Re: Topband: Legality of Circumventing Commercial Maritime ISP Services??
Herb, I don't disagree, especially with the Carib because I have so little sailing experience in those waters. I am a PAC Sailor, when I am able. Even in the Navy, I only did a single Med Cruise before switching to the Pacific for all further sea duty assignments. So I am most familiar with that side. I will say, honestly, that ALL of the Sailor I knew personally had licenses and most were higher class licensees as well.. Not that the higher class really means anything except that maybe they take the hobby as seriously as most of us do. However, like I said above, I don't dispute what you said. There is no doubt that all sorts of piracy are occurring out there. Additionally, I agree some of those nets, like some of the 20 meter versions do, indeed, push the rules if not outright violate them. From a personal point of view, though, I do take exception with governments ANY governments saying that a Sailor sending posit reports to someone who is tracking their progress cannot be done or is somehow bad. I know, I know territorial integrity and all that BUT (and this is a biggie) It is a safety afloat issue and, as we all know, when all else fails Amateur Radio! I've been underway and had it happen that ham radio was IT! It was the only thing working! This is not a rare event, either. It happens. Especially in the Pacific, you are in a big, unmarked pool of water and having someone flight following is not only nice for me, the Sailor, to know. but also my family or any other close person. When safety is involved, especially when it can be life threatening (lack of posit and track info in a timely manner IS life threatening all by itself), I think ham radio is utterly appropriate as a vehicle for those comms. Sailing to Fiji from San Dieg o isn't the same as taking your gps and going to the store. as I am sure you would know considering where you live, especially :) :) Again, I am not arguing about whether some Sailors are pirates. I am sure and certain there are... just like the cbers who take over 10 meters CW portion whenever the band has a decent opening. Not only are they not licensed they are using one of the widest bandwidth modes in our narrow bandwidth segment(s). But that is a law enforcement issue, not an issue that should decide whether a LICENSED amateur radio operator should be able to utilize our shared resources/bands to pursue his/her bliss as long as what they are doing is legal (again, with the one caveat about safety of life, which should trump everything from an international law point of view.. but that is a subject that is way outside the realm of discussing whether the way we determine signal bandwidths and their appropriateness in this more modern digital day and age). I think we may be straying from the issue.. after all, those mailboxes and automated systems are already operating in the band segments they are permitted (for good or ill I think mostly good but I readily admit, I am prejudiced since I do use them when I am underway. and sure as heck appreciate that I can report my posits and tracks to any interested party AND, additionally, have that same radio tune up the band a hair and there are 10 gajillion people waiting to hear my Mayday, if it were to ever occur). I, like most of us in this reflector, use the radio for fun. chasing DX, shooting the breeze with old and new friends, occasional traffic handling and other pursuits. When I am underway, it takes on a new dimension. and whether I am a miser or not has nothing to do with it. It is one of several resources I have to get a job done, too. one that I am allowed to do, both by the license I possess and any applicable laws. I guarantee you tha t the majority of us (at least the Sailors I know personally... and that is a fair number of folks) use the radio legally, no matter where we are located. I pull the fuses on my radios when I am getting into the territorial limits of a country we don't have a reciprocal agreement with. Pulling the fuses on the mains going to the radios ensure, of course, that even an accidental push of the button won't turn something on illegally. I pull them in heavy weather, too. But that is to prevent shorts if a rogue wave nails me in a storm. Again, all the Sailors, who are hams, that i know do the same. ESPECIALLY with the ham gear. Anyway, that is my story and I am stickin' to it. :) :) I suspect, by the way, that you guys in the Carib get more than your fair share of the nonsense, though for a coup,e of reasons the biggest one being, I would think, the Sailor population in that sea. THAT is alot of sailing going on there. I would question, too, the need to use the amateur bands for much because, quite frankly, landfall is never that far away. Not that the radios shouldn't be aboard, but that if someone is
Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta than shorter versions??
Tom (and James), I am well aware that my comments concerning the 5/8ths wave was based upon subjective/anecdotal evidence. I am in a science (Astrophysics) by profession. I do know the difference. HOWEVER, I cannot completely throw out the simple fact that when I altered my 20 meter omni antenna for Winlink to the 5/8ths, that I received UNSOLICITED comments from the system users stating (100 percent of them) that my signal was much improved into the areas they happened to be sailing. None of those people, not a single one, knew that I was changing my antenna. The purpose being just that. to see if anyone complained or said anything else concerning performance from THEIR point of view. In reality, THAT is the point when supplying a service. What do the USERS think of the performance, not what I think or what a FS meter says. Even if I had the equipment to measure the performance and the equipment says that my signal should be improved, but the Winlink user comes online and universally states my signal sucks, I will REMOVE that antenna. I know that isn't likely, but if the modelling software states the signals should be worse and they are, 100 percent, reported as improved, then there is something at play that the modelling software isn't taking into account Not arguing, just answering that initial question that from my EXPERIENCE with that antenna, it works better than the quarter wave at the same locations I happen to be.. AND ONLY ON 20 meters. I won't speak to any other band, although I would think it would work there, too, because I have not put one up for those other bands. As an aside, alot of folks are using that so-called non-resonant vertical antenna that is roughly 43 feet tall... They seem to be having some success with them on the bands. Physically, they are pretty convenient. and on 20 meters, they happen to perform pretty well, judging from user comments, anyway. and at that band, it is roughly 5/8 wave in electrical height. So, again, I find it interesting that actual experience argues with the modelling software (in MY particular instance). But, again, in my case IN HAWAII, I had an outstanding location that, for some reason I don't know, happened to favor the 5/8 by alot more than even the theoretical gain would indicate. NOBODY would comment, much less 100 percent of commentors, on a slight gain of 2 db. Heck, that wouldn't be worth the effort. However, I think you are quite right, Tom. something else is at play ground clutter (I had some loads of tropical trees and plants in the area), some significant ly tall sailboat masts RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from my house (very close), etc, etc. Then you consider the seawater ground that was so close by.. There are many factors to take into account, not much of which does a modelling software take into account. Undoubtedly the answer is there and not directly related to antenna gain. I did try elevating it on top of a 40 foot pipe mast and using 8 resonant radials... it made no difference except to increase the chances that high winds would knock it down. In terms of SUBJECTIVE performance and comments, no difference. So, I put it back on the ground and carried on. Remembering what the antenna was for, and where it was located, putting up a horizontal 80 or 90 feet in height simply wasn't possible. The SERVICE I was providing required OMNI directional capability, so even a dipole would be unsat in at least 2 directions.. those being the directions an emergency call would not be heard.. Not a good situation for the given purpose, right? I will say that I didn't appreciate the comment concerning how I came to my conclusions about antenna performance. Insults only prove that one has run out of reasonable arguments. and that is ALL it proves. Given that, this will be my last post here and I am likely removing myself from the list. Insults are NEVER science.. not now, not ever! Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 7, 2013, at 18:59, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: The above modeling results just don't support that contention/posit so I'm wondering what else comes in to play that could lead folks to love the 5/8 wavelength vertical over a shorter version, regardless of frequency? I don't see one performance comparison that supports that claim. I'm not saying the claiming person isn't correct butI don't see how! Help - what am I missing here? 72, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV The 5/8th wave obtains the small amount of gain it has through effects of ground reflection. The current maximum is elevated, and that elevation causes additional phase shift with the illumination of earth out some distance from the antenna. The re-radiation of earth is sometimes explained by an image antenna. The image antenna is a fictitious antenna directly below the real antenna, and this image
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Tom and all, If I am reading the question correctly, aren't we talking about something that is done at VHF/UHF with great regularity? Stacked vertical elements, stacked vertically polarized beams and all manner of stacked vertical anything are done there all of the time to avoid cross polarization loss when the other stations (especially mobile) are the main users. So understanding that it is done at those frequencies, the answer to the original question of can it be done, so to speak, is a resounding YES. I just don't have any idea how you could extrapolate that to MF (160 meters).. It would be a monstrously tall structure. he he he. Actually, I have a set of stacked vertical beams that I use for a point-to-point link with a marginal repeater from my cabin up in the high country on the Mogollon Rim in AZ.. It is an incredibly effective antenna that was much less so with a single vertical beam. Hopefully I didn't just waste everyone's time by misinterpreting the question. :) :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:46, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Isn't this a Vertical dipole? Two quarter wave radiating elements? And tower behind it will be some kind of reflector/director depending on height. The radials seem unimportant if thought of this way. Antennas radiate because of the current flow. So you would have two current maximums, one maximum near the earth for the lower element, and another maximum higher up about 1/4 wave away from earth. The end result would be earth conductivity dependent, but somewhere between a little better or a little worse than a 1/2 wave vertical. The spacing of current maximums would be a little wider than a vertical dipole or half wave vertical, but still too close for any real significant gain. Because a current maximum would be at earth level, ground losses might eat up any very small gain. Maximum stacking gain with 1/4 wave between current maximums is about 0.5 dB. This is reduced because the bottom element is against earth, and could even go negative. Most of any gain, if it had gain, would come from the top element and the earth reflection. _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Tom, Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by comet or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design theory (and practical application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of schooling and experience (been active since 1966. he he he). Just so you realize I am not referring to the often (always?) false gain claims made by manufacturers for their antenna designs. All I was saying was, yes, it is possible and is done when speaking to vertical stacking. As far as stacking what we would call ground plane antennas (quarter wave vertical element against elevated radials), the only example I have seen with any regularity is done aboard some Naval vessels (stacked/phased, if you will, horizontally on a yard arm). I think I have seen the same thing at airports, but I cannot tell for certain that they