Re: Topband: Question on active vertical spacing

[Rob Atkinson]

My rx antennas are around 40 to 50 feet separated.  I get good peaks
and nulls on 160 and the top of the AM broadcast band.   80 m. doesn't
work as well.  But 160 is where you really want it to work.  That's
where noise is a big problem.  Use a groundwave broadcast station on
1400 or higher to test your setup and practice using it.  It helps if
you have some kind of receiver with a panadapter.  As you rotate
through the phasing you can see the broadcast carriers move up and
down.  Using phase and balance between the two antennas, you should be
able to take a pretty strong carrier and put it into the noise.

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

Re: Topband: Question on active vertical spacing

[James Cizek]

Thank you very much for the info!

73
James
KI0KN

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 8:18 AM Tim Duffy  wrote:

> Hello James:
>
> Responding on behalf of DX Engineering. I do not see your email in the que.
>
> You can separate the antennas 1/4 wavelength for 160 and the operation will
> also be OK on 80 meters.
>
> You need the larger spacing so that the NCC-2 will work on 160.
>
> If you have questions, please refer them directly to me.
>
> VY 73
> Tim K3LR
> CEO DX Engineering
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces+k3lr=k3lr@contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of James Cizek
> Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 8:38 AM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Question on active vertical spacing
>
> Hello all,
>
> It was a slow start for me to get on 160 Meters, but I finally was able to
> make that happen and last season was my first full season on the band.  A
> lot of construction has happened in the nearby vicinity with new homes and
> I've started to experience certain point noise sources at times.  Earlier
> this spring, I was totally unable to work a station because of the local
> noise source sitting right on top.
>
> I usually use a SAL-30 for receiving and am very happy with it.  Because of
> this occasional noise source, I've opted to add an additional RX system
> this year.  I recently acquired a DXEngineering NCC-2 and the DXE-ARAV4-2P
> active vertical antenna set in hopes of nulling out the local point source
> when needed.
>
> In the manual for the NCC-2, they state that the RX antennas should be 1/4
> wave apart for optimum performance.  I'd like to use this setup on both 80
> and 160, so I was wondering if it would be better to place them 1/4 wave at
> 160 apart or 1/4 wave at 80meters apart.  The instructions also state
> reduced performance with too great or too little spacing, so I am curious
> of opinions on optimal spacing for a compromise to use both bands.
>
> I wrote DXengineering tech support but they never responded, so thought I'd
> try the mind-trust here :)
>
> Thanks for any input.
> 73
> James
> KI0KN
> ps- I am only at 44 entities on 160M so I'll be as active as the band lets
> me be this fall/winter!
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Question on active vertical spacing

[Tim Duffy]

Hello James:

Responding on behalf of DX Engineering. I do not see your email in the que.

You can separate the antennas 1/4 wavelength for 160 and the operation will
also be OK on 80 meters.

You need the larger spacing so that the NCC-2 will work on 160.

If you have questions, please refer them directly to me.

VY 73
Tim K3LR
CEO DX Engineering 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces+k3lr=k3lr@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of James Cizek
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 8:38 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Question on active vertical spacing

Hello all,

It was a slow start for me to get on 160 Meters, but I finally was able to
make that happen and last season was my first full season on the band.  A
lot of construction has happened in the nearby vicinity with new homes and
I've started to experience certain point noise sources at times.  Earlier
this spring, I was totally unable to work a station because of the local
noise source sitting right on top.

I usually use a SAL-30 for receiving and am very happy with it.  Because of
this occasional noise source, I've opted to add an additional RX system
this year.  I recently acquired a DXEngineering NCC-2 and the DXE-ARAV4-2P
active vertical antenna set in hopes of nulling out the local point source
when needed.

In the manual for the NCC-2, they state that the RX antennas should be 1/4
wave apart for optimum performance.  I'd like to use this setup on both 80
and 160, so I was wondering if it would be better to place them 1/4 wave at
160 apart or 1/4 wave at 80meters apart.  The instructions also state
reduced performance with too great or too little spacing, so I am curious
of opinions on optimal spacing for a compromise to use both bands.

I wrote DXengineering tech support but they never responded, so thought I'd
try the mind-trust here :)

Thanks for any input.
73
James
KI0KN
ps- I am only at 44 entities on 160M so I'll be as active as the band lets
me be this fall/winter!
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: Question about on ground radials field.

