Re: Topband: OT - US Hams, WWV closure
Whatever it is, my clocks check it. I know it is not WWL. Maybe it is WWV(B)(xyz) --- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard (Rick) Karlquist Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:08 PM To: wesattaway; Don Kirk; jim.t...@telus.net Cc: topband Subject: Re: Topband: OT - US Hams, WWV closure On 8/25/2018 1:59 PM, wesattaway wrote: > Half the clocks in our house check WWW every night. > WWW? More likely they check WWVB. I know mine do. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice
This is Wes agreeing with Wes re the "too much loss in the system". In an efficient system on 160 the SWR curve should not be so broad. Years ago I had an Inverted L configured like what you have, with the vertical wire going up about 65' spaced about 18" off the tower. The SWR was broad. I think what happens is that there is a lot of coupling between the vertical wire and the tower/antenna system. I worked a lot of DX with this set up but after I took that system down and put up an inverted L hanging from a high limb on a large Pine tree the system was better, at least from an SWR standpoint. The SWR curve was sharper. However, as has been recently discussed in this forum, the tree was imposing its own influence. The SWR curve was still broad, but nowhere near as broad as with the wire next to the tower. I don't know how much this kind of situation affects your transmitted signal strength. Possibly, not very much, depending on your ground radial system. In any event, the antenna worked well enough to get me to the point that most other 160 ops get to, and that is the point at which you could work more DX if you could just hear it. That is when you have to start working on your RX antennas and stop worrying too much about your TX antenna. ----------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill via TowerTalk Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 3:28 AM To: towert...@contesting.com Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical advice First, I want to say thank you to all who responded to my post about a top loaded vertical for 160. The antenna I wound up with was quite different than the one I proposed. Basically, it is about 132 feet of wire. The top "bent" part (65 feet) is carried by a piece of thin Phillystran stretched out from the 84 foot level on my tower out to around 350 feet to a "borrowed" neighbors property. Luckily the property also rises in slope about 25 feet, giving me a little extra height. The remaining 67 feet is dropped straight down to the ground. I currently have around 40 radials laying on the ground, not buried yet. Another 20 or so to come. Some of the radials from the 160 vertical overlap the ones from my 4 square for 80 The antenna is directly fed with 50 ohm cable and the SWR is 1:1 at 1825 and is less than 1.3:1 across 1800-1900 kHz. It looks into the tower in the direction of North America. I gave the antenna its first workout tonight and it is a winner. Worked all over the US and had about ten EU call in. Copy was tough on this end as QRN was quite bad on the shared apex rx antenna. Thanks again to all who helped me find a solution to my 160 antenna. Bill KH7XS/K4XS ___ ___ TowerTalk mailing list towert...@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help
Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option would be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at the top. You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with 2x 15' +/- drop wires. --- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR DUNNE Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM To: topband List Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help Hi All I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same, My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line, I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time allows but don't the make the SWR worse ?? With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269, The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded, Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match, Thanks Trevor EI2GLB _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing? (long)
I agree with all the comments re digital modes such as FT8. I was discussing this recently with a local ham and I told him that I thought ARRL could create a new "DXCC While Being Asleep" award. With FT8 all you have to do is to click your mouse once in a while. The rest of the time you could just be dozing while the computer is making a few QSOs. You really don't have to be awake while the QSOs (if you want to call them that) are being made. ------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Ireland Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:25 AM To: Topband reflector Subject: Topband: FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing? (long) G'day As a committed (yeah, that's probably the right word - complete with white jacket that laces up at the back) topbander since 1970, I've never been so intrigued and disturbed by anything on the band as the emergence of the Franke-Taylor FT-8 digital mode. For me, radio has always been all about what I audibly hear. I love all the sounds that radio signals make - and even miss the comforting sound of Loran that I grew up with around 1930kHz as a teenager in south-east England. Yeah, I am one sick puppy. With the emergence of high resolution bandscopes through SDR technology over the last decade, I embraced that as it meant that I could find what DX stations I wanted to hear and contact quicker and more easily (and, in particular, before those stations who didn't have the same technology). It was really exciting and enhanced the sensual experience of radio by being able to see what I could hear (and no dinosaur me, I was an SDR fan boy!). During this period, there has also been an extraordinary development in digital radio modes, in particular by Joe Taylor K1JT. As a topbander I could see that these modes in which you 'saw' signals through the medium of computer screen or window as being a remarkable technical achievement, but had relatively little to do what I and the vast majority of active radio amateurs practiced as radio on 160m, as it had nothing to do with the audible. The good thing was that I could see that good old CW and Silly Slop Bucket (you can see where my prejudices lie) that I like to use were still the modes of choice for weak signal DX topband radio contact as these fancy digital modes were either very slow or, if they weren't, were not good at dealing with signals that faded up and down or were covered in varying amounts of noise. While some amateurs seemed to have lost the pleasure of actually hearing signals in favour of viewing them on their computer screens, I felt secure that these digital modes were just a minor annoyance and any serious DXer or DXpedition was never going to seriously going to use them, particularly on my first and all-time love topband, for other than experimentation. Then, out of the blue, along comes FT-8. Joe and Steve Franke K9AN have quietly created the holy grail of digital operation with a mode that can have QSOs almost as fast as CW and SSB and over the last eight weeks 160m DXing has changed, perhaps for