They should be able to decode the strongest signals on the band.


The (VFO1 - VFO2) test just described should always result in a number 
equal to or less than zero.  I notice sometimes the software will report 
a small positive number.  That seems to happen more often when the 
bandwidth is set to something less than 2500 Hz and there are very few 
signals on the band.  I think this may be related to the fact that FT8 
does all its calculations using audio signals and the receiver S meter 
is operating on RF. Audio shaping in the receiver will affect the FT8 
calculations. Audio processing in your computer sound card may be a 
factor too. This becomes really apparent when the radio is set to CW and 
the audio peaking filter is turned on.  With SSB bandwidth and flat 
audio response, S meter readings are a good indica

Re: Topband: 160 Antenna

[Joe]

OK,

I ran the random wire, It was a convenient length, from the eve of the 
house just outside the shack with a like ten foot length of RG-58 from 
the tuner, and out with the wire to a tree almost due south 75 feet away.


No ground system, wire connected to center conductor of the coax. braid 
connected to nothing wire end, and to the tuner at the tuner end.


wire about 10 feet above ground.

It actually hears better than the center pin only vertical set up by an 
average of about 10 db.  And by at least 20 db when the 40 vertical ran 
fully connected.


Now how to improve some?  I would assume to make it longer, try to get 
to at least 1/4 wave,, but then it won't be straight at all. Might make 
tuner happy if it was longer. the tuner was able to get the swr dead 
flat BUT the "L" was maxed out. so I assume some more wire over the only 
75 feet it has now might help that issue.


Now since it is all horizontal, not like an inverted L, I cant really 
add wire to the braid to make a radial.


wonder what I should do to make it better using the braid.

Thoughts?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 12/17/2018 8:31 AM, Joe wrote:
OK, as users of this band, we all have probably done this at least 
once in your radio lifetime.


You want to get on 160, but do not have an actual 160 antenna. So you 
connect the largest antenna ya have, usually a 80 meter dipole, but 
you just push the connector in just so only the center pin is 
touching, and load the whole thing up like a top capacity hat, 
vertical, or end fed long wire.  Hey it works.


I'm thinking of doing something similar, because a full sized 1/4 wave 
elevated vertical for 40 meters, works as well as a cannenna does when 
trying to use it on 160.


But I never thought of what might be the best way to do this. The 
antenna as stated is a full sized 1/4 wave elevated Vertical,  The 
base of the vertical is 10 feet above the ground with sloping radials 
that act as guy wires also to hold the base in place.


At the base of the antenna right at the feedpoint, is a large multi 
turn coax choke. ( Ya know the so many turns on a PVC pipe thing )


The feedline is then ran through the air for about 60 feet to the eve 
of the house where it runs along the eve of the house on 2 sides and 
finally into the shack. Total length is about 100 feet.


Now I am trying to decide without actually trying to make up 
connectors or whatever, what might be the best way to use this on 160.


1- As described above just the center pin, touching. I guess with the 
braid floating the braid gets capacitivly coupled to the power and 
does the radiating and receiving. YES? NO?


BUT I can see the RF actually also going and using the existing 
vertical because of the touching center pin. BUT, the braid signal, 
I'm assuming the RF is not getting past the Coax coil and using the 
radials.


2- Apply power to only the braid?  similiar to #1 but backwards. again 
no power to the radials probably?, and only cap coupled to the vertical.


3- short the center and shield together and run it that way.

Anyone have any thoughts of the best configuration any thoughts?

Or how would a end fed random wire like 1/4 wave long about 10 feet up 
work better?


Joe WB9SBD
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector





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

Topband: 160 Antenna

[Joe]

OK, as users of this band, we all have probably done this at least once 
in your radio lifetime.


You want to get on 160, but do not have an actual 160 antenna. So you 
connect the largest antenna ya have, usually a 80 meter dipole, but you 
just push the connector in just so only the center pin is touching, and 
load the whole thing up like a top capacity hat, vertical, or end fed 
long wire.  Hey it works.


I'm thinking of doing something similar, because a full sized 1/4 wave 
elevated vertical for 40 meters, works as well as a cannenna does when 
trying to use it on 160.


But I never thought of what might be the best way to do this. The 
antenna as stated is a full sized 1/4 wave elevated Vertical,  The base 
of the vertical is 10 feet above the ground with sloping radials that 
act as guy wires also to hold the base in place.


At the base of the antenna right at the feedpoint, is a large multi turn 
coax choke. ( Ya know the so many turns on a PVC pipe thing )


The feedline is then ran through the air for about 60 feet to the eve of 
the house where it runs along the eve of the house on 2 sides and 
finally into the shack. Total length is about 100 feet.


Now I am trying to decide without actually trying to make up connectors 
or whatever, what might be the best way to use this on 160.


1- As described above just the center pin, touching. I guess with the 
braid floating the braid gets capacitivly coupled to the power and does 
the radiating and receiving. YES? NO?


BUT I can see the RF actually also going and using the existing vertical 
because of the touching center pin. BUT, the braid signal, I'm assuming 
the RF is not getting past the Coax coil and using the radials.