[donovanf]

Hi Jim, 


That simply makes the radiating part of the vertical taller and elevates 
feed point. 


Its known in professional antenna engineering circles as a sleeved 
monopole with elevated feed point. The classic version is a vertical 
with its feedline routed through a sleeve that is 1/2 the length of the 
vertical above the feed point at the top of the sleeve. The bottom 
of the sleeve is connected to radials laying on the ground or 
slightly buried. 


Its similar in concept to the off-center fed dipole. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 




On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:48 AM Jim Clymer  wrote: 

> Hello Gang, 
> This is somewhat related to the "Will radials on ground help?" thread. I 
> have poked around in various discussion groups but haven't found a specific 
> answer. 
> Assuming I have a fairly decent radial system on the ground (60 radials of 
> various lengths, some longer than 1/4 wave, many shorter), what happens if 
> I elevate the feedpoint of a quarter-wave, base-fed vertical? Let's say I 
> have an aluminum mounting post properly bonded to the radial plate, the top 
> of which will serve as the "radial system" connection for the vertical. Is 
> there some fractional part of a wavelength that the feedpoint could be 
> raised and not lose the effectiveness of the on ground radial system? 
> Thanks, and HNY to all! 
> Jim - WS6X 
> 
> > 
> > Today's Topics: 
> > 1. Re: Elevated Radials - will radials on ground help? 
> > -- 
> > Message: 1 
> > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:15:19 -0500 
> > 
> > > I was under the impression that If you have elevated radials and if you 
> > > take even one to the ground you might as well move all to the 
> > > ground..??Fred KB4QZH 
> > 
> _ 
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector 
> 
_ 
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 

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

Re: Topband: Question about on ground radials field.

[Dave Cuthbert]

The antenna becomes a ground mounted vertical having elevated feed. The
wire from the ground radial system to the base of the vertical becomes a
radiating portion of the vertical. The vertical has increased in length by
the wire length.

  Dave KH6AQ


On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:48 AM Jim Clymer  wrote:

> Hello Gang,
> This is somewhat related to the "Will radials on ground help?" thread. I
> have poked around in various discussion groups but haven't found a specific
> answer.
> Assuming I have a fairly decent radial system on the ground (60 radials of
> various lengths, some longer than 1/4 wave, many shorter), what happens if
> I elevate the feedpoint of a quarter-wave, base-fed vertical? Let's say I
> have an aluminum mounting post properly bonded to the radial plate, the top
> of which will serve as the "radial system" connection for the vertical. Is
> there some fractional part of a wavelength that the feedpoint could be
> raised and not lose the effectiveness of the on ground radial system?
> Thanks, and HNY to all!
> Jim - WS6X
>
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >1. Re: Elevated Radials - will radials on ground help?
> > --
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:15:19 -0500
> >
> > > I was under the impression that If you have elevated radials and if you
> > > take even one to the ground you might as well move all to the
> > > ground..??Fred KB4QZH
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Question about on ground radials field.

[Jim Brown]

On 12/31/2020 11:47 AM, Jim Clymer wrote:

This is somewhat related to the "Will radials on ground help?" thread. I
have poked around in various discussion groups but haven't found a specific
answer.


The best way to learn technical things is to study them, and, and the 
best recent work on radial systems has been published by Rudy Severns, 
N6LF, an ARRL Handbook contributor. All of his work is published on his 
website.



Assuming I have a fairly decent radial system on the ground (60 radials of
various lengths, some longer than 1/4 wave, many shorter), what happens if
I elevate the feedpoint of a quarter-wave, base-fed vertical? Let's say I
have an aluminum mounting post properly bonded to the radial plate, the top
of which will serve as the "radial system" connection for the vertical. Is
there some fractional part of a wavelength that the feedpoint could be
raised and not lose the effectiveness of the on ground radial system?


Why do you want to do this? What are you trying to accomplish?

73, Jim K9YC


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

Re: Topband: Question about on ground radials field.