ever. Where once there were a few weak CW and SSB signals (I am in VK6, which is a looong way from anywhere with a population so we only ever hear a few), I can see that the busiest part of the band is 1840 kHz - FT-8 central. On some nights I can see FT-8 signals on the band but no CW or SSB. There are countries I've dreamed for 20 years of hearing on 160m SSB/CW (for example, KG4) regularly appearing on DX clusters and I can see the heap of FT-8 activity on my band scope. Frustration sets in and I even downloaded the FT-8 software but, when it comes down to it, I just can't use it. My heart isn't in it. My computer will be talking to someone else's computer and there will be no sense of either a particular person's way of sending CW or the tone of their voice (even the way some my SSB mates overdrive their transceivers is actually creating nostalgia in me). The human in radio has somehow been lost. I think back to my best-ever 160m SSB contact with Pedro NP4A and I can still hear the sound of his voice, his accent, when he came up out of the noise and to my amazement answered me on my second call, with real excitement in his voice. Pure radio magic! So I am sitting here, feeling depressed and wondering if overnight I have become a dinosaur and this is the beginning of the end of topband radio as I've always enjoyed it. Now, over to you other topbanders, especially those who have dabbled with FT-8 and live in more populous areas. Has the world really turned upside down and what do you think the future holds? Vy 73 Steve, VK6VZ/G3ZZD --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _ Topband Reflector Archi
Re: Topband: underground cables question
I installed 4 runs of BuryFlex through my slab and then out into the backyard about 15-years ago (when we built a new house) and it is still working fine. I have conduit through the slab (open at both ends) but the cable is direct buried out in the yard (about 24" deep). ------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dale Putnam Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 10:13 AM Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: underground cables question must have to do with the annual rainfall. I too come from 30+ years in telco and radio comm. There are 12 runs of 6 in conduit between building on one campus, and a number of others around that are still dry after being there for 20+ years. And the conduit, I am speaking of is PVC TUBE.. pretty much the same stuff that carries the water into your house. IF someone wants to use emt conduit, then that is the description that Guy so aptly describes. NOT a good deal. AND it isn't rated for water per code in the electrical code either. I have seen where squirrels somehow managed to work the metal conduit hard enough with the weather helping, to access the coax inside.. they didn't much like the sticky goo inside.. but that didn't stop them from eating enough to short the coax.. and of course Muphy made it an intermittent short. Have a great day, --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy "Actions speak louder than words" 1856 - Abraham Lincoln From: guyk...@gmail.com <guyk...@gmail.com> on behalf of Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 8:12 AM To: Dale Putnam Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: underground cables question Coming from an ancient Telco background which included keeping microwave waveguides dry for AT, unless you are willing to pressurize the conduit at one end and allow air to exit at the other, AND insure that the air is dry enough to not condensate at your coldest possible ground temperature, or run it with an unbroken slope to a point where water drains without pumping and or can be suctioned, then make these assumptions: 1) Permanent performance and very long life is desired and outweighs cost. If you move a lot and are putting up stuff at rental housing you probably need not worry. Just remember to start with new coax and cable at the new rental place. Throw away the old stuff. Then mark this read and move on to the next posting. If you think you are retiring at your place of residence, and if lucky want it to work without a worry for the next 30 years absent direct lightning strike, then read on. 2) All conduits will fill with water. That is their NATURAL state unless you specifically and effectively mitigate it. At any time other than first installed, filled with water is their most probable state. This leaves the main usefulnesses of the conduit as a) Critter protection, and b) Cable replacement, if the conduit is large enough and water-proof pull ropes are left in conduit, a method of adding or replacing cables that avoids redigging and leaving deprecated cable in the ground. These are significant long-term advantages, and many find those more than enough reason to use them. However... 3) Even in conduit all cables must have permanent, water-proof jacketing. Most cable has jacketing that is not rated for permanent submersion, meant for indoor use. Polyethelyne (PE) jacketed or hardline cable is really the only commonly available choice for coax with portions permanently submerged. Flooded is nice, but probably overkill INSIDE CONDUIT if the jacketing is PE or other permanently waterproof material. ***RG213 does NOT conform.*** Any miscellaneous plastics do not conform. There are cables manufactured with ham-uncommon materials to telephone company specifications, FOR DELIVERY TO TELCO, that have all the water stuff worked out just fine. But BEWARE knockoffs and batches for retail that mfr knows will never be sample tested by telco. Or for that matter cable that failed telco tests and was put on the retail market to recover costs. High current rotator motor leads (as opposed to control leads) should use the commonly available UG series direct-buriable power wiring available at home improvement stores. Less voltage drop, permanent and rated for wet environments. 4) splices or cable terminations should be made indoors and elevated where waterproofing failure will not allow water to get inside the PE jacketing. Some manufactured multiconductor cables will have BOTH external and internal insulation PE or teflon. Do not locate splices in conduit. You're just asking for it. Even if 9 out of 10 get away with it, be assured you will be # 10. Murphy KNOWS all you've done, knows all the contest and DXpedition dates, AND has a malevolent nature. 7
Re: Topband: 160 m inverted L
I haven't run any numbers but it seems like you should just shorten the horizontal wire (resonance freq is too low). I would go back to about 65' horizontal. Somewhere in the range of 60' to 70' you should get close enough. --- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Art Heft Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 3:06 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: 160 m inverted L I finally got the inverted L up this afternoon. Vertical dimension is 65' and the almost horizontal dimension is 95'. I am using a very carefully built FCP and the commercial transformer. My SARK 110 shows resonance at about 1.68 MHz but the resistive part is up around 1000 ohms. Taken right at the antenna. Doesn't seem right to me. Any ideas? 73, Art K8CIT Hillman MI _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Soldering radials?
