Re: Topband: Topband]Updated K9YC common-mode choke PDF now available

[j...@kk9a.com]

I have been using RG400 to make jumpers for years. It is a nice easy to
work with coax that has excellent shielding. RG400 is available surplus
for much less than $5/ft.

John KK9A

W8ZR wrote:

Very interesting, Jim. I wasn't familiar with RG-400, but I've used
RG-142B for years. I compared the specs and found they're virtually
identical, the only significant difference being that RG-400 has a
stranded center conductor, while RG-142B has a solid steel
(silver-plated) center conductor. They both have a 1 inch minimum
bending radius (for repeated bending), but I imagine the RG-400 Is
slightly more flexible and the RG142B is slightly stronger. At GHz
frequencies, the RG142B has slightly lower loss. They both have
excellent high temperature properties. If you buy it new from a
distributor, either will cost about $5 a foot.
73,
Jim w8zr

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

Re: Topband: Rather use N-type (was Re: The answer to PL-259

[j...@kk9a.com]

Perhaps you are looking at the N connector lead, the actual pin where RF
flows is Ø.120 which is not much smaller than a UHF connector (Ø.156). I
use a number of N connectors at my station and have no issues.

John KK9A - W4AAA


Bruce w8hw wrote:

I worked in the commercial/industrial radio and broadcasting for 40 plus
years. While it it true that type-n is mostly used, we must remember
that hams deal with high power and high SWR sometimes, both are not
type-N strong points because of the small pin used in type-N can not
handle the high current caused by SWR and high power as well as the
thicker pin used in a PL259.

73, Bruce, W8HW

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

Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions

[j...@kk9a.com]

This is easy to model an inverted V to see the actual pattern. I am sure
that whatever configuration / direction you use will be inferior to a top
loaded vertical.

BTW two weeks ago I used a 300' high inverted V as PJ4/KK9A. 
Unfortunately I could not hear on it so I did not make enough top band
QSOs to really know how well it transmitted.

John KK9A


Dick Green WC1M wrote:

Hi all,


For many years I’ve had a trapped 80m/160m inverted vee with the apex at
about 94’ on a tower that’s loaded with various yagis. The vee is oriented
so that it’s broadside to the NE and SW (wires running SE to NW). The tower
is on a steep hill, so the wire that runs to the uphill side is only about
17 feet off the ground, while the wire on the downhill side is about 27 feet
off the ground (maybe more).



The traps are Rayco KW-80C, which is cut for 3.625 MHz, setup for two-band
operation. On each side, the 80m portion above the trap is cut to 68 feet
and the portion below the trap is cut to ~47’, for an overall length of ~115
feet per leg.



As you would expect, the bandwidth on both bands is narrow. Since I operate
almost exclusively on CW, and have an 80m delta loop with better radiation
angle and bandwidth, I only use the 80m portion of the trapped vee for an
SDR that monitors the band (due to switching limitations, the SDR can’t use
the delta loop).



The lower wires have been trimmed to center the antenna at 1.830 MHz on
160m. The 2:1 bandwidth is about 40 KHz, and around 70 KHz between the 3:1
marks. So the antenna is useful on most of the CW portion of the band. It
hears OK when the atmosphere is quiet, but normally I use a 520’
dual-direction NE-SW beverage for listening. As expected, the effectiveness
of the transmit portion is limited. I’ve worked at least 100 countries with
it, and in a typical contest I can work EU and SA/Caribbean if conditions
are good. But I’m usually well behind the top stations in multipliers –
maybe a little better than half what they have. Again, no surprise.



Recently I started thinking that maybe I should ditch the traps and convert
the antenna to a full-size 160m inverted vee. The overall length and height
of the ends above ground will be comparable. But when I compared the 160m
inverted vee to the 80m/160m trapped inverted vee in EZNEC+, there was only
marginal difference. They’re both cloud warmers at DX angles, and the SWR
bandwidths were the same. I found this somewhat surprising, given trap
losses and such. I would have expected a more noticeable difference in gain,
angle and especially bandwidth. So, my first question is, am I reading the
EZNEC+ results right, and there’s no real advantage to converting the
antenna, especially in light of losing it for SDR use on 80m?