[Artek Manuals]

Not a simple , on size fits all answer

What happens depends on the frequency  you are talking about     ( I 
assume 1.825 but if it is a multi band vertical ..then???) and how much 
above the ground plane you are talking about


And the approximate foot print of your radial systems ( square lot 
filled in with radials ?)


on 160M the raising of a few feet will likely have little affect if any 
on the overall efficiency of the antenna if that was what you were hoping?


Dave
NR1DX


On 12/31/2020 2:47 PM, Jim Clymer wrote:

Hello Gang,
This is somewhat related to the "Will radials on ground help?" thread. I
have poked around in various discussion groups but haven't found a specific
answer.
Assuming I have a fairly decent radial system on the ground (60 radials of
various lengths, some longer than 1/4 wave, many shorter), what happens if
I elevate the feedpoint of a quarter-wave, base-fed vertical? Let's say I
have an aluminum mounting post properly bonded to the radial plate, the top
of which will serve as the "radial system" connection for the vertical. Is
there some fractional part of a wavelength that the feedpoint could be
raised and not lose the effectiveness of the on ground radial system?
Thanks, and HNY to all!
Jim - WS6X


Today's Topics:
1. Re: Elevated Radials - will radials on ground help?
--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 13:15:19 -0500


I was under the impression that If you have elevated radials and if you
take even one to the ground you might as well move all to the
ground..??Fred KB4QZH

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


--
Dave manu...@artekmanuals.com www.ArtekManuals.com

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

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

Re: Topband: Question about KH1 to EU QSO possibilities with respect to auroral oval

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

IARU was going on and lots of people are on 6m for E skip season.  I 
have been leaving my rcv on 6m not 160 lately.


W0MU


On 7/14/2018 7:50 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
Agree. At my QTH 47.6 N (Seattle) the oval is almost always in the way 
to EU so long path on 80 is more reliable winter months if the EU's 
hang around for the west coast sunrise.   So far EU on 160 has been 
very difficult.  Not complaining since I was one of the lucky 120 that 
worked KH1 on TB ft8.


Last night I tried TB FT8 and had decent pskreporter S/N reports to 
all of east coast at 0400Z but nobody there was on the air.  So even 
with summer being "dead" on TB that may not always be true. No EU 
reports 'tho, but not many reporting stations either.


Grant KZ1W

On 7/14/2018 9:49 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

There was a lot of discussion about the Baker Is. Dxpedition
implying that the main impediment as to where they could work
was mutual darkness.  Here in W6, we have many hours of mutual
darkness with EU, yet we rarely hear EU on 160 or even 80 meters.
(Except 80 meter long path during our morning).
The auroral oval hypothesis seems to be proven by the fact that
we can still work the Azores and northern Africa, and maybe
just barely southern Portugal, but nothing farther north.
Except for occasional exceptional propagation, during which
EU becomes a chip shot for the night.

Why should anyone expect to have KH1 to EU propagation directly
over the north pole even in the presence of mutual darkness,
except as a rare fluke?

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



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


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

Re: Topband: Question about KH1 to EU QSO possibilities with respect to auroral oval

[Grant Saviers]

Agree.  At my QTH 47.6 N (Seattle) the oval is almost always in the way 
to EU so long path on 80 is more reliable winter months if the EU's hang 
around for the west coast sunrise.   So far EU on 160 has been very 
difficult.  Not complaining since I was one of the lucky 120 that worked 
KH1 on TB ft8.


Last night I tried TB FT8 and had decent pskreporter S/N reports to all 
of east coast at 0400Z but nobody there was on the air.  So even with 
summer being "dead" on TB that may not always be true.   No EU reports 
'tho, but not many reporting stations either.


Grant KZ1W

On 7/14/2018 9:49 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

There was a lot of discussion about the Baker Is. Dxpedition
implying that the main impediment as to where they could work
was mutual darkness.  Here in W6, we have many hours of mutual
darkness with EU, yet we rarely hear EU on 160 or even 80 meters.
(Except 80 meter long path during our morning).
The auroral oval hypothesis seems to be proven by the fact that
we can still work the Azores and northern Africa, and maybe
just barely southern Portugal, but nothing farther north.
Except for occasional exceptional propagation, during which
EU becomes a chip shot for the night.

Why should anyone expect to have KH1 to EU propagation directly
over the north pole even in the presence of mutual darkness,
except as a rare fluke?