In past years (when I had a 80/160 vertical, I used normal 60/40 solder to solder radials to some 2"-wide copper strap. Then I just painted over the joints with black "tree paint" that I got from Home Depot. All joints were still in good shape when I cut everything apart and moved about 10-years ago. I still have some to the copper strap rolled up in my current workshop and the ends of the radial wires are still there, nice and tight. ----------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard (Rick) Karlquist Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 10:53 AM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: Soldering radials? I'd like to get the latest thinking from the group on soldering radials. What I currently thinking is as follows: SOLDER SELECTION: 1. Tin lead doesn't hold up in the weather. 2. "Stay Brite" 3% silver solder (97% tin, no lead) is known to work well, but is expensive, and has a considerably higher melting point than 63/37. 3. Lead free plumber's solder obviously works in water pipes, but does it hold up outdoors in the rain? What is the melting point? FLUX SELECTION: 1. Pure rosin. Hardest to work with, but minimum corrosion issues. 2. Activated rosin. Easier to work with. What corrosion issues are there? 3. Acid core plumber's flux. Very easy to work with, very corrosive. Does this hold up in the rain, etc? (I remember the dire warnings that Heathkit manuals had about not using acid core solder, but I guess that doesn't apply to radials.) CRIMPING? Has anyone tried crimping as an alternative to solder? Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 160M EWE Problems
It sounds like you have a problem with either the terminating resistor or the matching transformer. Or, there could be a problem with your switching if you have more than one EWE. There is no reason why a EWE would behave the way you describe unless it is simply acting as a shortened U-shaped length of wire that is possibly coupling to your main TX antenna. On 2015-12-07 16:39, Mark K3MSB wrote: Greetings fellow Top Band enthusiasts! I'm Mark K3MSB, and I live south of York PA. This is my first time posting to this list. I’ve been licensed for 43 years and got on 160M in November 2014, so this is the start of my second year. Why I didn’t get on TB sooner is a question I keep asking myself! I’ve enjoyed the challenge of 80M DXing for years, and I find 160M to be an even more challenging band! Last year I used an Inverted-L for TX and RX. The vertical part was 30 feet high and I used about a dozen ground radials. I was very pleased with its performance and was delighted to be able to work stations in Europe.This year I changed the Inverted-L; the vertical section is now up 50 feet and I’m using about 16 ground radials. This year I also decided to put up a separate RX antenna. I put up an EWE oriented towards Europe. Each leg is 10 feet tall, and the length is 50 feet.The terminating resistor should be 1.2K, so I used a 2K potentiometer set for the correct resistance. The preamp is the P1-30/20VD from Advance Receiver Research. After attempting to use the EWE for a few weeks, I’m convinced the EWE doesn’t work. Obviously, since a lot of people use the EWE, the antenna design must work, so it’s an installation or usage problem on my end that’s the issue. I hope some of you seasoned 160M men can help me out. I have the terminating end supported by a fiberglass mast about 2 feet from the end of my house (vinyl siding). The transformer end is supported by a rope to a tree, and the drop to ground on that end is vertical.The terminating end goes to a 4 foot ground rod. The transformer end goes to a 2 foot ground rod (septic line concerns prevent me from going deeper). When I turn on the preamp, the noise level rises to the same level as that heard with my Inverted-L. Stations in Europe are sometimes at the same signal level, but a lot of times much lower, so that I can hear them better on the Inverted-L and not on the EWE. Stations off the back of the EWE sometimes are attenuated, but not all the time. I tried adjusting the potentiometer, and that has no effect at all. I did this by running a long patch cable from the headphones jack on the transceiver to the area of the terminating resistor. I tuned in a moderately strong station (off the back of the EWE) whose signal level was fairly constant, and adjusted the pot while listening to the audio. No change at all.Granted, the ear is not the best way to do this. I have a noise issue here, and I think it’s man-made, but from reports of 160M hams in the area, I’m not sure it’s local. The bandscope on the radio shows a ragged saw tooth waveform . When I switch from the Inverted-L to the EWE, the ragged waveform goes away, but I do not see a decrease in background noise as I expected. My expectation of the EWE is that both signal and noise would go down (relative to the Inverted-L), but the preamp would boost the signal higher relative to the noise (although the signal level itself on the EWE would be less than the Inverted-L). As mentioned above, the noise level is unchanged, and the signal is much more difficult to copy with the EWE. It was suggested that I connect the two ground rods with a wire. I did this and it had no effect. So, I’m open to any and all suggestions. 73 Mark K3MSB _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: The Remote Question..
Amen. On 2015-07-12 16:28, Dave Heil wrote: Bill, There was no competition among those who walked to school, no matter what the distance. There were no awards, annual listings, pins, certificates, plaques or such. The internet is akin to telephones and cable television more than to amateur radio. If you're making your way to Topband DXCC with stations on both coasts and receivers/antennas on various continents, you are not operating in the spirit of the awards. 73, Dave Heil K8MN On 7/12/2015 3:00 PM, Bill Cromwell wrote: Hi Mike, There really is a difference among all the people who walked to school and back every school day for 12 years or so. Some of them lived across the street and others lived ten miles away, uphill both ways evil grin. I do see that somebody who did all of a DX challenge from their home location has more bragging rights than somebody who did parts of it over the internet. This message was done in part with the internet. Doing it all by radio would be *more* fun. 73, Bill KU8H _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial vertical on a beach
I think the essence of what Tom has been saying is that yes there are some differences in a salt water location versus an inland location but that the differences are quite variable and are not deal breakers in terms of being able to score well in a contest that continues over 24 or 48 hours and that require scoring to be determined by contacts in every direction and every distance. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 --- 318-393-3289 (Cell) --- Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Tope Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:01 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial vertical on a beach On 8/15/2014 6:51 AM, Tom W8JI wrote: For receiving, an absence of noise sources in the path is all the difference in the world. As an example of this look at what N7JW and K7CA did from the Utah desert area. Utah desert is like the anti-saltwater, and they are located much further from Europe than the east coast with a worse polar area path, yet they had outstanding results. Saltwater has the same advantage, as do freshwater bodies, of a lack of noise sources in what might be a desired direction. For efficiency (which only affects transmitting), the advantage is primarily concentrated at low angles and primarily affects vertically polarized systems. The question then becomes one of wave angle and polarization. Then there is distance as a factor, and path loss related to the magnetic poles, which are factors. A good station has a combination of everything going for it, but there is no magic and there certainly isn't any 10 dB or more involved just from being near saltwater. A few dB here and there from multiple factors are what make the difference. Move 25% or 50% closer, get rid of noise sources in the path, increase vertical antenna performance at low angles a few dB, and get away from going past the magnetic poles and it is a winner. It isn't from magic, and it isn't all from the presence of saltwater, and it is not 10-20 dB by any stretch of the imagination. 73 Tom I agree with what you say, Tom, but as others have pointed out, this still leaves the door open for an advantage at very low takeoff angles. A mostly unexploited propagation mode at very low takeoff angles could explain all the anecdotes from mobile operators which describe signals peaking as they drove up to waters edge and fading as they moved away. Also, this hypothesized low-takeoff propagation mode isn't necessarily at odds with the sunset/sunrise high angle mode (low dipole suddenly beats the vertical) that many have observed (IIRC, yourself among them). Myself I can imagine two distinct propagation modes, one at high angles and one at very long angles. They could, but wouldn't necessarily occur at the same time. What is needed is a really good test protocol and someone willing to do the work necessary to follow it. 73, Mike W4EF. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Spam on the Reflector!