Second question came up while I was reading some articles about 160m
antennas and came across one that said more radiation comes off the wires of
an inverted vee than broadside. I was under the impression that inverted
vees are omnidirectional, and if there was any directivity it would be
broadside, like a dipole. I happened to orient my trapped inv vee so it’s
broadside to EU (NE/SW) on the tiny chance there could be some directivity
in that direction. But if the article is right, or if the radiation is truly
omnidirectional, then I’m better off orienting the legs NE/SW (broadside
NW/SE) because the slope of the land would allow for the uphill leg to be
considerably higher off the ground (it would run mostly over flat ground),
though it’s not clear to me what advantage that might confer. However,
there’s a more definite advantage because the legs of the inverted vee would
be much farther away from my beverage. Right now, one leg comes within about
20 feet of it. If I reorient the antenna it would be over 100 feet away.
Comments?



Finally, another option would be to ditch the traps and one leg, and slope
the other leg towards EU as a ¼-wave vertical on 160m (with lots of
ground-mounted radials, of course.) Unfortunately, that would have to be the
uphill leg, so the vertical would be somewhat flatter than if I could point
it SW. Would such a vertical be superior to what I have now or the dedicated
inverted vee?



73, Dick WC1M

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

Re: Topband: Half slopers ???

[j...@kk9a.com]

The antenna you describe is 1/4 sloper.  The tower radiates and the
effectiveness is very dependent on the tower, guy cables, mast and beam on
tip. You have to model your installation to see if it a good antenna for
you. Most Caribbean contest stations just use an inverted V 80m and 160m.

John KK9A

Subject:Topband: Half slopers ???
From:   "Douglas Ruz / CO8DM" 
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:38:35 -0400


I am trying to work on 160m (also on 80m) from a city lot.

I have been reading about half slopers in the ARRL Wire antenna classics B
(chapter 7).

I have a 50 ft grounded tower available and can run an sloping wire 60 ft
(1/4 wl on 80m) then add an 80m trap and more wire to work 160m.

Any thoughts about this kind of antenna?...

Thanks,

Doug, CO8DM

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

Re: Topband: Stew

[j...@kk9a.com]

Ampere Hour


To: 
Subject:Re: Topband: Stew
From:   "WW3S" 
Date:   Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:00:54 -0400

whats does sending AH mean?

> On 3/13/2016 9:23:07 AM, william radice (k4...@outlook.com) wrote:
> >  Spent a total of 4 hours in the SP. Activity, at least from here in
> east TN, was lower than previous. The logger got to the point where it
> said "dupe, dupe, dupe"constantly.
> DX would just appear out of nowhere...Italy, Germany, Venezuela.
>   This morning I caught a VK6 working a K1 and tried to tail end. The
> guy would not give up the Fx for a second to let me work the DX. I sent
> AH, and he sent ?, I sent AH, and he sent ? Guess he didn't get it. I
> was dialed up to 2kw at that moment so I know he heard me, but he was
> not going to standby. The "gentleman's band" huh?
> BILL K4OWR

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

Re: Topband: [Topband] Ideas for xmit antennas for new QTH in KH6

[j...@kk9a.com]

Your tower is probably close to resonant on 160m. When I have modeled a
wire vertical near my 150' tower, the tower acted as a reflector. You may
be able to get a little gain in a desired direction if you lay it out
correctly and model the system. Also an inverted L will give slight
directivity.

John KK9A


To: topband@contesting.com
Subject:Topband: Ideas for xmit antennas for new QTH in KH6
From:   Cqtestk4xs--- via Topband 
Reply-to:   cqtestk...@aol.com
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:34:06 -0500


Next year I'll be building a new home and station in  Hawaii.

40 through 6 meters is already set in stone, but 80 and 160 are  still
cloudy.

Here's the setup:

I'm allowed one tower maximum 90 ft.  The tower will be 90 ft  of Rohn 55
using a K0XG rotating system with two rings.  It will be guyed  using
fiberglass guys.  There will be a bunch of HF VHF stuff on the  tower.  Three
tribanders, two 12/17 meter Yagis, a 40 meter Yagi and way  down on the
bottom
two 6 meter antennas.