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



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

Re: Topband: Question about KH1 to EU QSO possibilities with respect to auroral oval

[Clive GM3POI]

Rick,
 I live at about 59 deg North and also have operated from T2 and T32  of
which T32 must be similar to KH1. At T32 my guess on propagation is that we
could expect in a 4 week on air trip, four EU openings of one sort or
another. 
On that basis the KH1 trip may get one or none, on a short expedition in
terms of 160 on air time. My gut feeling is common darkness or coinciding
SR/SS is needed on these paths.  The Path of course would probably be skewed
over the US  and or over SA if LP. 
73 Clive GM3POI  

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard
(Rick) Karlquist
Sent: 14 July 2018 16:50
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Question about KH1 to EU QSO possibilities with respect to
auroral oval

There was a lot of discussion about the Baker Is. Dxpedition implying that
the main impediment as to where they could work was mutual darkness.  Here
in W6, we have many hours of mutual darkness with EU, yet we rarely hear EU
on 160 or even 80 meters.
(Except 80 meter long path during our morning).
The auroral oval hypothesis seems to be proven by the fact that we can still
work the Azores and northern Africa, and maybe just barely southern
Portugal, but nothing farther north.
Except for occasional exceptional propagation, during which EU becomes a
chip shot for the night.

Why should anyone expect to have KH1 to EU propagation directly over the
north pole even in the presence of mutual darkness, except as a rare fluke?

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


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

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

Re: Topband: Question for the K2AV FCP users...

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Howdy, all.

<<>>

Peter's post here follows a direct inquiry some weeks ago that I was
unable to fully answer before now.

Wire mats connected to ground radials have been around a long time and
instances reported improving sparse on/in ground radial systems. So an
intuited extension to a mat on the ground beneath an FCP is quite
understandable. It's also a reach for many people to see the FCP as
anything but another kind of radial, just folded up to make it smaller
and get away using only one.

I get that. To be truthful, ten or twelve years ago, **I** would have
a really hard time believing the stuff on k2av.com. There was too much
deeply embedded contrary "traditional" understanding back then. W0UCE
and I had an occasional tough ride disentangling from the "wisdom of
the elders" getting to the understandings of the current day.

I still think that the FCP should have been invented some time in the
late 1950's. If my elmer had invented the FCP, I'd have had no trouble
absorbing it and weaving it into my plans, and you would have heard of
it long ago from some "revered" source. But sorry, you got me, and I
know I don't have the personal appeal of Mr. Rogers or Mr. Science to
ease a gritty informational transition with a fetching personality.

All that makes the question worth a careful, respectful answer,
however much a PITA the work to generate the associated confirming
math. The math work highlights pesky details that make a huge
difference in what a "ground screen" or "mat" does or does not do,
ground radials vs. FCP.

Digging deep into the question necessitated a pile of NEC 4.2 model
runs, some with more than 18,000 segments. Even with my 3 GHz PC,
model runs using high accuracy ground and the NEC 4 double precision
engine sometimes took 15 or 20 minutes to complete and post up
figures.

At some point, running the usual necessary sanity checks on results
exposed artifact issues with very small segments and close wire
spacing. I was starting to wonder if NEC 4.2 could actually do the
problem correctly.

Fortunately I had a flash of memory about the NEC 4.2 upgrade which
introduced "extended accuracy" ground, something about artifact fixes
in the new method. I reran in extended accuracy, and results started
clearing sanity checks.

So *everything*, hours and hours, had to be run all over again in
extended accuracy. The extended accuracy ground method can better than
double the program run time. So this has not been a simple or quick
question to analyze carefully. I've settled on 48 wires, notched 1/10
inch into the ground, 66 feet long, spaced one inch, directly
underneath the FCP. The 30 minutes plus for solution with mat is at
the limit of workable program run times in extended accuracy. I start
runs with the mat on the model and get up and go do something else.

<<>> The ground screen has no effect beneath an FCP.

I ran NEC 4.2 with and without a ground mat, over extremely poor
ground (.001,3). *With* the mat on ground the program computed average
3D gain at -6.25 dB. *Without* mat on ground returned -6.27 dB. Two
hundredths of a dB difference in the results is probably correctly
dismissed as "noise". If it was precise it would be the difference
between 355.7 and 354.1 watts left from 1500, not discernable on
analog power meters. Using "ghastly ground" (.0005,1), returned -7.63
vs -7.66 dB, or 258.9 vs. 257.1 watts.