All of the anti-malware products that have been mentioned do some good after certain malware has been detected. However, none of them are perfect and there are some exploits that go around the anti-malware stuff and imbed themselves anyway. Some of the malware can be a real pain to remove. Some malware can actually destroy or encrypt your data. The best remedy by far is to always be very alert as to what you are about to click on. Be in doubt if something about the e-mail looks odd and just delete the e-mail without opening it. Be in doubt if a proffered link looks even the least bit odd, and as some have pointed out just consider not ever clicking on a link that comes to you via an e-mail. You can always ask a friend who sends a link whether they sent the link or not. If they say yes then it is OK to use it. There is no penalty for being safe. There can be a big penalty for being unsafe. Microsoft has made it very easy to create a system image of your computer. It is a very good idea to do this periodically. Go to Control Panel and then the Backup and Restore. Most full system images take about 50Gb to 60Gb and usually about 30-minutes or so to create. Use a spare hard drive to store the image. Having an image saves you a world of trouble if you get a bad malware attack. You can completely restore your system with all the many ham radio control settings in a matter of a half hour or so. System Restore is good for some types of problems but having a recent system image on hand trumps everything because it actually replaces all files, leaving nothing to chance. In really bad malware situations you can simply wipe your hard drive and then go back and restore the system image, knowing that every single piece of old data has been overwritten and replaced with your good system image. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Cunningham Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:39 PM To: g...@ka1j.com; Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Spam on the Reflector! Thanks, Gary I have both Malware Bytes and Spyware Blaster on my machines, so I'll run those to be sure. Thanks! Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary Smith Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:28 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Spam on the Reflector! The one from Jim was SPAM, originating from Peru (IP address 190.40.217.23) It's possible the sender used a spoofed IP but it really doesn't matter, it was SPAM and obviously not topband oriented. To check your computer for viruses, trojans exploits, an excellent choice is malwarebytes http://www.malwarebytes.org/ The free version is excellent. Kim Komando is a well known internet guru regarding computer issues. She suggests malwatebytes and spyware blaster, both free. Here are links to her comments on both: http://www.komando.com/downloads/category.aspx?id=1927 http://www.komando.com/downloads/category.aspx?id=6151 If you use microsoft, you might want to try microsoft essentials, a free download from microsoft. 73, Gary KA1J I've had two links to Trojans arrive in e-mails from the reflector in the last two days - one labelled Topband: John King and the other Topband: Jim Koshmider. If you received and clicked on either and didn't get a warning, your computer is now infected! Both seem to have originated from Yahoo addresses, so I'd guess this is a continuation of the Yahoo hack from a couple of weeks ago. Keith G3OIT All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night. _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Wall warts
This has nothing to do with wall warts. I am just testing to see where that fine whiskey signature is coming from. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night. _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Elevated Radials EPILOGUE
Buck I think a lot of people have already done these kinds of tests. Tom and others have given a pretty thorough run-down of the different factors and results to expect. And, it all mostly agrees with modeling. There are a lot of real world differences such as type of ground, nearby terrain levels, buildings, overhead wires, and so on. Then, there are economic factors. About all you can do is to put up whatever you can live with at your locale. Or, you could buy a perfect location somewhere and operate a remote station via an internet link. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Buck wh7dx Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 12:39 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Elevated Radials EPILOGUE I can't believe that no one has put this really important question to bed already. If I had the land and an existing vertical with a large buried radial system and another tower available.. I would try it out for the sake of Ham Radio :-)) Put up another 160M vertical.. contact a few friends from around North America or International and take some notes. Put 2 1/4 wave elevated radials up in the air.. 10ft. Then try 30ft.. take some notes. How did the control sample compare (buried radials). Should give you an idea of propagation and changes. Put 4 1/4 wave in the air.. (if you noticed a difference with 10ft and 30ft - don't bother with the weaker one) any difference with 4 versus 2? - I'd bet there is... Put 12 1/4 wave in the air...how does that compare? Pretty close to Control Sample??What are the real world results. If it's one S unit and I don't need to lay a mile-plus of wire buried in the ground.. that might be enough. I don't think people want to have a ton of elevated radials in the air either - and I'm reading that you don't need to. If you don't want to go with elevated - then bury as many in the ground as you can - have fun... Surely, someone has the room and energy (friends) to give us all the final answer to this question. It would be a blast to do. We'll all pitch in some beer money. Please post the results.. :-) P.S. Can someone with a tower also test out a low dipole around 30 ft and then go to 60, 90 and 120 and post the results. I'm thinking a pulley and rope and some quick 10 minutes adjustments for real world results... that one's easy. Bryan WH7DX [CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE] Information transmitted by this email is proprietary to Mr. Mrs. B and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, or where ever the hell it ends up, and will almost certainly contain information that will offend a large portion of the population, which isn't our concern. If you are not the intended lucky recipient, or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without the proper authority of the Wizard of Email or Al Gore, you are notified that any thought, use, or consumption of this email is entirely your choice. In such case, Bon AppetitNote: A $.02 Internet Tax was charged for receiving this email and all funds were given to some family somewhere in America or the U.N Have a nice day. _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Elevated Radials