are phased arrays or just happen to look like they are related. Understand that in all cases to which I refer, including my own, I am speaking of phased arrays, which I believe is what we are talking about as well. I may have misinterpreted the question to some degree. Again, in my own case, stacking/phasing 4 fairly long beams allowed comms that any other configuration, including a single long boom yagi, did not allow at the same quality level. I never measured the actual gain, but I do know that a single beam didn't cut it. Yes, I could communicate, but with alot of noise into the repeater.. When I stacked them, it became full quieting which is a fairly big difference in quality. I know it wouldn't take much actual gain to make happen, but it does indicate some gain :) :) By the way, it allows me to go simplex into Phoenix from that location on the Rim, as well, with great signals according to the guys I've spoken with. A few tests with a single beam versus a combination of phased beams (2 or 4 beams) indicated the same basic thing according to the folks on the other end. I won't quote what they said concerning s-meter readings because that is pretty meaningless.. BUT, full quieting vs noisy signal does indicate a reasonable gain, even if I don't know the exact numbers. Oh, one thing I didn't mention is that the beams are all homebrew using aluminum booms and elements (plumbers delight construction) and were phased using the proper impedance for the phasing lines. with a large amount of time spent ensuring as little untoward beam coupling as possible (of the type that, as you know, causes real problems when trying to get the impedances and phasing lines to be correct). Basically, I followed some moonbounce array designs from handbooks of the past, with more of today's understanding of proper phasing, if you will. Seems to work well and all indications are that it does, indeed, have fairly significant gain (which is not actually a measured gain, so I cannot speak to how much with any degree of accuracy, as I mentioned above). WHEW, this is more of a book than I intended. LOL LOL. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 7:01, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: If I am reading the question correctly, aren't we talking about something that is done at VHF/UHF with great regularity? Stacked vertical elements, stacked vertically polarized beams and all manner of stacked vertical anything are done there all of the time to avoid cross polarization loss when the other stations (especially mobile) are the main users. Stacking compresses beamwidth in the plane of the stacking. It's nothing but a collinear antenna placed vertical. Stacking gain depends on individual element directivity and spacing between radiation areas (which are the current maximum areas). Much of the stuff with VHF or UHF Ham antennas is just a gimmick with completely false gain claims. This is because Hams have a false idea that two antennas have 3 dB more gain than one antenna. If we really look at it, spacing has to be pretty wide (typically almost 3/4 wave) with broad pattern antennas like verticals to get near 3 dB, and that would be with zero feedline loss in the stack. It takes a commercial 150 MHz antenna about 20 feet to make 5 dBd gain. It takes a Ham manufacturer less than ten feet to make 6 dB gain. Someone is clearly misleading people, and I doubt it is the commercial people. Directional antennas like Yagi's are even worse. The more directive each stacked cell is, the wider spacing has to be to get near 3 dB gain. In practice, peak stacking gain is rarely over 2 dB. This is especially true if ground gain already compresses the pattern in the same plane as stacking. My 40M stack of two 3-element full size Yagis, spaced optimally with a height limitation of 200-feet, only has about 2 dB stacking gain. That's a lot of work for 2 dB. Adding a third antenna, even going over 300 feet
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dogs on 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success with a ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stationed in Hawaii. I was rather space limited, so I could only go up and a tower mounted beam was a no fly zone in that particular situation. So, I decided to try the 5/8ths wave vertical and its performance was nothing short of spectacular when compared to a 1/4 under the same circumstances. Not to malign the simple 1/4 wave, but the 5/8ths performance improvement went way beyond what I would have expected.. and my expectations were certainly reasonable. My thinking was that lifting the major current node a bit above ground would probably be an improvement and, to my surprise, that was an understatement in the extreme. I wouldn't want to overblow the results, but I simply couldn't believe how well the antenna performed on 20. To be sure, I was on Oahu out in Iroquois Point housing, which is well situated with regard to the sea (you are basically ON the water in almost all directions). Additionally, I had 60 radials underneath the thing, spread evenly around the base (in straight lines, no bending). So it was definitely an ideal vertical location. But the difference between it and the quarter wave was what truly surprised me (with all else being the same sea water location, number and length of radials, etc). To hear that it doesn't translate to 160 is really a surprise to me.. Tell me more, assuming you did any kind of study into why it didn't seem to work well. I am as interested in why something DIDN'T work as I am in why it does. If for no other reason than to save a few bucks and alot of time LOL Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:25, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by comet or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design theory (and practical application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of schooling and experience (been active since 1966. he he he). Just so you realize I am not referring to the often (always?) false gain claims made by manufacturers for their antenna designs. but this is verticals, and not a narrow BW like a long Yagi. The narrower the pattern of a cell in the stack, the wider minimum useful stacking distance becomes. Also, for 160, antennas are near earth. Earth spoils everything. A 160 antenna at 260 feet is like a two meter antenna at 3.25 feet above ground. All I was saying was, yes, it is possible and is done when speaking to vertical stacking. As far as stacking what we would call ground plane antennas (quarter wave vertical element against elevated radials), the only example I have seen with any regularity is done aboard some Naval vessels (stacked/phased, if you will, horizontally on a yard arm). I think I have seen the same thing at airports, but I cannot tell for certain that they are phased arrays or just happen to look like they are related. Understand that in all cases to which I refer, including my own, I am speaking of phased arrays, which I believe is what we are talking about as well. I may have misinterpreted the question to some degree. This is 160. The distance ratio for the same behavior on two meters is 80:1. If we look at: http://www.w8ji.com/stacking_broadside_collinear.htm we see **freespace** short dipole stacking distances, between current maximums, is 0.35 WL for 1 dB stacking gain. This is for freespace. That means the current maximums have to be .35*160 = 56 meters apart **if** the elements are in freespace. They have to be even further apart if near earth, because the earth reflection already compresses the vertical pattern. I'd guess, for 1 dB stacking gain over a ground mounted vertical (ignoring ground losses), we could move the lower current maximum to about 50 meters above earth and eliminate the upper element. That would pretty much be a vertical dipole. If we wanted to get 2-3 dB gain, we'd probably need 300 feet of height and an inverted groundplane at the top. For 160, is it is a useless endeavor at normal heights. Making matters worse, 5/8th wave verticals are dogs on 160. Been there, done that, used them. A 1/4 wave vertical, or something up to maybe 200 feet, is actually better. They have never worked well here, they never worked when I used broadcast towers, and when W8LT used them in 160 contests they were also pretty weak. The whole thing is a waste of time on 160. Even if someone could run a vertical collinear with useful gain, it would just kill their signal by focusing it at too low an angle for 160, while nulling more useful angles. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Oh Tom, I FULLY agree that it would be VERY difficult and not very practical, especially considering we are talking 160.. In fact, the price/performance ratio simply wouldn't be worth it, in my own humble opinion. no doubt about that. There are certainly better ways to get ALOT more gain and probably for alot less money. Real Estate being the real limiter here LOL Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:25, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by comet or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design theory (and practical application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of schooling and experience (been active since 1966. he he he). Just so you realize I am not referring to the often (always?) false gain claims made by manufacturers for their antenna designs. but this is verticals, and not a narrow BW like a long Yagi. The narrower the pattern of a cell in the stack, the wider minimum useful stacking distance becomes. Also, for 160, antennas are near earth. Earth spoils everything. A 160 antenna at 260 feet is like a two meter antenna at 3.25 feet above ground. All I was saying was, yes, it is possible and is done when speaking to vertical stacking. As far as stacking what we would call ground plane antennas (quarter wave vertical element against elevated radials), the only example I have seen with any regularity is done aboard some Naval vessels (stacked/phased, if you will, horizontally on a yard arm). I think I have seen the same thing at airports, but I cannot tell for certain that they are phased arrays or just happen to look like they are related. Understand that in all cases to which I refer, including my own, I am speaking of phased arrays, which I believe is what we are talking about as well. I may have misinterpreted the question to some degree. This is 160. The distance ratio for the same behavior on two meters is 80:1. If we look at: http://www.w8ji.com/stacking_broadside_collinear.htm we see **freespace** short dipole stacking distances, between current maximums, is 0.35 WL for 1 dB stacking gain. This is for freespace. That means the current maximums have to be .35*160 = 56 meters apart **if** the elements are in freespace. They have to be even further apart if near earth, because the earth reflection already compresses the vertical pattern. I'd guess, for 1 dB stacking gain over a ground mounted vertical (ignoring ground losses), we could move the lower current maximum to about 50 meters above earth and eliminate the upper element. That would pretty much be a vertical dipole. If we wanted to get 2-3 dB gain, we'd probably need 300 feet of height and an inverted groundplane at the top. For 160, is it is a useless endeavor at normal heights. Making matters worse, 5/8th wave verticals are dogs on 160. Been there, done that, used them. A 1/4 wave vertical, or something up to maybe 200 feet, is actually better. They have never worked well here, they never worked when I used broadcast towers, and when W8LT used them in 160 contests they were also pretty weak. The whole thing is a waste of time on 160. Even if someone could run a vertical collinear with useful gain, it would just kill their signal by focusing it at too low an angle for 160, while nulling more useful angles. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Guy, I was right across from the small marina you see. The difference I am talking about is the difference between a 5/8ths wave vertical and a quarter wave vertical in the same place. I am not talking about the difference between a vertical next to the sea as compared to a vertical in Arizona.. two different comparisons and I am thinking you are thinking the latter. :) I was responding to Tom saying that a 5/8ths wave doesn't work well on 160, when a ground mounted 5/8 worked so much better than a quarter wave in the same place (relatively speaking). I had both operational at thr same time and would detune them when I used the other.. Again, I was wondering if Tom could explain why it is such a crappy antenna on 160, but a great antenna (when compared to a quarter wave at the same location) when it is on 20 meters. NOT the difference between two antennas in two different geographical locations.. :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 13:38, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net wrote: Mike, could you kindly supply the address on Iroquois Point? If it's in the area I'm looking at with Google Earth, the answer why the difference is pretty plain, and points to why such a difference vs. a 160m vertical on rural terra firma. 