With either set of ground constants, the NEC 4.2 "with" and "without"
plot patterns were identical. The differences in the overlaid plot
values were less than the width of a pixel. Expanding the overlaid
traces to a foot across on the monitor did not show any divergence.

Ghastly ground (.0005,1) is what I call the ground description,
deliberately chosen, that causes the most loss in NEC antenna
calculations. It is used to super-emphasize ground sensitivities, and
make sure solutions work and are optimized over the oh-so-common urban
and suburban poor, very poor and extremely poor ground. This yields
solutions that possibly somewhat uncritical with "average" ground, are
centered in the narrow optimum solution ranges often found with poor,
very poor and extremely poor ground.

K0RF (and a co-conspirator whose call I can't find in any of my email)
ran an interesting test at 160 MHz over an MFJ VHF RF analyzer. They
built two inverted L antennas from SO239 chassis connectors and #12
bare wire. One was over four quarterwave radials. The other was over
an FCP. The feedline was coax adapters from the MFJ to the SO239.

The MFJ stood upright. Each individual antenna's feed characteristics
were observed while a large copper sheet was pushed underneath the
MFJ. The meter indications on the L over 4 radials displayed a large
variation between "with" and "without" the copper sheet. On the L over
FCP, the readings did *not* change between copper and no copper. This
demonstrated the FCP's deliberate design to minimize net counterpoise
fields at ground.

<<>>

As far back as 1937, Brown, Lewis and 

Re: Topband: question about matching network for short vertical RX antenna

[Matt NQ6N]

I've received word that the Dropbox link was requiring sign-ups to Dropbox,
so I have created a link to the Smith chart using a different image upload
service:

http://imgur.com/a/RmE1Q

73, Matt NQ6N

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Matt Murphy  wrote:

> I realized the attached Smith chart image did not come through on the
> reflector so I posted it on the web, here is the chart:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nwfqr6xhsfdgjjb/Screenshot%
> 202017-03-09%2013.03.33.png?dl=0
>
> 73, Matt NQ6N
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Matt Murphy  wrote:
>
>> In preparation for the Stew I'm thinking of setting up a two element
>> end-fire array aimed at Europe, and possibly another one aimed south.
>>
>> I've done some reading about these types of arrays and I think I
>> understand
>> the approach taken by W8JI in his design of the short verticals he uses,
>> as
>> well as the design of the YCCC short vertical.
>>
>> Just for kicks I decided to model a short vertical that used matching
>> stubs
>> made with RG-59.
>>
>> I'd like to ask for advice on this approach.  I would use the array on
>> 160m
>> only, and the objective is for it to have better RDF than my inverted L,
>> so
>> even a few dB would be helpful.
>>
>> I modeled a 6' vertical element in CocoaNEC and designed a matching
>> network
>> using SimSmith.I have attached the Smith chart of the matching stubs.
>>
>> In my CocoaNEC model, the feed point impedance does not change much if I
>> increase the length of the element to 30', and the matching network is not
>> sensitive to changes in the feed point impedance.  I wonder if this
>> matching network might just be equivalent to matching the coax with no
>> antenna connected (and if so what that means for the antenna's
>> performance)
>>
>> Any advice on the antenna, matching network, etc., would be much
>> appreciated.  My next step is to build one and verify that my real world
>> results for a single element match the model's prediction, and if so, to
>> subsequently build a second one and connect them with a phasing line to
>> achieve end-fire directivity over the bottom end of 160m.
>>
>> Advice much appreciated.
>>
>> 73, Matt NQ6N
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: question about matching network for short vertical RX antenna

[Matt Murphy]

I realized the attached Smith chart image did not come through on the
reflector so I posted it on the web, here is the chart:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nwfqr6xhsfdgjjb/Screenshot%202017-03-09%2013.03.33.png?dl=0

73, Matt NQ6N

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Matt Murphy  wrote:

> In preparation for the Stew I'm thinking of setting up a two element
> end-fire array aimed at Europe, and possibly another one aimed south.
>
> I've done some reading about these types of arrays and I think I understand
> the approach taken by W8JI in his design of the short verticals he uses, as
> well as the design of the YCCC short vertical.
>
> Just for kicks I decided to model a short vertical that used matching stubs
> made with RG-59.
>
> I'd like to ask for advice on this approach.  I would use the array on 160m
> only, and the objective is for it to have better RDF than my inverted L, so
> even a few dB would be helpful.
>
> I modeled a 6' vertical element in CocoaNEC and designed a matching network
> using SimSmith.I have attached the Smith chart of the matching stubs.
>
> In my CocoaNEC model, the feed point impedance does not change much if I
> increase the length of the element to 30', and the matching network is not
> sensitive to changes in the feed point impedance.  I wonder if this
> matching network might just be equivalent to matching the coax with no
> antenna connected (and if so what that means for the antenna's performance)
>
> Any advice on the antenna, matching network, etc., would be much
> appreciated.  My next step is to build one and verify that my real world
> results for a single element match the model's prediction, and if so, to
> subsequently build a second one and connect them with a phasing line to
> achieve end-fire directivity over the bottom end of 160m.
>
> Advice much appreciated.
>
> 73, Matt NQ6N
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: question

[K1FZ-Bruce]

 

Hi Luis,
 
Your question about the BOG wire. 
 
After my last email thinking possibly you were writing  about 
single wire BOGs. 
In this case the wire size is not important other than large enough not 
to break.. The insulation should be good
I like plastic insulation. 
 
My opinion:    Better to try one BOG antenna first, solve the 
problems, then add more. 
 

Bruce-k1fz
 
 
 

  Hi, I have several questions, I am interested in setting up antennas
reception BOG in a key antenna RCS-10, I would like to put in the same key
6 BOG's and 2 Beverages I already own, each Beverage is also 0 degrees to
600 feet that look about the USA and Europe at 45 degrees to 700 feet. 


I would like that the BOG's were cut and functioned for 40-80-160 between
Good and Very Good was excellent for the 3 bands that is almost impossible. 


They can be placed in the same Swiche all antennas?

As it would be better to feed them with 59 or RG6 RG?

The cable from the key to the radius is 40 meters RG 59 or better RG6?

I know that each antenna must place a ground rod, I can make a copper tube
1.50 meters?

I use Bafles duplex wire gauge 20 or 22 that is right or should be thicker?

How far should I place each transformer to not interact or be fed antennas
key interaction is reduced?

For now these are the questions that I have to do. 

Thank you very much and I look forward to the answers. 


Sincerely

HK6P

LUIS

PD was experimentacion but if anyone knows more and can save money by not
consult those who know
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: question

[K1FZ-Bruce]

Hello Luis,

 
The BOG wire is not the gauge of the wire, but the impedance. Many 
transformer  suppliers are using 150 ohms. 
 
BOG antennas react with the earth it rest (sits) upon. The BOG length 
to get a good pattern varies a lot with the local earth. 
It is basically a one band antenna, although you may be able to hear 
signals on other bands. 
 
The transformers can be wound for the coax cable impedance that you specify. 
 
My opinion , recommend that you only try one BOG antenna, after you 
solve the problems to find the right length to get a good front to 
back, Then attempt to add more BOG antennas. 
 

73
Bruce-k1fz
http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/bogantennanotes/index.html
 
 
 

  I have several questions, I am interested in setting up antennas
reception BOG in a key antenna RCS-10, I would like to put in the same key
6 BOG's and 2 Beverages I already own, each Beverage is also 0 degrees to
600 feet that look about the USA and Europe at 45 degrees to 700 feet. 


I would like that the BOG's were cut and functioned for 40-80-160 between
Good and Very Good was excellent for the 3 bands that is almost impossible. 


They can be placed in the same Swiche all antennas?

As it would be better to feed them with 59 or RG6 RG?

The cable from the key to the radius is 40 meters RG 59 or better RG6?

I know that each antenna must place a ground rod, I can make a copper tube
1.50 meters?

I use Bafles duplex wire gauge 20 or 22 that is right or should be thicker?

How far should I place each transformer to not interact or be fed antennas
key interaction is reduced?

For now these are the questions that I have to do. 

Thank you very much and I look forward to the answers. 