When I first looked at Eddy's list I laughed. However, it does convey a clear message that there are a lot of ways to achieve the goal of a workable low-band vertical. I certainly won't argue with the quest for an answer to the what is best question, but at some level almost every ham has to settle for the best that they can reasonably do. The K2AV FCP idea is really good for people who want to have a decent antenna on 160 and where concealing all the wires along a backyard fence line fits their idea of combining aesthetics with performance. It is a great idea but is probably not as good as a situation with 120 perfectly spaced ground radials or 60 perfectly spaced elevated radials. Tom, W8JI, and others can put up really great layouts in open fields but this is not an option for many hams. Thus, we get to the situation Eddy reveals Do what you can reasonably do and don't worry about every theoretical Db or fraction of a Db. Personally, I don't want to walk out into my backyard and have to look at a bunch of wires drooping all over the place. That is why I like K2AV's design. Other people think differently. So be it. Put something up and get on the air. A new country might show up while you are fiddling with one more radial. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eddy Swynar Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 7:48 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Elevated Radials Good Day Again All, Well, I've done my best to summarize all the respondents' comments in the matter of elevated vs. ground-mounted radials---and I'll try now to summarize these in a single-page format for benefit of all to see... The results are certainly interesting, and some are as different from one another as we might be physically! In any event---and FWIW---here goes: (A) Is it true that a couple of elevated radials are just as effective as the optimum amount of buried ones...? -It depends. -Don't know. -Don't know. -If 2 or more are used, maybe. -It depends. (B) What is the ideal number of elevated radials that one should use...? -It depends upon their height. -2. -2 to 4. -7 to 8. -1 to 5. -2. -8. -1 to 2. -16 to 32. -16 to 32. -The more the better. -Any amount, but use pairs (ex. 2 to 4, 6 to 8, etc.). (C) How many elevated radials are just enough...? -Enough to overcome ground losses establish resonance. -2. -2 -2. -2. -4. -4 (8 is overkill). -1. -32. -8. -Depends upon soil quality (D) How high should these radials be...? -The higher the better to clear pedestrians, animals, etc. -10'. -6' to 8'.-6' to 8'. -12' to 14'. -7' to 8'. -6' to 15'. -20'. -6' to 10'. -8'. -10' to 12'. -20'. -1' to 10' (but the higher the better). (E) Would it be a requirement that I raise the feedpoints of my L's to the same height as the elevated radials, or can I simply leave the bases where they are now (at ground level) simply slant the radials upward with no effect upon performance...? -Gull wing arrangement OK. -Feed point should be 8' high. -Not sure. -Makes no difference. -Gull wing OK. -Gull wing OK. -Not sure. -Same height as radials (to minimize ground loss). -Makes no difference. -Optional. (F) Is it OK to bend the elevated radials to fit property allotments...? -Slight bends OK. -Yes. -Yes. -Yes. -Not sure. -Not sure. -OK, but gradual bends only. -No. -Yes. -Best kept straight. (G) What is the desirable length of an elevated radial...? -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Quarter wave. -Use short radials with a common coil. -Quarter wave + height above ground. (H) Should any existing connections to real earth at the base of the L's (i.e. a ground pipe) be completed severed with a system of elevated radials...? -If radials one quarter wave long, makes no difference. -No ground. -No ground. -With a ground, there'll be noise on receive. -NEVER ground. -No ground. -No ground. -No ground. -No ground. -No ground. Additionally, four respondents recommended using a choke balun at the feedpoint...one person avowed that a single elevated radial was the equivalent of 30 ground radials...another stated that 8 elevated radials were super good, but that even 1 to 2 would be good...another affirms that one simply can not beat the optimal number of buried radials... Several recommended this site as an excellent reference as well: http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/2012/02/elevated-radial-ground-systems-some-ca utions.html I personally haven't taken a look at it myself here, but it is most certainly on my to do list! I hope my effort here might help dissipate some of the fog surrounding elevated
Re: Topband: Response to W8JI's comments about using a K2AV foldedcounterpoise at VK6VZ
I think that as long as we can agree that just because someone thinks a particular antenna works better than some other antenna they have had, and no rigorous testing under scientifically controlled conditions has been done, and that the opinion is just an opinion and nothing more, then we will all be OK. Jim is correct that all antennas are some sort of compromise and if you are happy with an antenna under your particular conditions then that is fine. Tom is obviously correct in saying that you can't infer much about claims of performance unless you have some good test data to back up the claims. A good operator can work more DX with a so-so antenna than a poor operator can. Does that make the antenna better in the good operator's location? If you are on a much sought after small Pacific atoll with a crappy antenna you are still going to make more contacts than you would sitting in Caddo Parish in North Louisiana with the same antenna. Does that make the antenna better than some other antenna out on the island? As Tom points out, the answer is only determined by serious testing. Most hams aren't going to go to the time and trouble of doing serious testing, for a lot of reasons. However, some will do it and the results are usually enlightening. Serious test results usually reveal a lot of unexpected results. Then again, when you have to replicate the test results antenna in some other location you may have a problem, unless you do more testing at the new location (nearby towers, wires, trees, hills, stone walls, metal buildings, etc). As an aside One thing I have always told young hams is to just quickly put up the best antenna you can at the beginning and get on the air. If you diddle around forever wondering whether this or that antenna will work then you won't be on the air having some fun. There is both a technical and a practical side to this whole discussion and I think Jim and Tom are each worth paying attention to. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 4:57 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Response to W8JI's comments about using a K2AV foldedcounterpoise at VK6VZ is a compromise. It's sad that some cannot see that forest for the trees. :) 73, Jim K9YC Comments like that are expected, but are totally out of place in technical discussions. No one said the antenna does not work or cannot work, only that some of the claims obviously reach far beyond what can be determined. An experiment without some reasonable reality check isn't advancing the state of art, it is advancing the state of graffiti. 73 Tom ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: RX epiphany?