73, Guy. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Mike Armstrong armst...@aol.com wrote: Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dogs on 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success with a ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stationed in Hawaii. I was rather space limited, so I could only go up and a tower mounted beam was a no fly zone in that particular situation. So, I decided to try the 5/8ths wave vertical and its performance was nothing short of spectacular when compared to a 1/4 under the same circumstances. Not to malign the simple 1/4 wave, but the 5/8ths performance improvement went way beyond what I would have expected.. and my expectations were certainly reasonable. My thinking was that lifting the major current node a bit above ground would probably be an improvement and, to my surprise, that was an understatement in the extreme. I wouldn't want to overblow the results, but I simply couldn't believe how well the antenna performed on 20. To be sure, I was on Oahu out in Iroquois Point housing, which is well situated with regard to the sea (you are basically ON the water in almost all directions). Additionally, I had 60 radials underneath the thing, spread evenly around the base (in straight lines, no bending). So it was definitely an ideal vertical location. But the difference between it and the quarter wave was what truly surprised me (with all else being the same sea water location, number and length of radials, etc). To hear that it doesn't translate to 160 is really a surprise to me.. Tell me more, assuming you did any kind of study into why it didn't seem to work well. I am as interested in why something DIDN'T work as I am in why it does. If for no other reason than to save a few bucks and alot of time LOL Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:25, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by comet or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design theory (and practical application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of schooling and experience (been active since 1966. he he he). Just so you realize I am not referring to the often (always?) false gain claims made by manufacturers for their antenna designs. but this is verticals, and not a narrow BW like a long Yagi. The narrower the pattern of a cell in the stack, the wider minimum useful stacking distance becomes. Also, for 160, antennas are near earth. Earth spoils everything. A 160 antenna at 260 feet is like a two meter antenna at 3.25 feet above ground. All I was saying was, yes, it is possible and is done when speaking to vertical stacking. As far as stacking what we would call ground plane antennas (quarter wave vertical element against elevated radials), the only example I have seen with any regularity is done aboard some Naval vessels (stacked/phased, if you will, horizontally on a yard arm). I think I have seen the same thing at airports, but I cannot tell for certain that they are phased arrays or just happen to look like they are related. Understand that in all cases to which I refer, including my own, I am speaking of phased arrays, which I believe is what we are talking about as well. I may have misinterpreted the question to some degree. This is 160. The distance ratio for the same behavior on two meters is 80:1. If we look
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Guy, you aren't reading my emails.. because that question is not appropriate to the conversation. I am NOT, I repeat NOT talking the difference between LOCATIONS, but the difference between ANTENNAS AT THE SAME LOCATION! I am NOT talking about RURAL ANYTHING. That location being on Gannet Avenue across from the Marina that was LITERALLY across the street from my house. I say again, READ MY EMAIL as your question has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conversation. The fact that you sent the same email to me after I answered you tells me that you are not reading what I wrote. I am not being insulting, but if you don't read ALL of what I wrote, you cannot possibly ask a valid question or make any statements about its content. If you read it, you would know that I am not saying ANYTHING about location changes or differences. OF COURSE a sea water location is better than a rural location. THAT fact has nothing to do with the comparisons I am making or asking Tom to discuss. Sorry for the repetition, but I want to make sure that you will see that, even if you don't read this email entirely. Again, no insult intended, but it is tiring trying to respond to someone who isn't reading ALL of what I wrote and jumping to incorrect conclusions as a result. I WILL tell you the address, if you still want to know, after you have read and responded to the content of this email specifically. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 13:38, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net wrote: Mike, could you kindly supply the address on Iroquois Point? If it's in the area I'm looking at with Google Earth, the answer why the difference is pretty plain, and points to why such a difference vs. a 160m vertical on rural terra firma. 73, Guy. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Mike Armstrong armst...@aol.com wrote: Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dogs on 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success with a ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stationed in Hawaii. I was rather space limited, so I could only go up and a tower mounted beam was a no fly zone in that particular situation. So, I decided to try the 5/8ths wave vertical and its performance was nothing short of spectacular when compared to a 1/4 under the same circumstances. Not to malign the simple 1/4 wave, but the 5/8ths performance improvement went way beyond what I would have expected.. and my expectations were certainly reasonable. My thinking was that lifting the major current node a bit above ground would probably be an improvement and, to my surprise, that was an understatement in the extreme. I wouldn't want to overblow the results, but I simply couldn't believe how well the antenna performed on 20. To be sure, I was on Oahu out in Iroquois Point housing, which is well situated with regard to the sea (you are basically ON the water in almost all directions). Additionally, I had 60 radials underneath the thing, spread evenly around the base (in straight lines, no bending). So it was definitely an ideal vertical location. But the difference between it and the quarter wave was what truly surprised me (with all else being the same sea water location, number and length of radials, etc). To hear that it doesn't translate to 160 is really a surprise to me.. Tell me more, assuming you did any kind of study into why it didn't seem to work well. I am as interested in why something DIDN'T work as I am in why it does. If for no other reason than to save a few bucks and alot of time LOL Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:25, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by comet or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design theory (and practical application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of schooling and experience (been active since 1966. he he he). Just so you realize I am not referring to the often (always?) false gain claims made by manufacturers for their antenna designs. but this is verticals, and not a narrow BW like a long Yagi. The narrower the pattern of a cell in the stack, the wider minimum useful stacking distance becomes. Also, for 160, antennas are near earth. Earth spoils everything. A 160 antenna at 260 feet is like a two meter antenna at 3.25 feet above ground. All I was saying was, yes, it is possible and is done when speaking to vertical stacking. As far as stacking what we would call ground plane antennas (quarter wave vertical element against elevated radials), the only example I have seen with any regularity is done aboard some Naval vessels (stacked/phased, if you will, horizontally on a yard arm). I think I have seen the same thing at airports
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
over the same ground... I then ran some test with some of my friends floating around out towards the Philippines and they confirmed, via an a/b test that the 5/8 wave was louder. I switched which one was A and which one was B randomly throughout the tests and not once did any of them pick the 1/4 as the better antenna. SOO, looks like I found a winner for my 20 meter winlink node and that antenna is definitely a go-to when I need a solid, omni on 20 meters. I am going to turn my station into a winlink node, once again, here shortly because my setup, which includes a 5/8 on 20 meters over 60 copper radials on TOP of AZ DIRT, seems to work almost as well as it did on Hawaii back in the day (all things considered, like the fact that this solar cycle blows chunks). Mike, I am sorry this turned into a book, but maybe now you know the whys and wherefores . as well as why it still interests me. I would have never even thought that a 5/8ths wave wouldn't work well on 160 until Tom said something to that effect. which, due to my experience with that particular vertical antenna, made me say, HUH? LOL LOL. If you have any input on the possible WHY of that statement from Tom, I am all ears. :) Mike AB7ZU P.S. I hope nobody was insulted by my little diatribe. It wasn't intended to insult, but just to remind folks that WE really need to read and try to fully digest what someone says (ALL OF IT) before we respond and possibly really confuse the entire thread. I include MYSELF in that statement for sure and certain, since I have definitely done the very same thing in the past. Not here, I don't think, but certainly in other ways and on other days. :) :) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 17:34, Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com wrote: Like Tom said earlier, it's all about ground loss. Near the sea, a 1/2 or 5/8 wave vertical may perform very differently than a duplicate antenna a long way from the sea. The near-field and far-field losses at the lower angles would be much lower. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Bob K6UJ k...@pacbell.net wrote: Mike, Tom, W8JI has a comparison between 1/4 wave and 5/8 wave vertical mobile antennas here: http://www.w8ji.com/VHF%20mobile%20vertical.htm He is comparing mobile antennas but it looks like the 5/8 wave can be 2 db better than the 1/4 wave. Looking at the radiation angle graphs it shows the 5/8 has more gain at lower radiation angles in particular. If you were doing your comparison on long haul contacts it makes sense that the 5/8 would do better. Bob K6UJ On Sep 6, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote: Guy, you aren't reading my emails.. because that question is not appropriate to the conversation. I am NOT, I repeat NOT talking the difference between LOCATIONS, but the difference between ANTENNAS AT THE SAME LOCATION! I am NOT talking about RURAL ANYTHING. That location being on Gannet Avenue across from the Marina that was LITERALLY across the street from my house. I say again, READ MY EMAIL as your question has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conversation. The fact that you sent the same email to me after I answered you tells me that you are not reading what I wrote. I am not being insulting, but if you don't read ALL of what I wrote, you cannot possibly ask a valid question or make any statements about its content. If you read it, you would know that I am not saying ANYTHING about location changes or differences. OF COURSE a sea water location is better than a rural location. THAT fact has nothing to do with the comparisons I am making or asking Tom to discuss. Sorry for the repetition, but I want to make sure that you will see that, even if you don't read this email entirely. Again, no insult intended, but it is tiring trying to respond to someone who isn't reading ALL of what I wrote and jumping to incorrect conclusions as a result. I WILL tell you the address, if you still want to know, after you have read and responded to the content of this email specifically. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 13:38, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net wrote: Mike, could you kindly supply the address on Iroquois Point? If it's in the area I'm looking at with Google Earth, the answer why the difference is pretty plain, and points to why such a difference vs. a 160m vertical on rural terra firma. 73, Guy. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Mike Armstrong armst...@aol.com wrote: Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dogs on 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success with a ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stationed in Hawaii. I was rather space limited, so I could only go up and a tower mounted beam was a no fly zone in that particular situation. So, I decided to try