Sincerely

HK6P

LUIS

PD was experimentacion but if anyone knows more and can save money by not
consult those who know
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: question

[Gary Smith]

I can't help about BOG questions but... 
For those who do not read Spanish (or most 
other languages) you can find out what you 
can not understand, here:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chro
me-instant=1=2=UTF-8#q=transla
te

It is an on-line translator. Here is what 
it translates that our friend Luis asked:

Hi, I have several questions, I am 
interested in setting up antennas
from BOG reception antennas in a key 
RCS-10, I would like to place on
the BOG's same key 6 and 2 Beverages I 
already own, each Beverage is also 0
Grades approx 600 feet that look to the 
USA and to Europe at 45 degrees 700
feet.

I would like the BOG's were cut and 
functioned for 40-80-160
between Good and Very Good I know it 
excellent for the 3 bands is almost
impossible.

They can be placed in the same switche all 
antennas?

As'd better feed them with 59 or RG6 RG?

The cable from the key to the radius is 40 
meters RG 59 or better with
RG6?

I know that each antenna must place a rod 
to ground, I can Copper tube to about 1.50 
meters?

I use duplex Bafles wire gauge 20 or 22 
that is right or should be
more thick?

How far should I place each transformer to 
not interact or being fed antennas key 
interaction is reduced?

For now these are the questions that I 
have to do.

Thank you very much and I look forward to 
the answers.

Sincerely

HK6P
LUIS

PD was experimentacion but if anyone knows 
more and can save money why not consult 
those who know


> Buenas, tengo varias preguntas, estoy interesado en montar unas
> antenas de recepción BOG en una llave de antenas RCS-10, me gustaría
> colocar en la misma llave 6 BOG's y 2 Beverages que ya poseo, cada
> Beverage esta asi 0 Grados 600 pies esa mira aprox a la USA y hacia
> Europa a 45 grados 700 pies.
> 
> 
> 
> Me gustaría que las BOG's fueran cortadas y funcionaran para
> 40-80-160 entre Bien y Muy Bien yo se que excelente para las 3 bandas
> es casi que imposible.
> 
> 
> 
> Se pueden colocar en el mismo switche todas las antenas?
> 
> Como sería mejor alimentarlas con RG 59  o con RG6?
> 
> 
> 
> El cable que va de la llave a el radio mide 40 metros mejor RG 59  o
> con RG6?
> 
> 
> 
> Yo se que a cada antena hay que colocarle una varilla a tierra, la
> puedo hacer de tubo de Cobre de unos 1.50 metros?
> 
> 
> 
> Yo uso cable duplex de Bafles calibre 20 o 22 ese esta bien o debe ser
> mas grueso?
> 
> 
> 
> A que distancia debo colocar cada transformador para que no se
> interactuen o por ser alimentado con la llave de antenas la
> interaccion se reduce?
> 
> 
> 
> Por ahora esas son las preguntas que tengo para hacer.
> 
> 
> 
> Muchas gracias y quedo a la espera de las respuestas.
> 
> 
> 
> Atentamente
> 
> 
> 
> HK6P
> 
> LUIS
> 
> 
> 
> PD yo se experimentacion pero si alguien sabe mas y se puede ahorrar
> dinero por que no consultar a los que saben
> 
> Hi, I have several questions, I am interested in setting up antennas
> reception BOG in a key antenna RCS-10, I would like to put in the same
> key 6 BOG's and 2 Beverages I already own, each Beverage is also 0
> degrees to 600 feet that look about the USA and Europe at 45 degrees
> to 700 feet.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like that the BOG's were cut and functioned for 40-80-160
> between Good and Very Good was excellent for the 3 bands that is
> almost impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> They can be placed in the same Swiche all antennas?
> 
> As it would be better to feed them with 59 or RG6 RG?
> 
> 
> 
> The cable from the key to the radius is 40 meters RG 59 or better RG6?
> 
> 
> 
> I know that each antenna must place a ground rod, I can make a copper
> tube 1.50 meters?
> 
> 
> 
> I use Bafles duplex wire gauge 20 or 22 that is right or should be
> thicker?
> 
> 
> 
> How far should I place each transformer to not interact or be fed
> antennas key interaction is reduced?
> 
> 
> 
> For now these are the questions that I have to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much and I look forward to the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely
> 
> 
> 
> HK6P
> 
> LUIS
> 
> 
> 
> PD was experimentacion but if anyone knows more and can save money by
> not consult those who know _ Topband Reflector
> Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes

[James Rodenkirch]

Tnx, all, for the comments...learning more and more 
 
 From: charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com
 To: k...@pacbell.net; topband@contesting.com
 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:57:27 -0400
 Subject: Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes
 
 I agree.  We really  don't want the coax shield to be part of the antenna,
 regardless of whether the antenna is vertical or horizontal. If the coax
 shield is part of the antenna, it can seriously distort  the resonance and
 the driving point impedance - hence the need for some common-mode isolation.
 