That is a terrific, common-sense, ranking of options. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:10 PM To: Bob Kupps Cc: topband Subject: Re: Topband: RX epiphany? Hi thanks to all for the replies. Sorry I wasn't clear my QTH is northern Thailand. The point I was trying to make is that even though it is a noisy part of the season it is apparently less noisy at the European latitudes. Unfortunately I don't have enough land to put up a 160m Xmit 4 square and an RX array, it will have to be one or the other Bob, A basic Inverted L or vertical would be maybe $100-500 US over here. A 160 TX four square, if done right, costs thousands of dollars in the USA. It will generally receive only as well as a $25 Beverage antenna, maybe not that well, and you will have a one-band antenna. Unless you homebrew something, it will only have about five dB transmit gain at the most. A linear amp that gives 13 dB gain is about the same price increase as a 5 dB gain four-square. The linear works on all bands, has much more gain, and that frees hundreds of dollars for receiving antennas that can work on all bands. To me it is a no-brainer for low bands. The normal reasonable order of progression is: 1.) good TX omni antenna 2.) good basic RX antennas that fit your location 3.) amplifier 4.) better RX antennas or bigger amp, depending on your results at this point 5.) after legal limit is reached and only if people have problems hearing you, only then comes transmitting antenna gain or 6 dB gain radials (as one person once claimed :-) High transmitting antenna gain at the start makes sense on 20 meters and above, where antenna cost is low and the antenna can be a 1/2 wave or more high Yagi. My opinion is it makes no sense at all on lowest bands to start with TX antenna gain. The cost per dB is far too much. 73 Tom ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: electrical wavelength
Tom I think everything is real quiet while a bunch of folks are busy looking at manuals and crunching numbers with their analyzers. Someone wants to find a mistake in your opinion. Stand by. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:29 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: electrical wavelength Run the numbers and for RG-6 we see that sq root of L/C is good above a couple hundred kHz. Dave WX7G I just ran it in MathCAD and it showed a Zo and Vf slope starting down around 150 kHz, but I assumed the conductors were solid copper. Conductors have to be in the thousands of a inch range thick to cause an HF slope, because skin depth is .00256 inches on 1 MHz for copper. I cannot understand the HF and higher numbers at all, where it is all pretty much set by the dielectric constant slowing the TEM wave. I don't even think it would be a practical concern down to 100 kHz or so where copper skin depth is .0081 inches and we might be getting into the steel core, or am I missing something here? :-) 73 Tom ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Radials through heavy brush
You can use the same idea to go through the grass in an average lawn. I used to do it all the time through St. Augustine grass and under layers of pine straw. I used a long stiff metal rod that was probably about 1/8-inch in diameter and maybe 5 or 6 feet long. You can cover a lot of territory in a surprisingly short time. Once you get radials under some of the grass and pine straw (but not into the dirt) you really never see them again. Among other advantages, it gives you an opportunity to get very well acquainted with your yard. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith N4ZR Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:36 PM To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Radials through heavy brush I heard about the same idea from Fred, K1VR, using an 8-f0oot ground rod, with a hole drilled in the blunt end and slightly bent to make it sneak through the undergrowth better. 73, Pete N4ZR The World Contest Station Database, at www.conteststations.com The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com, spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000 and arcluster.reversebeacon.net, port 7000 On 8/14/2012 5:36 PM, Pete Michaelis - N8TR wrote: Years ago my wife Mary, N8DMM used a 12' piece of 3/8 diameter aluminum tubing like a long sewing needle to thread 160 and 80 meter radials under heavy brush. It worked very well. A piece of 1/2 tubing was used to splice two pieces together the few times we needed a longer needle 73 Pete - N8TR At 07:27 PM 8/11/2012, Jeff wrote: Another economical and light weight method of pushing wire through brush would be to use a 10' piece of 1/2 PVC or plastic electrical conduit. In the case of the electrical conduit it can be extended by adding multiple pieces together for greater length. It's lite weight and flexible enough to bounce it with one hand over things like roots or stones that might get in the way. If you don't want to carry 10' lengths of plastic pipes around, look in the big box stores or electrical suppliers for threaded push rods made of fiberglass. Typically they come in 4' sections with 4 or 5 in pack that threat one onto the other and are brightly colored. That makes it easy to find in the leaves and twigs. Just tape your wire on to the end and push. Autumn is coming, time to get those TB antennas back in the air. W7JW ___ 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: Fw: Re: Radials over a stone wall
Maybe it is too late at night, but why would it make any difference whether a radial was coax shielded or not? Radials perform lying on the ground, slightly buried under ground, or even elevated. The recent FCP discussion revealed a lot about this. If a radial runs along the ground and then up over a wall, what difference would it make? If you can answer that question then you would know whether or not drilling a hole in the wall would be better or worse. No one says how high the wall is, but my opinion is that you would be hard pressed to measure any signal difference 2,000 miles (or more) away whether the radial ran straight and undeterred on the ground, or through a hole in the wall, or humped up over the wall. I think it has something to do with fields. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bob Eldridge Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:26 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Fw: Re: Radials over a stone wall Anyone guess what would happen if the radials going over the wall were coax shielded ? That's a VERY interesting thought. Somebody model it please. Bob VE7BS ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: ITINERANT 160 M ANTENNA - Response Summary