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Carl and Charlie, I am not sure it would even be close to practical or even doable, but I remember seeing an old book on verticals written by a prior Navy Captain, I believe. He had a very interesting design for what WE would, today, call a collinear that was 3/4 wave length tall on 20 meters. it was, in reality what looked like half of a double-zepp antenna in a vertical orientation. It intrigued me that it was like a half wave stacked on top of a 1/4 wave worked against ground (normal radial field). The interesting part was how he used a skirt around the middle quarter wavelength portion to produce the the in-phase relationship with the physically lower 1/4 wave. You guys may already know the design I am talking about. I saw that book a long time ago, like back in the late 60's I think. maybe early 70's. I was considering trying to find the article or book whenI was looking for a better vertical for my winlink node on 20 meters. the one I have been talking about. However, I tried the 5/8ths first because I knew how to build one without having to possess any special instructions. It was so successful, that I completely forgot about the collinear. On the other hand, this discussion reminded me of that book and how author raved, a little anyway, over its performance. I remember that the height of the finished antenna for 20 meters was something very close to 50 feet.. and that is not much taller than a 5/8ths. maybe 7 or 8 feet taller. So on 20 it is very doable and, supposedly, it has some reasonable gain for the effort. I would like to find the book because it described a good way to make that all-important s kirt that got the phase correct between the upper half-wave and the lower quarter-wave sections. Due to its relatively tall structure, it probably wouldn't even be possible to build one for 160. at least not by most of us. It would be interesting to see if it has the same problem that Tom was referring to for the 5/8ths. too low radiation angle. I know it isn't supposed to have that secondary lobe that a 5/8ths has.. So maybe it would be an improvement . IF it was even possible to build one. That would be one tall structure on 160 LOL LOL. Still, for someone needing an omni antenna with some gain on the higher HF bands, it might be a decent answer. Never built one, so I really don't know if it really works or not. Although, as I said, that author was a Navy Captain whose job was designing some of the shipboard antenna systems, like the NORD and some other odd ducks Well, odd to those who don't have to build low loss, low band antennas on a floating postage stamp. I know, I know, you might have trouble thinking of something the size of an Aircraft Carrier being referred to as a floating postage stamp, but if you have spent any time at sea on a big deck, you know exactly what I mean by that statement.. he he he he. I really should remember his name, darn it. with all the time I spent on ships at sea working with his designs, it is really sad (bad?) that I don't remember his name.. Paul something? I'll find out. lol Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 19:03, Charlie Cunningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Well, Carl You just proposed a total height of 3/4 wavelength, it seems. Do you have that much height? Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of ZR Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:26 AM To: Shoppa, Tim; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible? Look at it as 2 ground planes with the lower feed point 1/4 wave above ground along with its elevated radials which should make it pretty much ground independent according to what has been published on here and elsewhere. The second ground plane would be identical with 1/4 wave spacing from the top of the lower antenna or a 1/2 wave between feed points. Then I would think that the ground conductivity at the reflection point would be the only concern as far as efficiency and gain?? If installed as vertical dipoles then there would also have to be additional spacing between them. I would think that at 6-12' spacing from the tower it would minimize interaction on 160 or 80? Does anyone on here have EZNEC and can plot this? Carl KM1H - Original Message - From: Shoppa, Tim tsho...@wmata.com To: Carl k...@jeremy.mv.com; topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible? Isn't this a Vertical dipole? Two quarter wave radiating elements? And tower behind it will be some kind of reflector/director depending on height. The radials seem unimportant if thought of this way. Tim N3QE From: Topband [topband-boun...@contesting.com] on
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Tony, Thanks...,. that is the one. As I recall a very good book from my youth. It was one of the first antenna books that I remember reading in my early ham years.. I think its original publishing date was after I was first licensed (1960, when I was an ancient 8 years old... LOL). But it couldn't have been too much later than that. Still in production.. Well, that is a good sign :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 19:52, Anthony Scandurra anthony.scandu...@gmail.com wrote: Mike, This is the book. http://store.cq-amateur-radio.com/Detail.bok?no=26 73, Tony K4QE On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Mike Armstrong armst...@aol.com wrote: Carl and Charlie, I am not sure it would even be close to practical or even doable, but I remember seeing an old book on verticals written by a prior Navy Captain, I believe. He had a very interesting design for what WE would, today, call a collinear that was 3/4 wave length tall on 20 meters. it was, in reality what looked like half of a double-zepp antenna in a vertical orientation. It intrigued me that it was like a half wave stacked on top of a 1/4 wave worked against ground (normal radial field). The interesting part was how he used a skirt around the middle quarter wavelength portion to produce the the in-phase relationship with the physically lower 1/4 wave. You guys may already know the design I am talking about. I saw that book a long time ago, like back in the late 60's I think. maybe early 70's. I was considering trying to find the article or book whenI was looking for a better vertical for my winlink node on 20 meters. the one I have been talking about. However, I tried the 5/8ths first because I knew how to build one without having to possess any special instructions. It was so successful, that I completely forgot about the collinear. On the other hand, this discussion reminded me of that book and how author raved, a little anyway, over its performance. I remember that the height of the finished antenna for 20 meters was something very close to 50 feet.. and that is not much taller than a 5/8ths. maybe 7 or 8 feet taller. So on 20 it is very doable and, supposedly, it has some reasonable gain for the effort. I would like to find the book because it described a good way to make that all-importan t s kirt that got the phase correct between the upper half-wave and the lower quarter-wave sections. Due to its relatively tall structure, it probably wouldn't even be possible to build one for 160. at least not by most of us. It would be interesting to see if it has the same problem that Tom was referring to for the 5/8ths. too low radiation angle. I know it isn't supposed to have that secondary lobe that a 5/8ths has.. So maybe it would be an improvement . IF it was even possible to build one. That would be one tall structure on 160 LOL LOL. Still, for someone needing an omni antenna with some gain on the higher HF bands, it might be a decent answer. Never built one, so I really don't know if it really works or not. Although, as I said, that author was a Navy Captain whose job was designing some of the shipboard antenna systems, like the NORD and some other odd ducks Well, odd to those who don't have to build low loss, low band antennas on a floating postage stamp. I know, I know, you might have trouble thinking of something the size of an Aircraft Carrier being referred to as a floating postage stamp, but if you have spent any time at sea on a big deck, you know exactly what I mean by that statement.. he he he he. I really should remember his name, darn it. with all the time I spent on ships at sea working with his designs, it is really sad (bad?) that I don't remember his name.. Paul something? I'll find out. lol Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 19:03, Charlie Cunningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Well, Carl You just proposed a total height of 3/4 wavelength, it seems. Do you have that much height? Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of ZR Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:26 AM To: Shoppa, Tim; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible? Look at it as 2 ground planes with the lower feed point 1/4 wave above ground along with its elevated radials which should make it pretty much ground independent according to what has been published on here and elsewhere. The second ground plane would be identical with 1/4 wave spacing from the top of the lower antenna or a 1/2 wave between feed points. Then I would think that the ground conductivity at the reflection point would be the only concern as far as efficiency and gain?? If installed
Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
Hey.. IF the tower is tall enough for that duty (3/4 wave tall), then you could put that skirt on the middle 1/4 wave, as it were, and you got 'er.. Could he be that lucky? I have to admit, other than right this second, I hadn't ever considered that as a possibility. It should work so long as the height is close to correct and whatever is mounted to the top,of the tower doesn't make the structure look too,much larger than it should look for resonance. H Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 19:58, Charlie Cunningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Hi, Mike I remember the guy that you are referring to, but it's been so many years that I don't remember his last name tither. He published a book via either ARRL or CQ mag. A collinear 1/2 wave over a 1/4 wave GP has certainly been done and used commercially at VHF. The skirt can also be replaced with a shorted 1/4 wave phasing line. Well, Tom's tower is probably tall enough - but how in heck would we get the verticals far enough away from the tower?? Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Mike Armstrong [mailto:armst...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 10:42 PM To: Charlie Cunningham Cc: ZR; Shoppa, Tim; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible? Carl and Charlie, I am not sure it would even be close to practical or even doable, but I remember seeing an old book on verticals written by a prior Navy Captain, I believe. He had a very interesting design for what WE would, today, call a collinear that was 3/4 wave length tall on 20 meters. it was, in reality what looked like half of a double-zepp antenna in a vertical orientation. It intrigued me that it was like a half wave stacked on top of a 1/4 wave worked against ground (normal radial field). The interesting part was how he used a skirt around the middle quarter wavelength portion to produce the the in-phase relationship with the physically lower 1/4 wave. You guys may already know the design I am talking about. I saw that book a long time ago, like back in the late 60's I think. maybe early 70's. I was considering trying to find the article or book whenI was looking for a better vertical for my winlink node on 20 meters. the one I have been talking about. However, I tried the 5/8ths first because I knew how to build one without having to possess any special instructions. It was so successful, that I completely forgot about the collinear. On the other hand, this discussion reminded me of that book and how author raved, a little anyway, over its performance. I remember that the height of the finished antenna for 20 meters was something very close to 50 feet.. and that is not much taller than a 5/8ths. maybe 7 or 8 feet taller. So on 20 it is very doable and, supposedly, it has some reasonable gain for the effort. I would like to find the book because it described a good way to make that all-important skirt that got the phase correct between the upper half-wave and the lower quarter-wave sections. Due to its relatively tall structure, it probably wouldn't even be possible to build one for 160. at least not by most of us. It would be interesting to see if it has the same problem that Tom was referring to for the 5/8ths. too low radiation angle. I know it isn't supposed to have that secondary lobe that a 5/8ths has.. So maybe it would be an improvement . IF it was even possible to build one. That would be one tall structure on 160 LOL LOL. Still, for someone needing an omni antenna with some gain on the higher HF bands, it might be a decent answer. Never built one, so I really don't know if it really works or not. Although, as I said, that author was a Navy Captain whose job was designing some of the shipboard antenna systems, like the NORD and some other odd ducks Well, odd to those who don't have to build low loss, low band antennas on a floating postage stamp. I know, I know, you might have trouble thinking of something the size of an Aircraft Carrier being referred to as a floating postage stamp, but if you have spent any time at sea on a big deck, you know exactly what I mean by that statement.. he he he he. I really should remember his name, darn it. with all the time I spent on ships at sea working with his designs, it is really sad (bad?) that I don't remember his name.. Paul something? I'll find out. lol Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 6, 2013, at 19:03, Charlie Cunningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: Well, Carl You just proposed a total height of 3/4 wavelength, it seems. Do you have that much height? Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of ZR Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:26 AM To: Shoppa, Tim; topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: tree losses