The tower sits on VERY uneven ground.  Although the lot   measures 12
acres, I am using only the top three and renting out the rest of the  land
to a
farmer to keep taxes from being crazy high.

The ground is pure alluvial red fine particle soil (no stones) and  has a
depth of about 6 feet before hitting rock. Since the east side of  Hawaii
gets at least 100 inches of rain a year it is usually pretty  moist.  I would
assume the soil is at least average or better in  conductivity.  I can run
ropes, wires etc off the tower at the 80 and 40  foot guy points, but can not
connect directly to the tower since the tower  rotates.  The is no room for
a rotating dipole on the tower for  80.

I've used quad triangle loops before with the pointed end on the  bottom
suspended by wires and am leaning towards that since the ground is so  uneven
and the terrain difference would be a real negative for a 4 square (I
think).

On 160 I'm leaning toward a wire vertical suspended from a rope  coming
from the tower which would make the antenna about 65 or 70 feet tall and  to
compensate for that I would make it a T-top.

For rx I have lots of room to run a 700 -900 Beverage to JA and  another to
EU/USA direction, so that isn't a problem.

I do need suggestions for my 80 and 160 tx situation.  Any  ideas?

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

Re: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching

[j...@kk9a.com]

I have several Array Solution StackMatches that came with rotatory
switches.  I found the rotatory switches to be very awkward for changing
stack configurations and I quickly replaced them with MicroHam push button
controllers. They may also cause less wrist strain.

I have a K9AY 8X2 switch and it is awesome. Selecting RX antennas using
the remote key pad could not be easier or quicker.  The remote lays flat
on the desk and it can be conveniently positioned. I would highly
recommend this product.

John KK9A


To: topband topband@contesting.com
Subject:Re: Topband: Video Switch for Low Band Antenna switching
From:   Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com
Date:   Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:07:13 -0500


I'm not sure that I would like pushbutton antenna switching. Especially in
a contest.

I use a 4-position rotary switch to select all four directions of the two
Beverages. (The same principle would apply to more than four directions.)
All four RX directions are within a 90 degree rotation of the switch;
adjacent positions are just 22.5 degrees apart. (And rotary switches are
available with less than 22.5 degrees between positions.)

To its immediate right is a toggle switch that selects either the Beverage
RX rotary switch or the TX antenna. Both the rotary and toggle can be
operated conveniently with just my right hand, while tuning across the
band, etc. with my left. It is a very ergonomic design; if it could be
improved upon, I've never figured out a better way.
 (But I'm listening with an open mind. :-)

A photo of the switching arrangement here can be viewed at
www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html#more_than_one_way_to_build
Click on the image to zoom.

I think W8JI --and somebody else who copied his design-- has eight PB
switches in a ~2 diameter circle, all barely protruding just past the
panel. Maybe if I had one, I would prefer it over what I built, but I
really don't think so. When my fingers are on that switch, I don't have to
feel around for pushbuttons nor take my eyes off more important things.

IMHO, a rotary switch is the way to go.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

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

Re: Topband: Salt-Water Qth!

[j...@kk9a.com]

I did not recall seeing tests for verticals a wavelength or more way from
the sea so I checked the team vertical website and found the following:

John KK9A

While field testing the verticals this past summer, we decided to test the
effect of the land-water boundary on the pseudo Brewster angle. Since our
receive site was elevated less than 1 degree across the bay, we could see
any change in the low angle energy. To our knowledge, there has not been
any published tests of this kind. The goal was to see how far from the
water the vertical would loose the benefit of the salt water on the pseudo
Brewster angle. The tests were done with a 20m ZR vertical, and we moved
the antenna away from the water in 5' steps. The water's edge was
considered the reference point. As the vertical was moved back from the
water, there was little change until we came close to 1/4 wavelength from
the water. At that point there was a 3 dB increase in signal level! Moving
farther, the received signal level dropped, indicating a loss of low angle
energy. This was most significant at 1/2 wavelength from the boundary,
being down about 3dB from the waters edge. Moving farther back to 3/4
wavelength, the signal picked up again, to more than 2dB enhancement from
the water's edge. We could not move the antenna farther due to
obstructions. During the tests, we did not believe the data, and reran the
test. We also observed the same results on the second test. At the time we
only had 20m antennas, so we could not confirm that enhancement was truly
frequency dependent. But based on these results, more testing is
warranted.