Well said. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:49 PM To: bills stuff; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: ITINERANT 160 M ANTENNA - Response Summary So gently getting back to the topic of the original post which was: Getting thoughts on relatively simple and relatively inexpensive portable 160 m antenna, potentially deployable by one person, that allows for flexibility and somewhat predictable tuning for use on modest Dxpeds or rare location indigenous ops. Asking for the best antenna is like asking someone else to pick out a bride. All you can do is say a few universal things to look out for. It's almost impossible to tell someone what specific system would be best. Most of the differences are related to physical restrictions, unless something electrically important is done incorrectly. Most of the things we argue endlessly about, or work tirelessly on, are really for fractions of a dB or personal taste. 1.) If you use a small counterpoise, don't ground it with RF paths. Isolate the feedline from the counterpoise and isolate the counterpoise from earth. 2.) Don't fold back antennas in high current areas, because current causes EM radiation. Keep the high current area straight and as long as possible. 3.) Use the largest counterpoise possible, and use one that does not concentrate current, zig-zag current all around, or produce unnecessarily high voltages. 4.) Build something that you can install, and that will stay up. 5.) Most of all, pick the best location you can. ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: THE ITINERANT 160 METER ANTENNA PROJECT
Yes, he did. I remember the article from a long time ago. The theme of the article was how you could improve efficiency by folding the element. It raised the feed impedance and therefore reduced losses. I do not have the article at hand but I do remember it. If it was a QST article then it will be in their online archives. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of ZR Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:58 PM To: Tom W8JI; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: THE ITINERANT 160 METER ANTENNA PROJECT - Original Message - From: Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 6:21 PM Subject: Re: Topband: THE ITINERANT 160 METER ANTENNA PROJECT (1) 130 feet of 300 ohms twin lead with the far one end shorted and pulled up over a coconut by a local climber $5 US max and connected to a small nylon line for adjustment in an inverted or sloping fashion back to my hotel room on the beach. (without the local climber bring along a slingshot fishing line launcher.) If the hotel wasn't right on the beach or had any 70 foot palms I just drove to another one that did. Masting anything up beyond 50 feet by yourself just forget it. Palm trees are great substitutes. I think this antenna was describe for 160 in Bill Orr's (W6SAI) firsts handbooks. Just be aware Orr had a consistent mistake in his articles on folded antennas. He claimed folding reduced ground losses by significant amounts. I'm not sure where that idea started, but using a folded element does not change ground loss one bit. 73 Tom Did he actually claim that or that the effect of the ground loss was reduced? I dont have a reference handy. Carl KM1H ___ 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: 2437/5173 - Release Date: 08/02/12 ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: FCP model
What a wonderful test it would be for Tom and Guy to do this analysis. I would love to know the results. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy Olinger K2AV Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:29 PM To: Tom W8JI Cc: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FCP model Hi Tom, I was hoping that you would clarify your earlier remarks. The FCP is not resonant because it is designed specifically to self-cancel fields, not to be resonant. Said another way, it's DELIBERATELY not resonant. The May/June 2012 NCJ article on this counterpoise explaining how and why can be found at: http://www.w0uce.net/Olinger_FCP_article_as_published_in_NCJ.pdf Not trying to put you off, but repeating the article in a TopBand post seems inappropriate, and doesn't come with the pictures. Your assessment of the roughly opposite and equal reactances is certainly correct, as are the toroid vagaries. I would expect no less from you. So far that toroid issue hasn't mattered. People are pruning all shapes of inverted L, or even inverted U, into somewhat longer than 1/4 wave wires, to get the zero reactance point adjusted. The far larger variable is the shape and distance of the wire from ground. It turns out to be a lot like pruning a dipole, every situation is different. The longer wire, and the 157' length of the FCP raises the R at zero reactance, which is useful. See: http://www.balundesigns.com/servlet/the-108/1-cln-1-High-Isolation-balun/Det ail for the commercial version FCP. The choice of the #2 powdered iron was suggested by Sevick's work, picked for low loss with voltage across the winding, and has worked out well. Yes, the #2 beasties DO vary on inductance with turn inconsistency. But particularly on 160, the 20 bifilar turns of #14, in standard thickness teflon sleeve, exactly fills the inner diameter of the toroid. Pretty hard to get too far from uniform. Makes one wonder if the whole thing might have been done on purpose. The commercially made isolation transformers, and well-done hand winds come in at 19 uH consistently on my instrument. Balun Designs 80m version is uniform, of course, and we have 80 meter four squares out of these in what otherwise would be impossible circumstances. I figure it's just a matter of time until we see 160m four squares over FCP's in less space than required by a single commercial method vertical. I tell people to use the commercial isolation transformer for a four square, to keep them all the same. The evidence of working well is largely anecdotal but quite compelling, and so far consistent. It may be that a 3 dB down failure in a comparison against a commercial grade installation is a brilliant success where 160 was otherwise impossible. There are documented high end successes in contests with FCP's, and very decent RBN signal-to-noise readings. The PDF includes some of the compelling anecdotal evidence. I can put you in contact with my Detective Sergeant neighbor who can verify aspects of one of the stories in the article. He thought it was hilarious that the acme of success was signalled by knocking neighborhood ATT Uverse 3800 gateways off sync and into reboots. As you might imagine, I had mixed emotions. And the really big success is that it is working well for small-lot hams that have zero possibility of doing anything else even remotely efficient. That is really what it's all about. That it works well in other situations, and that someone even THINKS of comparing it with commercial standard antennas is totally gravy on the potatoes. The venue for an exhaustive comparison is extremely hard to do without funds or a venue controlled by a ham with the space and an existing commercial gold standard vertical in a spot without miscellaneous interfering resonances all around, and with lots of lab grade measuring equipment. Building up MF antenna academic-grade side-by-side tests from scratch is a staggering task without commercial funds, or a fortunate venue. It strikes me that chez W8JI might be one of those fortunate venues. I would be more than happy to travel to Ga with materials to put up a comparison supervised by both a careful skeptic and an advocate. The opportunity to do an academic grade comparison with known good antennas, including an L and other vertical radiators over the FCP, would be irresistible. Wonderful NCJ article material, however it comes out. The Great Georgia FCP Shootout :) My sealed-envelope-in-advance prediction is that an FCP shows 2 to 3 dB down from one of your good verticals. That's simply expected, mainly because the FCP MUST lack the ground field cancellation found in commercial grade radial