Tom and all, After spending 25 years in the military (Navy specifically), I can say, with a fair amount of authority, that the antennas used by them are often used for much different purposes than what people on this forum use them for. he he he. Never would a scenario arise where 1.8mhz DX would be of any interest whatsoever to a guy in the field. He/she is most likely trying to make contact with someone less than 200 miles away (and usually MUCH closer than that, like over the next hill, but not within range of a vhf/uhf signal). Antenna efficiency is often sacrificed for stealth. again, for extremely obvious reasons. Long distance HF and MF comms are rarely of any concern these days, whereas it is almost everything to us amateur radio ops. The T2FD antenna is one example of a purpose built antenna whose intention was ALWAYS short range comms (NVIS). It does what the military wanted it to do and then some. Same with almost every antenna in the military's RF arsenal. This is especially true today where high gain antennas, and dx type distances, are almost exclusively devoted to vhf, uhf, shf satellites. Satcom is (and has been for a fairly long time) ubiquitous in the military, as most of you probably already know. Now, having said that, I used some absolutely dynamite antennas on HF while underway. Simple antennas, like a horizontal end-fed that was roughly 60 feet long and stood about 70 feet out of the water. sea water. Had a practically infinite tuning range and could handle all the power that I could feed it for phone patches and amtor (when we started using it). Needless to say, in a situation where your horizontal (or vertical) is over salt water, in the clear (no houses, trees or anything else to block the RF), and about 70 to 80 feet above that water is darned near a perfect reflective surface for a horizontal ANYTHING, right? Anyway, unless you want to talk about the military's advances in NVIS, which it has done in spades, you are barking up the wrong antenna source. If you are wanting to do short range, NVIS, comms then DO take a look at military antenna designs. they work and they work well for that purpose, in particular. There ARE antenna designs used by the military for backup long range HF purposes, but they are mainly the same designs we all use for that purpose.. efficient vertical radiators (think verticals over a SHIP's deck as a groundplane, surrounded by salt water) or large log periodic beams that are mounted at the top (or nearly so) of the highest mast on the ship, etc, etc, etc. Again, those are really obvious and nothing new to us. So that is my two cents. keep in mind what the military wants its HF to do and those much maligned military antennas are all of a sudden almost perfect for their intended purpose. :) :) Seven-thirds, Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Aug 5, 2013, at 18:51, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Bingo! Just because the military does (or did) something with antennas doesn't means it's good for us all to repeat. While Beverage antennas for transmitting are indeed one example, two more good examples are: 1.) that silly Maxcom antenna tuner sold from Florida, the thing that had the chopped up pieces of circuit board inside 2.) stainless steel terminated folded dipoles The problem with stuff like that is no one had actually quantified the loss, and even if they had, no one probably cared about signal levels. Just as long as they made contacts and the SWR looked OK, it was all working. The same type of thing is what sells those magical CB rings and the little dipole parasitic elements (about a foot long) that go on CB mobile antennas. Anecdotal evidence is that it all works, just like healing rocks and deer whistles for cars. :)It all has an effect that people feel or find useful, so it all works at some level. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Height of antenna and takoff angle - Titan II site 571-5
Rick and all, That is exactly right. It is a very wideband vertical. If you look at the vertical radiation pattern at various frequencies throughout its range, you will note that it is a low angle radiator (just like a normal vertical) and that at some freqs it is a bit higher angle radiator. But it is a decent antenna. The military has used them extensively over the years (which is where I was originally exposed to them). No, it isn't a magic antenna by any means and no, it won't make you the loudest signal on the band (it has no real gain), BUT if you build it right it can put out a good signal almost everywhere you might want to go :) :) For those who can only put up ONE antenna and who want to operate everywhere, it is hard to beat. For one thing, there are no lossy traps involved like there are on most multi-band verticals.. and THAT is a pretty big deal, actually. I have used them in the past, when I was stationed in a place where a single antenna was all that was all owed. it worked great and I was never left wanting something else under those circumstances :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Jul 28, 2013, at 8:34, Charlie Cunningham charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com wrote: I expect that the main advantage of a discone antenna is bandwidth. Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rick Stealey Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:22 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Height of antenna and takoff angle - Titan II site 571-5 No matter how impressive that discone antenna looks, it still is just a vertical, right? Nothing magical about the signal it radiates. I mean, you're not going to have DX falling all over you telling you you're the loudest signal on the band. Rick K2XT _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 'Re: fine whiskey is a daylight beverage
Mike, sorry buddy. It is reserved for us (now retired) military folk... The night is my friend. As is water and a few other things that make me harder to spot. LOL LOL. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On May 8, 2013, at 8:48, wa5pok mikefur...@att.net wrote: Sorry Jim, That one is reserved for us cavers ;) -- From: Jim McDonald j...@n7us.net Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:19 PM To: Topband Reflector topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: 'Re: fine whiskey is a daylight beverage I suppose that We do it in the dark wouldn't go over very well, right? 73, Jim N7US -Original Message- offensive? How about Tuesday? Is THAT offensive too? sheesh! -- Original Message -- How about replacing it with nothing! I find the current one offensive and dont think any forced signature is warranted. Carl KM1H All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night. _ Topband Reflector All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night. _ Topband Reflector All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night. _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: gentlemen's band
Guys, I think the explanation for why 160 (and the dx crowd on 80, too... not necessarily the 75 meter throw a wire in the air rag chew crowd) are more gentlemanly (and ladies, of course) is very simple. It is REALLY simple to explain: To put a decent signal out on those bands takes some very real effort. Generally speaking you cannot buy your way to a great signal on those bands It takes thought and effort to be successful there. Only the most dedicated of hams will even attempt it and those dedicated hams are gentlemen everywhere they operate. Their dedication to the hobby being the thing. The non-dedicated (lazy, if you will) hams don't even try to put a signal there. Thus, those who don't appreciate the hobby (and what it is for or what it can do) are automatically excluded. Those are usually the people whose manners are less than savory. I can hear the cries and gnashing of teeth already starting, so before it does: I AM NOT SAYING that those who only operate the higher bands aren't dedicated or gentlemen! There are numerous reasons for why an individual ham can or simply desires to operate the higher bands exclusively. One being property limitations, obviously! Inability to get sufficient free time, at night, to operate those bands for DX would be another rather obvious reason. Thus, the 160 crowd seems to be a somewhat older group of people (read that: retired). What I AM SAYING IS that those who make the attempt to put good signals on the low bands must be pretty dedicated because it does take such a terrific effort as compared to the higher bands. A natural follow-on conclusion is that the lousy operators are generally lazy, don't appreciate the hobby to begin with and won't put out the effort involved in low band operation. So, as I said above, they are almost always automatically excluded from the low band DX world. It is like a natural filter. But, like I said, that doesn't mean that ALL high band ops aren't gentlemen. It just means that most, if not all, non-gentlemen will almost surely be high band only operators. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule. I guess the correlation is that Gentlemen Hams = Dedicated Hams no matter where they operate Same holds true the other way around in that Dedicated Hams = Gentlemen Hams. At least that has been MY experience over the last 50+ years of my personal ham operation. Show me someone who isn't dedicated to this hobby and I can almost invariably count on the fact that they will be the ones who misbehave or don't care about whether they learn proper operating procedures. They just don't care. Again, you CANNOT be a don't care ham AND put out a worthy signal on 160/80 I just don't think it is possible. Well, maybe, but still you know what I mean. When you add in the difficulties involved in just plain DXing on those two bands, the reasons for gentlemanly behavior become critical. Contact throughput is pretty slow on those bands under the best of conditions Deep fades, high noise, you name it.. If you add misbehavior or rudeness to the mix, it is almost impossible to have successful DX contacts there, right? So those who are simply selfish have a reason to display gentlemanly behavior there. If for no other reason. LOL. Lots of words And I said it was simple to explain LOL Sorry about that :) Take care and great DXing, Mike AB7ZU (who ALWAYS aspires to be a gentleman on any band) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Mar 9, 2013, at 19:26, Mark Lunday mlun...@nc.rr.com wrote: Wonderful. It restores my faith in the hobby when I hear this courteous and professional behavior. Mark Lunday, WD4ELG -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of N7DF Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:31 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: gentlemen's band The TX5K SSB operation last night on 160 was a joy to listen toeveryone stood by for the station being called and paid attention to the DX operator's instructions quite a contrast to some of the higher bands _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Topband: Not sure why it was bouncing.....