To: topband@contesting.com
Subject:Re: Topband: Salt-Water Qth!
From:   Ed Sawyer sawye...@earthlink.net
Reply-to:   sawye...@earthlink.net
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:13:17 -0400


The best write up and data I have seen on this subject was the team
vertical report on test done in Jamaica back about 10 or more years ago.



As I recall, the vertical signal strength to low angle DX went up
dramatically within 2 or less wavelengths of the edge of the high water
mark and maybe leveled off as fantastic from within 0.5 wavelength.  But
further and further away past 2 wavelengths, the signal strengths dropped
away and had very diminishing effects.  I don't recall how far back before
the benefits were disappointing but that article has the answers you need.
Just scale it for 160 or 80M vs their 40 - 10M data.



By the way, I used a vertical as 9M6/N1UR at Layang Layang island in the
Spratlys in 1998.  40 and 30M performance was amazing but 20 - 10 was good
but not great.  The vertical was placed about 100 feet from the edge of the
water.  So it would have been just under a wavelength on 40, just over on
30, and 2 - 3 wavelengths on 20 - 10.



Ed  N1UR

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

Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems

[j...@kk9a.com]

It has been a long while since I have operated a 160m contest. I remember
some very slow hours and having a way to tune a second radio to look for
new stations and multipliers would have been great. As I said in my
January 20 post, having a separate receive antenna 100km away would make
SO2R very easy. So if this is allowed anyone wanting to be competitive
will need a remote RX site. This is not financially feasible for many of
us or me may just have no interest in doing this. Adding a category would
allow the remote RX station to operate fairly and those operating from a
single site would only be competing against stations with similar
restrictions.

John KK9A


To: John Crovelli w...@hotmail.com,   Topband topband@contesting.com
Subject:Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems
From:   Victor Goncharsky us...@bk.ru
Reply-to:   Victor Goncharsky us...@bk.ru


 Hi John,
I vote for solution B

B.  Remote RX systems must be no more than 100 km from the TX antenna
location.

Thanks again for your interest in this subject and your thoughtful comments.
Regards,
John, W2GD


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


-- 
73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), P.E.
UARL Technical and VHF Committies
DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone)
DXCC card checker (160 meters).
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems

[j...@kk9a.com]

Brilliant!  I like this idea.

John KK9A


To: topband@contesting.com
Subject:Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems
From:   Ed Sawyer sawye...@earthlink.net
Reply-to:   sawye...@earthlink.net
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:18:14 -0400

I agree with John's (KK9A) commentary but not necessarily that it needs a
new category.  Just add it to the assisted category.  Leave the unassisted
category as is.  Assisted is an evolving slippery slope anyway and more of
these things will emerge - no doubt.  Assisted is really technology and
internet assisted so however that manifests itself, so be it.



The contest sponsors are typically resistant to adding new categories and I
don't blame them.  Each add has low power, high power, QRP versions and
plaques and certificates and complication of reporting.



Just accept assisted is assisted and like we accepted skimmer and RBN into
the old definition of packet cluster spots so will this advancement.



Ed  N1UR

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

Re: Topband: 9Q0HQ

[j...@kk9a.com]

I am not sure what supplies that you have available in the Republic of
Congo. A Pennant should fit in your operating area. It is pretty easy to
build and it is not ground dependent.