Re: Topband: Progress with ugly computer noise
Unless there is something unusual about the existing power supply you could consider replacing the supply with something like a good Antec or Cooler Master unit. Online prices for 500W supplies are $50-$60. This assumes that you are certain the noise is coming from the power supply. I have never heard a peep from either of the brands mentioned above. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 11:14 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Progress with ugly computer noise On 7/4/2012 6:10 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote: Next I'll be getting my hands on some ferrite core materials and looking to see just how far I can reduce the noise. When faced with a noisy computer, the first thing I'd try (other than replacing the noisy supply) would be a multi-turn choke on the power cable, optimized (number of turns and core) for the band(s) where you're hearing the most noise. If noise remained, I'd next tackle the video cable and the printer cable. Use the graphs in Appendix One of http://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf as a guide to picking the cores and winding the chokes. Do your fellow hams another favor -- post the brand names and/or vendors of both the noisy power supply and the one that fixed your problem (if it does). :) 73, Jim K9YC ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Laird ferrites
I agree. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:07 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Laird ferrites ON4UN's book is minimally useful since his sources dont reveal the details and appear to deliberately have misleading statements at times. Probably to protect their commercial endeavors. It is not good fellowship, or good manners, to accuse someone as helpful as ON4UN of intentionally lying or misleading people. John, ON4UN, is genuinely helpful to people, and does the best job he can collecting, understanding, and sorting data. What he publishes might not be perfect, but at least he makes an effort to put hundreds and hundreds of hours into a book to encourage people, rather than sitting around insulting other people. 73 Tom ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: radial wire source
A number of years ago I got a partially used bucket (spool in a bucket) of #18 solid copper wire from a motor rewinding shop. The wire had a thin coat of enamel-like HV insulation on it so it was impervious to any degrading from soil or other elements. I had to scrape off the insulation to solder, but otherwise it was real good stuff. I got a few thousand feet for not much money. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:18 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: radial wire source On 6/5/2012 9:08 AM, DAVID CUTHBERT wrote: I use #14 stranded THHN wire from Home Despot because it's easy work work with. I've used a lot of #14 THHN solid because it's cheaper than stranded, and find it no more difficult to work with than stranded wire. I would love to use #18, but have not been able to find a source for it in quantity. Either Lowe's or Home Depot (don't recall which) orffers a quantity discount for something like six 500 ft spools. 73, Jim K9YC ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Capacitor for Inverted L
The question of matching an Inverted-L comes up every now and then, and under some circumstances it may be necessary to install some kind of matching network, particularly if you want to operate across the entire band. However, for most situations I do not think a matching network is necessary because the SWR will likely be easily controllable by simply adjusting the length of the horizontal wire. Even if you don't want to try this the native SWR of a normal Inverted-L will be less than 2:1 for about 100KHz of bandwidth. Feedline loss is negligible on 160 and, in any event, most transceivers and amps can easily match whatever impedance you encounter. If you model a simple Inverted-L you can see that adjustments of a few feet for the horizontal wire will put the low SWR point just where you want it in the band and the radiation pattern is not changed to any meaningful extent. So, for most people, fooling with a matching network won't buy you anything but a lot of trouble and it adds another place for things to go wrong. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to put up the antenna, check the SWR, make a length adjustment if you think it is necessary, and then go get on the air and make some QSOs. If you want to spend some time fiddling then my recommendation would be to spend it on your ground radial system, not worrying about a matching network. As your radial system improves the matching will change, but you can still make horizontal wire adjustments as well. - Wes Attaway (N5WA) --- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell) Computer Consulting and Forensics -- EnCase Certified Examiner --- -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lup Schlueter Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:49 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Capacitor for Inverted L Hans Gatu SA7AUY had a very cool idea for a selfmade variable power capacitor. It has about 300pf, but as you will agree, there is no limit for higher values.The material will surely agree every flash over! See self: http://www.heathkit.nu/heathkit_nu_AMU.html 55 Lup, DJ7SW Am 13.10.2011 13:05, schrieb Gary Smith: I used to use an ugly, beat up 500pf vac variable at the base of my 160M inv-L used the MFJ SWR Analyzer to adjust it. The CAT-5 cable I used for wire was brought up over a tall tree and chafing from the wind blown branches wore through it 1/2 times a year. After the antenna came down the last time I used a more rugged wire and cut it 135' long and have it connected to a radial plate which serves as a common tie-in for my separate 160, 80, 40, 30 meter vertical wires but also my butternut HF9V which I use for 20 up. The 160M ant will not cover the whole band but as I rarely go above 1.9 Mhz, it's perfect and needs no base loaded cap. YMMV. 73, Gary, KA1J I plan on adding an Inverted L soon, and have seen a few websites that recommend about 1000pF at the base to tune it. What voltage cap should I be looking for if I am going to run about 600W? -- *Clint Talmadge - W5CPT - * ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