Tree and all, I had to confirm my membership on the list because it said there were too many bounces. Any idea why that might be? Everything seems to be fine with the account and I did notice I wasn't getting the posts.. Just not sure why. Tree, I thought you might have a clue since you are in charge of this here clam bake. :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity
Rik, I think your suggestion is part of the point of this discussion. Modeling things at higher frequencies, like 40 meters, wouldn't apply to how 160 works.. IF what we are saying is true or has merit. The only way to know that 160 truly is different is to model at 160 :) :) Personally, given what I have experienced and all that has been written, I am beginning to think this just might be the case. People have been modeling at frequencies where the lowest possible angle works very well.. So,the model would say that 5/8 wave verticals should work very well for low angle radiation. What seems to be happening on 160 is not that. Maybe it is some mid-angle or something higher that 20 degrees or something along those lines. This would or could explain why those taller verticals don't seem to work very well and the shortened ones seem to work better (?). Definitely counter-intuitive if the modeling at other freqs was telling us the truth. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 24, 2012, at 16:34, Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com wrote: On 10/24/2012 06:37 PM, Mike Waters wrote: So according to your tests, the ~5/8 wave tower was always inferior to the 190' tower, no matter what the distance was? That is very interesting, And I have little doubt all your towers had sufficient radials under them. :-) What do you think about 120' vs 190' ? Ever do any tests like that? I wonder if it would be an idea to try these ideas on 40m. That way it could be tested with much antennas small enough multiple people might be willing to set them up for testing. ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity
Guys, I am probably completely off the wall here. But given all the talk about a 300 foot vertical not working well on 160 and a very high dipole not working well on 160 leads me to a very unscientific conclusion or a possible real hypothesis.. That super low angle radiation is NOT a good thing for 160. Given the other anomalous behaviors of 160, like the early morning enhancements and that antennas with a major high angle component and a relatively minor low angle radiation component seem to do quite well on 160.. 80 meters, too, for that matter. That certainly isn't all of the low band anomalies, but these are a couple we all have certainly experienced. Given these and others, I am tending to think that the quest for really low angles of radiation is counterproductive.. and not so surprisingly, counter-intuitive, as well. There is, obviously, a sweet spot for lower angle radiation on 160. Additionally, I am beginning to think that it is as unique as the band itself. For example, higher bands seem to favor the lowest possible radiation angle that can be produced.. Could it be that 160 prefers something closer to, let's say 45 degrees? Not meaning that 45 actually IS that magic number, but maybe close to it Closer, anyway, than a 5 degree angle? Just a thought. No basis in hard data, but these general anomalies (now THERE is an oxymoron if there ever was on) seem to be piling up. to these untrained eyes, anyway. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 24, 2012, at 12:09, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Just to point out that we don't have measurements of arrival angles at the ionosphere proving the fields shown in a NEC far-field analysis, either. Yet people seem to accept a NEC far-field pattern as gospel, even though it does not accurately show the radiation launched by a monopole at elevation angles below 10 degrees or so. We have a lot of things we claim as fact, even though we don't supporting data. Some border on magic. That's why I A-B test things for several months before deciding anything. :-) I installed a 300 foot tower because I remembered how well a dipole at 300 feet worked at a BC station. I was sure, based on the DX contacts, the dipole was a killer antenna for receiving and transmitting. Problem is when I finally installed that wonderful antenna after all that work, my vertical tied broadside to the dipole and badly beat the dipole off the dipole ends. 73 Tom ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Monopole Elev Pattern w.r.t. Earth Conductivity
Dang Tom. I just sent out a more wordy version of what you just said. This is getting strange. Not sure why it hasn't been disseminated yet (my email), but I swear I sent it just moments before your email hit my system. You just added some fuel to my fire. Short version: I, with my rather inexperienced eye (160 experience, that is) is seeing a pattern that seems to indicate what we would call low radiation angles aren't really optimum for long range 160 communications. The other email goes into a little more detail in why I am thinking this way. Morning enhancement, especially with high angle radiators (like mine) where I am working Japan and Chile on a radiator that can very truthfully be called an NVIS antenna. On higher frequencies, a scaled version of my antenna wouldn't radiate a signal out of the southwest region, much less thousands of miles distant. Just a thought! Again, my other email expounds a little more, but this was the conclusion in a nutshell. Maybe low horizontal antennas really ARE better on 160 than they should be. Given our experience with low antennas on the higher bands, it seems counter-intuitive. But there it is. Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 24, 2012, at 17:12, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: If we knew those, then we could calculate the location and distance of the signal hops. That might give us some insight as to why some people have found a taller monopole to be worse than a shorter one at a given distance. Back in the 70's or 80's there was speculation a low angle was lossy from grazing along, based on others having poor experiences with taller verticals. The top of my tall tower had some antennas and side arms which top loaded it a bit, but not much. Certainly the wave refracts gradually at a minimum, and so I think distance would not tell anyone much. There have been a host of theories since the 1960's, even some from Stew the real W1BB. :-) I don't know what happens when it gets up in the soup, although people like K9LA should be pretty well versed on it. I only know things behave differently all the time, and what antenna generally works most of the time. For example, at sunrise most of the time almost anything reasonably efficient works about the same here. It's more a matter of ERP at any not-too-low angle and any polarization. 73 Tom ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Fishing beacons redux
Guys, there is alot more circuitry in that buoy than a simple dumb transmitter. Maybe some of the devices are dumb transmitters, but I'd bet most of them are more like this unit. Those fishing nets and long lines are incredibly expensive. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find that these buoys are considered cheap insurance.. And having ones that can be remotely controlled and frequency agile would be just what the doctor ordered. Certainly the case with this particular unit. Did you guys bring it home and fire it up to find out where it was transmitting? Just curious... :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:44, Milt -- N5IA n...@zia-connection.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Robin Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:45 AM To: Mike Waters ; Merv Schweigert ; topband Subject: Re: Topband: Fishing beacons redux SNIP Pics on the VP6DX site of the two beacons we salvaged that had washed ashore there SNIP And the whole series of photos Robin and I took of the salvaged beacon can be seen at https://bmoran.onehub.com/fishing-beacon-pictures/pages/files de Milt, N5IA ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fishing beacons redux
Tom and all, I searched for the company name on those photos and it is a Japanese company that makes those models and many others. The one in the pix that were put up are fairly sophisticated and they operate 1600-3000 khz. So, apparently the Japanese are selling them here and they are being programmed to operate Wherever in that range. I would think that these would be a type accepted item and that the ham portion of that range would be locked out. By the way. They are 9 watt transmitters in that model. Boy they make alot of noise for 9 watts. Oh, and the listed range was like 100 miles. U, guys, you might want to alter that statement.. LOL Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:36, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Guys, there is alot more circuitry in that buoy than a simple dumb transmitter. If those are claimed to be a crystal control simple dumb transmitter, they are not. The pictures they have posted are of synthesized transmitter frequency remote programmable transmitters, just like the link I posted. They have multi-tone controlled receiver inside on the marine 2.3 MHz band. ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fishing beacons redux
Not to mention sharing out callsign pool? Last time I looked NM7E was/is a ham callsign. That should DEFINITELY be illegal, especially when those things are in a ham band. I am pretty sure we DO NOT share that band with fishing buoys. Not absolutely positive, but pretty sure. If they are causing harmful interference, they must be turned off if they aren't primary, right? Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:10, Gary Smith g...@ka1j.com wrote: They're back with a vengeance! I've never heard so many of them as I have recently. I live in CT right on the water but this is unbelievable. It's 13:04Z / 9AM and they were over S9 an hour ago. Now the noise level is catching up with them but when I was listening for 3D2C this AM, these damned beacons were the loud. MHZID 1.801 OJ7E 1.806 HV8E 1.811 GX3E 1.823 ZM4 1.826 GX8E 1.828 WK4 1.832 MB1E 1.836 NM7E I didn't realize 160 was a shared band with fishing bouys. Rotten QRM... Gary KA1J ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Maritime gear programmable on ham bands?
I don't think anyone has mentioned the ONE VALID use for an open radio and that is MARS system service. It still exists and with the advent of radios that can transmit almost anywhere without modifying the RF circuitry, MARS ops have moved further and further away from the freqs that are closest to the ham bands. At any rate, wasn't sure if MARS had been forgotten :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 1, 2012, at 17:01, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: A fellow ham once was on a trip from Spain to the Caribbean on a sailing boat. For comms with me and some friends he was using a FT-900, and as a backup rig he could have used the onboard Icom marine radio, in case his Yaesu failed. He is not a techie, so i think modifying the Icom was rather easy. Why should it be any harder than 'opening up' ham gear , e.g. cut out diodes? Because commercial gear requires a different certification process that is supposed to prevent easy modification for use outside of type certification, and because Ham transceivers do not require that unless they operate on 27 MHz. If they were built to the letter of the law the simple programming change would not be available. Of course this would not stop Ham gear from being converted to marine. ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Maritime gear programmable on ham bands?