2- Apply power to only the braid?  similiar to #1 but backwards. again 
no power to the radials probably?, and only cap coupled to the vertical.


3- short the center and shield together and run it that way.

Anyone have any thoughts of the best configuration any thoughts?

Or how would a end fed random wire like 1/4 wave long about 10 feet up 
work better?


Joe WB9SBD
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: K9AY Box, 6 pin din Pin-out

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

I'm assuming the center pin is the 6 pin and the 1-5 either go 
counter or clockwise.

The center pin is pin 6 however, the other five are not numbered
sequentially due to backward compatibility with numbering for the
*three pin* DIN. From Wikipedia:


The 3/180° and 5/180° connectors were originally standardized and
widely used in European countries for interconnecting analog audio
equipment. For example, a stereo tape recorder could connect to a
stereo amplifier using the five pins for the four signal connections
plus ground. The connectors on the cord are connected pin for pin,
(pin 1 to pin 1, etc.). Pins on male connectors are numbered (from
right to left, viewed from outside of the connector, with the 5 pins
upwards, and facing them): 1–4–2–5–3. Holes on female connectors are
also numbered 1-4-2-5-3, but from left to right (facing the holes). 


73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-12-07 4:47 PM, Bill Gillenwater wrote:

I have acquired the AYtechnologies K9AY system boxes. This is a used unit but 
in excellent shape.

The 6 pin din plug on the back of the control box is not numbered. Is the 
pin-out standard?

5 pins  with a center pin above the connector "key" notch.

Don't want to hook this up backwards, hi.

I'm assuming the center pin is the 6 pin and the 1-5 either go counter or 
clockwise.

Thanks
73 Bill K3SV
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:

And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi hi.


With no antennas.  I have not been seriously active on low bands in the
20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence
of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations.  However,
even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly
maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc.

Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of
DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and
operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check
book.  One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or
IRL.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

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

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
>
> Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would
> support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than
> yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it
> for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing
> with it.

This (remote receivers in multiple locations) is specifically what the
rules are meant to prevent.  rankly there is no justification for the
multiple remote receiver operations ... one might as well make an
internet QSO!

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-21 2:39 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote:

Hi Joe,

I live in a small village. Even so, 500 meters isn't going to buy 
anything. If we were overwhelmed by noise we would still be overwhelmed 
by exactly the same noise. So this is going to be yet another thread 
about whose ox is being gored. All those noises don't bother anybody's 
transmitter. So why would we care where the transmitter is within the 
same grid square as the receiver?


Maintaining a club project "remote" receiver is something I would 
support with some money and some work. It's a lot more worthwhile than 
yet another two meter FM repeater. I don't really care about using it 
for 160 meter DXCC but I would certainly get my money's worth playing 
with it.


73,

Bill  KU8H

On 11/21/18 2:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:


I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid 
square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC

Entity.

I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both
transmit and receive antennas.  If one is making the effort to create
a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive
antennas.  The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station*
on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant
and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous
- it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old.

Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to
*ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at
the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near
simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically
large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC
from propagation advantaged locations.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote:
I'd like to see the ARRL change part Amateur
Radio Community in light of the recent radical increase in electrical 
noise
from consumer switching power supplies, variable speed motors, LED 
lighting,

solar panels with "optimizers", and all of the other "energy efficient"
wideband RF garbage generators.

I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be
to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or 
"within

100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Entity.

I also think that building and maintaining a shared Community Low 
Noise RX

Receiver Site would make a great DX Club project and service.

Let's get this rule updated.   How do we get started?

73

Lloyd - N9LB




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





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

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid 
square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC

Entity.

I think 500 meters is more than enough of a "circle" to contain both
transmit and receive antennas.  If one is making the effort to create
a remote site, it can certainly contain both transmit and receive
antennas.  The idea of placing the transmitter *for an amateur station*
on a salt marsh on the coast and the receive antennas 10 miles distant
and well away from man made noises (to the extent possible) is ludicrous
- it reminds me of the commercial maritime stations of old.

Frankly, the DXCC rules should be changed to limit all operators to
*ONE* location a month unless the operator is physically present at
the station (as defined by the 500 meter circle) to prevent the near
simultaneous use of multiple remote transmitters/receivers in physically
large DXCC entities to "feed" a single DXCC/Challenge/Single Band DXCC
from propagation advantaged locations.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-21 12:37 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote:

I'd like to see the ARRL change part 


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

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

The checker does not know the total.  That number is only in the
DXCC records at ARRL.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote:



How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ?

Nick, UY0ZG


Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47:

On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:>

Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...?


The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC
records (not LotW).

OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with
fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or
overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:


Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...?



http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1=a%20%20uto,-12,848 
Nick, UY0ZG



_
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: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:>
> Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...?

The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC
records (not LotW).

OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with
fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or
overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:


Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...?



http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1=a%20%20uto,-12,848 




Nick, UY0ZG


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

Re: Topband: trying to tune up 80 meter 4-Square

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-10-12 7:10 PM, MrToby wrote:

You dont have to lower them but you need to short them to ground to
make them electrically invisible

No, with 1/4 wave elements you must *open* the feed point - disconnect
any feedlines and remove any components across the feedpoint - to make
them invisible.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-10-12 7:10 PM, MrToby wrote:

You dont have to lower them but you need to short them to ground to make
them electrically invisible

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 6:07 PM Dick Green WC1M  wrote:


Interesting. This is not how I tuned my 40m 4-square, albeit with tubular
elements not slopers.

Anyway, my understanding is that you disconnect all four elements from the
control box and measure at the feedpoint, not through the phasing lines. I
did it that way and had no trouble tuning the elements. I did, however,
tune them to a frequency that was something like 5% below the target
resonant frequency. I can't remember the exact frequencies now, but I think
I wanted the array resonant at 7.025 MHz, so I tuned them to about 6.700
MHz. Might have been a little higher than that.

I've not heard that you must lower the other elements to do the tuning.
Certainly a pain with nesting tubular elements.

73, Dick WC1M




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

Re: Topband: Shunt feeding AB-577/621

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-10-01 11:47 AM, N4ZR wrote:
> I have an AB-577 with a C-3E on top, and am interested in the
> possibility of shunt-feeding it for 160 - 100 watts only.  Anyone have
> any experience with doing this?  Are the section-to-section joints
> adequately conductive?

The section joints should be adequately conductive given the surface
area.  The big questions would be an adequate connection at the top
and conductivity through the "launcher."


My other option is an inverted L. Should I maybe just go ahead with
that?

Since the standard AB-577 is 48' tall, even with the boom of your
C-3E you are only about 1/8 wave tall on 160.  It will take a good
deal of additional top loading to make the standard AB-577 reasonable
on 160 meters ... I'd consider hanging an inverted L off the side.
Probably easier in the long run.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-10-01 11:47 AM, N4ZR wrote:
I have an AB-577 with a C-3E on top, and am interested in the 
possibility of shunt-feeding it for 160 - 100 watts only.  Anyone have 
any experience with doing this?  Are the section-to-section joints 
adequately conductive?  I would plan to use an omega match, because I'm 
guessing it would be well short of a quarter wave.


My other option is an inverted L.  Should I maybe just go ahead with that?


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

Re: Topband: Beet Antenna Choice?

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2018-09-27 5:01 PM, Edward via Topband wrote:
>
> I have three crank-up towers spaced 35' apart. T

With towers spaced 1/16 wavelength, they will almost certainly
all be coupled to each other.  The coupling will be greatest
when they are nearest to resonance.

Your "tower #3" is probably very close to resonant on 160 meters
depending on the top loading.  As a first approximation, take
1/2 the boom length of the longest boom yagi and add it to the
height of its attachment to the mast.  If, for example, you have
a 32' boom 6 meter yagi 15' up the mast -> 106 + 15 + 16 = 137'

I would strongly consider gamma (or omega) matching the 160' tower
and then using skirts to detune the other two towers.

> What kind of separation is needed  for 2 ele array?

Typically somewhere between 0.20 and 0.25 wavelength.  If they are
phased it is much easier if they are identical (otherwise one needs
unequal currents to account for the differences in height and
impedance).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-09-27 5:01 PM, Edward via Topband wrote:

Jon,

I have three crank-up towers spaced 35' apart. Tower #1 is 89' plus 20' mast, 
with some antenna top loading. Tower#2 is 70' crank up with 20' mast with 
minimal antenna too loading. Tower #3 is 106' crank with 20' mast plus top 
loading.

What kind of separation is needed  for 2 ele array?

Thanks,
Ed NI6S


On Sep 27, 2018, at 11:00 PM, Jon Zaimes  wrote:

Either crank up should work fine with adequate radial field.

Inverted L may suffer from interaction with the towers.

Depending on tower spacing and orientation, you may be able to feed both in a 
2-element array.

73/Jon AA1K
Www.aa1k.us


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


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

Re: Topband: Toploaded vertical - SWR

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

1) move then ends of the top loading wires further out (flatter)
2) use a 4:1 auto-transformer at the feed point - your antenna
   analyzer says the real impedance is about 15 Ohms.  A 4:1
   auto-transformer will get the SWR down to about 1.2:1.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-09-18 4:44 PM, Ashraf Chaabane wrote:

Hi all,

I just finished setting up my vertical antenna for 160 in 3V8SF 
location. It is 17m (55 ft) long with 2 top loading wires 12m each 
(40ft), angle to vertical about 40 deg. I added 8 radials, 20m each (65ft).
With no shunt matching, the SWR at antenna base is 3.2 and at radio side 
is 2.8. Is there any way I can improve the SWR further?


Photos of the antenna along with SWR curve can be found here: 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_3FsWZI3zdi56zz0LOiKNOmfgiWeN6yG?usp=sharing 



73 Ash 3V8SS/KF5EYY
www.kf5eyy.info



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