John KK9A


To: topband@contesting.com
Subject:Topband: 9Q0HQ
From:   alfeo...@tin.it alfeo...@tin.it
Reply-to:   alfeo...@tin.it alfeo...@tin.it


 Dear friends, we are doing our best effort on the low bands. Being at the
end
of the rain season, there is a storm almost every day in the afternoon.The
soil
here is very dark and moist, often we need to tune the high band antennas as
the resonance shifts according to water content.On low bands the noise from
static is high, 7 - 9 on 80 and 160. It is a little better when we are
close to
the sunrise.On top band we use a inverted L and on 80m a vertical with a
parasite reflector.We have the feeling that ous signal is strong enough
but the
major problem is our capability to cautch the signals out of the noise. We
used
a DHDL for few days, no big help. Yesterday we change with a Diamond, no
better
result. We still use the verticals on receiving as it grants the better
result
in spite of the noise.I am afraid that a beverage would not help us due to
the
soil propriety. Also, there is no enough room to lay a 200m beverage.We are
rather limitaded in resources (wires, cables) as it
  is no easy and fast to find the stuff locally.I kindly ask for your
suggestion to improve our receiving capability.
Best 73
(sorry for my bad English!)
Alfeo I1HJT 9Q0HQ crew

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

Re: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[j...@kk9a.com]

With a remote receiver it is easy to listen on the band while you are
transmitting. It is much more difficult to run SO2R on a single band when
the transmit and receive antennas are on the same property. This gives
stations with remote receivers, even in the same geographical area, a big
advantage.

John KK9A


To: topband@contesting.com
Subject:Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule
From:   Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net
Date:   Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:50:57 -0330

The contest rules dictate that e remote receiver controlled over the internet
is not permitted in the CQWW160 contest.

I have deployed a remote SDR at a seaside location within my home grid square
GN37. I did this specifically to improve my listening capability for 160M.
 The
setup and refinement of this remote SDR has taken two years of learning about
IP networking;  remote access via PC issues; how to switch antennas remotely;
and how to restart the system when it stops working and to avoid driving
to the
site during winter.  Its been a great learning experience.

My home QTH in the city is not a good lowband receiving site due to the local
electrical and RF noise that obilterates all but the strongest signals on 160
and 80M.  I live on a standard suburban lot with a tower in close
proximity to
my K9AY system even though I have the K9AY feedline well choked and by
passed the noise it picks up overrides the weak signals.   For my remote rx
system in the same grid square as my home is really the only way for me to
hear
anything during the event.  Over the past number of years with the
proliferation of plasma TV's; wifi routers; cheap swiching PS wall warts etc.
the noise level in the local area has grown to be extreme.

At the remote SDR site, that I am fortunate enough to own, the environment is
very quiet ...the ocean is 100ft away from my antenna, I can almost hear a
pindrop in Eu!.  During contest days when the band is  good I can hear Eu
signals  during the early afternoon on the SDR and a Pixel mag loop

I intend to play in the 160m contest, which is one of my favorite outings,
but
cannot submit a log other then for checking purposes.
Its time for the contest managers to review the rules  pertaining to cases
such
as mine which I am sure is the case for many of you.  What is wrong with
improving my station and to be able to use in this manner?.  It is located
within my home grid square.

Yes I can setup a full rx/tx site there with tx antenna and operate
remotely -
that is OK it appears - but that adds a whole new level of complexity and
cost
that I have avoided this far.

Maybe if enough of us push for it we can have the rules modified to permit
remote receivers within the same grid square as the home station.

73 Frank VO1HP


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

Re: Topband: tool for install radials

[j...@kk9a.com]

Edger?
http://www.homedepot.com/p/BLACK-DECKER-Edge-Hog-7-5-in-11-Amp-2-in-1-Electric-Landscape-Edger-LE750/100052063

John KK9A


Topband: tool for install radials
from [Jorge Diez - CX6VM]   [Permanent Link][Original]
To: 'topBand List' topband@contesting.com
Subject:Topband: tool for install radials
From:   Jorge Diez - CX6VM cx6vm.jo...@gmail.com
Date:   Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:45:37 -0200




I think there´s a tool to make a line in the ground to put radials.



Couldn´t find it in website, don´t know the name in English



Could you please help me to find it or send me close up photos of yours to
try to ask someone locally to make one?



Thanks in advance



73,

Jorge

CX6VM/CW5W

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