Tom, I was talking about ham radio, not marine radios. Someone talked about open radios and that is what I was speaking to. Marine radios are another subject altogether. The concern is that the marine guys are using AMATEUR RADIOS to do marine business. And they are. They open the radios so they transmit anywhere and use them for whatever purpose they wish. Not just the amateur radio freqs. The question of the necessity of having amateur radios that can be modified to operate outside the ham bands then comes up... MARS is one of the valid reasons for having amateur radio equipment that can operate outside the bands. It was just a side note to the main conversation which is having the marine guys using our radios on the amateur frequencies to do BUSINESS.. Not only on our freqs, like160 meters, but even assigning the buoys callsigns that fall within the amateur radio block. One of the ones listed this morning is an active amateur radio callsign, as a matter of fact. I believe it was NM7E if I remember correctly. I said nothing about using marine radios for MARS.. not sure where you got that. :) Mike AB7ZU Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Oct 1, 2012, at 18:11, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: I don't think anyone has mentioned the ONE VALID use for an open radio and that is MARS system service. It still exists and with the advent of radios that can transmit almost anywhere without modifying the RF circuitry, MARS ops have moved further and further away from the freqs that are closest to the ham bands. At any rate, wasn't sure if MARS had been forgotten :) Why would someone buy an $1800 ICOM marine radio for MARS, when they could get a $900 Ham radio and have both sidebands and other modes with the same basic performance? ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 117, Issue 20
Tom, on point ... I am, almost exclusively, a CW and Digi op in that order. I will say, anecdotally, that I have not experienced any interference caused by one or the other to the other on 160. I admit that I am not THE most active op on 160, but I am there a fair amount of time. Since most 160 band plans, like the DX window, seem to have gone by the wayside, it would be incumbent upon us as those who love the band, to come up with one that includes the newer modes. The reason? Better utilization by those who have WAY LESS than optimal stations for 160. Particularly those who are antenna and power limited. With the advent of modes like JT65, this has been a godsend for the apartment dweller or those who live in a yard-nazi environment that makes it virtually impossible to put up anything larger than a mobile whip. Ask those folks about JT65 and they practically bow to the software writer as being the savior of their operating. Having said that, I think there is room for all who want to try to operate 160 (not really that many people out of the whole ham population, truth be told). Digi modes make it possible for those who have that intense desire but lack the room for antennas that are anything like what we would call decent. WE just need to come up with a plan and get some of the 160 heavy hitters to endorse it, right? We cannot hold back digital progress, but we certainly can come up with plans that work.. My opinion, but there it is. We should try to include everyone we can. If it were only up to me, I would ban SSB from any band that has less than 300 khz total space available. It takes up way too much room for the intelligence it conveys. BUT I am not the gawd of ham radio and must tolerate its presence on bands like 160 and 40, both of which have band limitations (size and/or broadcasters interference which makes the bands effectively smaller). Not wanting to start a flame war about SSB, just mentioning my own personal usage prejudices... And that really IS one of mine. Like I said early on. CW and Digi for me. Phone belongs on VHF/UHF.. LOL. So whaddaya guys think? It really IS up to us The users and lovers of 160 ( or any other band for that matter). I find CW and DIGI ops to be VERY cognizant of each others presence and have rarely seen intentional interference between those two.. Except when digi ops stray below the digi borders into the 20 meter CW portions. At which point the CW ops lay a carrier on them to get them to move. I do 't believe I have seen it go the other way. But I am sure it has on occasion. Since both modes are definitely space saving and very efficient, I think there is room for all... As I seem to have stated in this lengthy tome. Mike A (AB7ZU) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:53, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: An additional issue for weak sig CW folks is the nature of digi operations. Digi operators don't always check for pre-existing activity. The result is the digi setup begins its 1 minute of howling, irrespective of some CW activity already in progress. No problem to the digi operator whose setup will mindlessly repeat until acknowledged. A deal breaker to the CW activity. I think some of the problem you notice, if not most of it, is the digi op (like most operators) tends to think in terms of his system's processed bandwidth and not the receiver bandwidth other surrounding operators use. Another part is they just may not recognize CW, or what the CW station is doing. This is why the FCC, wisely, did not mix modes. Like Tom I neither endorse nor object to digi activity, except as it jams existing CW. I share his opinion that the frequency choice for digi activity could not have been more poorly chosen. It would be great to have a real discussion about this (and other things), because it might help the overall band long term. I'm starting to think rational non-personal on-point discussions of fact are not possible in America any longer. It's actually called the Brooklyn syndrome, but it seems to be spreading. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,852006,00.html 73 Tom ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 117, Issue 20
Tom, I never said putting digimodes in the middle of the weak signal area was a good idea, but I also know that the weak signal area is violated constantly by local station using it. By that I mean US stations talking to US stations there. To me, personally, I considered 160 DX to mean outside your own continent. So if we call CQ there, we should answer replies from outside our own continent only.. In fact, I shouldn't answer any cq that is in my country or continent in that segment. Obviously, this would have to be modified for some continents like europe. But then again maybe not because close is close and loud is loud. I don't know. Maybe I don't have a clue what I am talking about.. When it comes to areas of spectrum reserved for weak signals Because it is very hard to define what that means and how to properly regulate when/who should be in it and for what reasons. I never said the answer would be easy, either. But one anecdotal piece of evidence concerning bad signals or distortion products or anything else of that nature as part of this discussion. Most of us who are serious about digi have very narrow filters in line with our IF. Example: the ONLY time I ever have a normal SSB filer in line (eg, anything with a BW greater than 1800 hz) is when I am monitoring for signals in an apparently dead band. Any other time, I am using 300 hz or less. Normally it is 300 or 200 hz. In that narrow bandwidth I have regularly had cases where I could detect 3 to 5 other conversations going on at the same time... And not disturbing me in the slightest as long as they weren't pumping my AGC due to overwhelming signal strength or ON VERY RARE OCCASION. Someone is putting out a crummy signal. Tom, all you have to do is open you filter up to say 1800 hz or maybe a little more, then sit and watch how many signals you can decode on a busy 20 meter psk31 day. I regularly copy signals that are almost in the noise while surrounded by louder signals only 20 or 30 hz away. 20 or 30, NOT 200 or 300 hz away. I kid you not. Well, if the signals were as lousy as you seem to think most of them are, you wouldn't be able to do that with any regularity. I have it happen almost every weekend and even during weekdays on 20 and 15 meters. In fact, given the number of hams who call 20 meter digi home, it is the NORM, not the exception. I understand what you saying about Collins and the entire concept. BUT, the truth of the matter, experientially, is that we MUST be producing mostly clean signals or you wouldn't be able to pack so many signals into a SSB BW and be able to decode each and every one of them. Even if there is some disparity with regard to the strength of those signals. In other words, I don't know whose signal you have been listening to, but it can't be the majority... I am not pinging on you here, just stating fact, whether it is anecdotal or measured. The logic of your well stated argument is good. But experience says that the basic premise MUST be wrong. Most of s are, indeed, producing clean signals. The proximity of our digi neighbors in the digi portions of ALL the bands says so. :) :) Mike A (AB7ZU) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 16, 2012, at 15:14, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Tom, on point ... I am, almost exclusively, a CW and Digi op in that order. I will say, anecdotally, that I have not experienced any interference caused by one or the other to the other on 160. I admit that I am not THE most active op on 160, but I am there a fair amount of time. Every experience will be different because of geographical location, antenna and equipment, noise floor, and operating habits. Proper frequency planning requires understanding potential problems and how to handle them, not pretending if everything works perfectly and appears OK at the moment, it will always be OK. Again, a good thing to consider is Collins. They assumed running a clean audio tone into the audio of SSB transceivers and transmitters was a good way to generate CW, and a good system to release into the field. They must have assumed carriers were always balanced, there was never harmonic distortion, and there was never hum or noise. They probably assumed equipment would always perform like new, and always be properly operated. They got bit pretty hard by that. The lesson from that should have been audio injection of tones produces a limited signal-to-distortion ratio and is subject to equipment and operator malfunction. If It goes in the front of a SSB bandwidth system, it should be treated as SSB bandwidth for distortion products. Yaesu, for a more recent example, generated an almost square rise and fall waveform CW signal and processed it through a SSB system as a CW signal. The filter BW used was a few kHz. If they didn't waveshape properly later in the
Re: Topband: Digimodes
Tom, actually I DID say with varying signal strengths. The difference being IF the agc is badly pumped by a strong station and the weak station is wiped out by the action. I can easily decode a weak station next to a strong one, as long as the agc is being pumped by the stronger station to the point that the weaker can no longer be heard. It has nothing to do with a distorted signal. In that regard, by the way, it is very likely that the stronger station will be the CW one, not the psk one. Normally, psk ops occur well below the maximum output of the average transceiver in pursuit of a cleaner signal. Once the agc is engaged, the linearity required for phase shift keying is likely gone. So the knowledgable psk'ers keep their rigs down i the 30 watt arena. Now, again, I never said planting the digi portion in 35-40 was a good idea. It isn't! It isn't a good idea for folks to make no room for intercontinental ONLY qso's. In my humble opinion, general use of that area is bad juju no matter the mode. And, yes, adding general use digi to that area is a bad idea for the same reason.. UNLESS they are pursuing an intercontinental qso. Again, that is just my opinion and only MY opinion as far as I can tell. If you recall, one of my earliest points was that WE, repeat WE should be the ones making band plans for 160. The reason being obvious WE, as the users of that spectrum, understand that band better than ANY organization of people who never visit it. I am certainly not picking onmthe ARRL or RSGB or any other ham org. Just sayin' that WE should come up with an inclusive band plan that takes digi (including, in particular, DX digi pursuits) and get some of the heavyweights on 160 to bless it. Once that is done, it should be a piece of cake to get the ORGs to follow suit... i would hope, anyway :) Mike A (AB7ZU) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 16, 2012, at 17:28, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: Tom, all you have to do is open you filter up to say 1800 hz or maybe a little more, then sit and watch how many signals you can decode on a busy 20 meter psk31 day. I regularly copy signals that are almost in the noise while surrounded by louder signals only 20 or 30 hz away. 20 or 30, NOT 200 or 300 hz away. I kid you not. Well, if the signals were as lousy as you seem to think most of them are, you wouldn't be able to do that with any regularity. I have it happen almost every weekend and even during weekdays on 20 and 15 meters. In fact, given the number of hams who call 20 meter digi home, it is the NORM, not the exception. The problem is almost never decoding signals near other signals of relatively similar levels, say within 20 dB or so of each other. Problems almost always occur when a strong signal of what might appear to be reasonable purity in other cases is parked near noise floor signals. It is all about dB. I understand what you saying about Collins and the entire concept. BUT, the truth of the matter, experientially, is that we MUST be producing mostly clean signals or you wouldn't be able to pack so many signals into a SSB BW and be able to decode each and every one of them. That is probably what Collins thought, too. After all, if a dozen S6 to S9+10 32S1 transmitters were near each other and able to work, why would the FCC be sending out pick tickets, and why would other people be complaining about the same system? Because the other people were trying to work S2 -S4 signals, and the birdies and carrier were falling on them. The same is true for NDB's with a bit too much drive. If airplanes don't notice a problem with an overdriven NDB at the next airport, they must be pretty good. Why do they bother Hams 2000 miles away? Most 30S1's actually were around -40 dB or so for spurious, and most NDB's are better than that. That doesn't change the fact both systems are poor ideas, and cause problems that could have been avoided. Even if there is some disparity with regard to the strength of those signals. In other words, I don't know whose signal you have been listening to, but it can't be the majority... I am not pinging on you here, just stating fact, whether it is anecdotal or measured. The logic of your well stated argument is good. But experience says that the basic premise MUST be wrong. Most of s are, indeed, producing clean signals. The proximity of our digi neighbors in the digi portions of ALL the bands says so. :) :) Most doesn't make something the best choice. You'll find very few people who want to park in a neighborhood where **most** cars don't get broken into, when there might be a better choice. My basic premise is exactly correct. Modes generated at baseband audio and transmitted through SSB transmitters are only as clean as the basic SSB transmitter, and are subject to operator and external
Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres
Mike, that is QUITE true indeed. Actually, you must watch the waterfall due to the fact that most ears would be unable, by hearing alone, to detect a frequency shift that would cause the signal to become utterly unreadable. The waterfall is probably the most watched thing in the digi world. Especially with the narrow band modes. In the case of JT65, it's a might bit different, but I would find it pretty hard to believe that if anyone heard a CW signal that they wouldn't be able to tell it is CW. I know quite a few CW ops that wouldn't be able to tell the digi signal, tho. Not picking on CW ops.. Psk31 sounds almost like a steady tone, unless you listen very carefully and notice those very slight variations in the signal. The phase shifting. FSK is pretty easy by comparison. The musical ones, like JT65 are pretty easy, too. But I have heard CW OPS ask what's with the random MUSICAL NOTES there. He he he. Other than the choice of the 35-40 subband on 160, I think the rest is pretty much needless worry or concern. Mole hill.. Meet mountain. :) Mike A (AB7ZU) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 16, 2012, at 18:48, MIKE DURKIN patriot...@msn.com wrote: Ok ... I call foul k6xt Most all digital mode ops are watching the waterfall its hard not to miss CW. Most fair digital ops can recognize a fair number if digital mode by site Cw being the most easy SSB stands out like a big, fat, thumb. Mike KC7NOA Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:37:04 -0600 From: k...@arrl.net To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres Exactly. And it applies to digi operators too, many of whom are not listening for CW or anything else in my very own personal experience. Their software is in control - who needs to look at a radio's S meter or, heaven forbid, actually listen to it? seems to be a common operating situation. Ergo jamming, intentional or not. Its also true that no CW contester I know of will sit on a freq for up to a minute (or even 10 seconds) waiting to see if someone's already using it. No doubt at all there's plenty of potential for conflict in the 1835-1840 area. Which returns me to my starting point of agreement with Tom about the unfortunate choice of that range for digi ops. Since I don't use SSB and find some other band in the 160SSB tests, I haven't had the pleasure you describe. IMO Tom's fruitful discussion would begin where can we move digi ops out of the 35-40 segment so there's reduced impact on activity preexisting since the dawn of creation, and do it such that the digi ops - many of whom probably also use CW and SSB on 160 - don't need to add more antenna switching or a separate antenna. A discussion about how regularly parts of the band are used for DX is, IMHO, specious. Obviously there isn't likely to be much activity til the band opens somewhere and a DX station shows up. PS: Lest anyone think I'm unduly biased, while not a regular I have used digital modes including JT65 on 160 and other bands. 73 Art K6XT~~ Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm. ARRL, GMCC, CW OPS, NAQCC ARRL TA On 9/16/2012 1:19 PM, Jim wrote: Jam existing CW? What about the SSB stations down around 1820 during a contest? NO ONE has the right to any frequency. Whoever gets there first and uses it takes priority. ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: TB digital
Jim, this topic IS about 160, no doubt about it. I don't think anyone here has insulted or abused anyone. We are discussing a very valid subject and it has nothing to do with who is bigger than who. It has to do with growth of activity on the band we all know and love. Tom has made some valid points, as has everyone else. The most important one being the placement, by someone's agreement of the digi subband. I think everyone agrees it isn't in the right place. But having said that, where should it go? If anyone says digi doesn't belong on 160, THEN you might find some serious disagreement.. Nobody is saying that I would know because I happen to be in favor of its being on 160, in particular. So where would you have is discuss a 160 topic? What other forum, other than this one, addresses things about 160 and the modes/practices/standards thereon? Anyone here been insulted or demeaned by any comments? I haven't.. Anyone else? Anything been said that deserves a moderator to step in? If so, I would like to know what it was so I can learn about the rules here.. Thanks Mike A (AB7ZU) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 16, 2012, at 19:16, wa3...@comcast.net wrote: I was afraid this was going to turn into a yours is bigger than mine.. geeze.. but at the risk of taking up space on Tree's forum..,,, With all due respect the area that people work JT65 in now is due I believe to IARU recommendations (or so I have been told) I have not however verified that myself. I can tell you that several foriegn stations have said they can not work down low. Next one response said that he can copy better than signals better than JT65. If he had said PSK I would agree with him however JT65 can copy signals that barely print on my screen and can not be heard audibly. If that is not the case then the person setting up the system has it set up incorrectly which brings me up to the next point. I agree with much of what Tom W8JI has said. He is both smart and wise and he has noticed that many do not take the time to set up their equipment correctly meaning they over drive the radio, use radios that are old and not suitable or they have miswired the system which leads to a totally crappy signal and interference to others on the band both digital and CW.. oh geeze CW is digital isnt it.. hu. Finally, you cant mean to tell me that the little bit of space being used by digital at the top of the CW window causes a hardship on anyone.. heck half of the time the SSB stations are even down there and no one growls about that.. and wait until a SSB contest you wont find an empty spot in the CW band.. so what is the beef with 5 KHz or less being used, sometimes for a sound card digital mode when much of the CW band is empty 75 percent of the time. I would suggest that we do take this discussion to another venue less Tree moderates all of us.. It is ok to email me directly. Jim P.S. I do work CW I dont hate it ya know. http://www.qsl.net/wa3mej/index.htm - Original Message - ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Threading radials
ZR and HAROLD, I have been having issues with the tie wraps breaking in the AZ sun. I suspect the UV is getting to them badly. The metal ones don't break, but I can't use those for shunt feeding, of course. Can you recommend a source for ones that don't break? It is a real pain replacing them every year or two.. He he he Mike A (AB7ZU) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Aug 17, 2012, at 6:48, ZR z...@jeremy.mv.com wrote: At a prior QTH in the 80's I used 3/4 PVC pipe and T's to support a length of 3/4 CATV hardline as the shunt feed. A single piece of #12 didnt work well at all at any spacing using bandwidth and pileup busting as the criteria. Carl KM1H - Original Message - From: HAROLD SMITH JR w0ri...@sbcglobal.net To: N7DF n...@yahoo.com; Topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Threading radials I find that 1/2 inch PVC pipe is handy for many things. It can be cut into 6 spacers or insulators. I use it for spacers on my Shunt Fed tower's shunt feed rod. I used 1/2 EMT for the shunt feed rod and the PVC spaced about every 24 to stabilize the rod. I use Black Tie-wraps to secure everything. 73 Price W0RI From: N7DF n...@yahoo.com Subject: Topband: Threading radials I have found that 20 foot lengths of 1/2 inch PVC pipe works very well in getting radial wires through, around and under the very prickly shrubbery that gets in the way here in the New Mexico desert. It is very inexpensive and can be extended to as long a run as is needed. ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5204 - Release Date: 08/16/12 ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