 Regards,
 Charlie, K4OTV
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
 Harmon
 Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:21 PM
 To: Top Band Contesting
 Subject: Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes
 
 Jim,
 
 It will be interesting to see what others say but my take on this is that
 the tuner function is to provide an impedance match to the vertical and
 doesnt provide any choking.  You still should have the choke.
 
 73,
 Bob
 K6UJ
 
 
 
  On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:42 AM, James Rodenkirch rodenkirch_...@msn.com
 wrote:
  
  I seem to recall, while reading up on common mode chokes, where I wouldn't
 need one if I employ an autotuner at the base of the antenna...is that
 true/factual?
  
  I have an LDG Z11ProII autotuner right at the base of my vertical - I did
 add a common choke at the input to the autotuner (21' of my LMR-400 coax
 wound around a piece of 4.5 PVC for the low bands) but wonder if that is
 really necessary.  
  
  72, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
  

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

Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes

[Robert Harmon]

Jim,

It will be interesting to see what others say but my take on this is that the 
tuner function is to provide an impedance match 
to the vertical and doesnt provide any choking.  You still should have the 
choke.

73,
Bob
K6UJ



 On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:42 AM, James Rodenkirch rodenkirch_...@msn.com wrote:
 
 I seem to recall, while reading up on common mode chokes, where I wouldn't 
 need one if I employ an autotuner at the base of the antenna...is that 
 true/factual?
 
 I have an LDG Z11ProII autotuner right at the base of my vertical - I did add 
 a common choke at the input to the autotuner (21' of my LMR-400 coax wound 
 around a piece of 4.5 PVC for the low bands) but wonder if that is really 
 necessary.  
 
 72, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Those would be transmitted signal strength concerns.

On the receive side, if one ever listens on one's transmit antenna, the
feed coax shield is a potential path for RF noise from the house. Any noise
voltage allowed to go from the coax shield to the radials becomes a
differential voltage versus  the vertical wire which now travels back to
the shack *inside* the coax. Common mode choke on the coax near the antenna
takes care of that. The remote tuner likely works against a common case
ground which directly connects the coax shield to the radials.

73, Guy K2AV

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com wrote:

 On Wed,6/3/2015 9:42 AM, James Rodenkirch wrote:

 I seem to recall, while reading up on common mode chokes, where I
 wouldn't need one if I employ an autotuner at the base of the antenna...is
 that true/factual?


 The function of a choke on the feedline is to prevent it from becoming
 part of the radial system. This matters most when the radial system is
 relatively limited, but is quite important when it is elevated. See N6LF's
 work on this, published as a 2-part piece in QEX several years ago, and
 available on his website. Google his call to find it.

 The executive summary is that ground losses are least when the current
 is equally divided between many radials, which is affected by their length,
 their number, soil quality, and proximity to the earth. The loss in a
 radial is I squared R, where R is loss coupled from the earth. The more
 radials present, the greater the division of the base current between them,
 thus the smaller the I. And because power is I squared, lost power falls in
 proportion to the number of radials.

 When there are only a few radials, current distribution will be strongly
 affected by the nature of the earth under them, which can vary a lot over a
 radial field. In this case, radials that carry greater current will
 dissipate more power, and the total power loss will be greater. The
 significance of the feedline choke is that it prevents the feedline from
 disturbing that balance.

 73, Jim K9YC


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



-- 
Sent via Gmail Mobile on my iPhone
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes

[Jim Brown]

On Wed,6/3/2015 9:42 AM, James Rodenkirch wrote:

I seem to recall, while reading up on common mode chokes, where I wouldn't need 
one if I employ an autotuner at the base of the antenna...is that true/factual?


The function of a choke on the feedline is to prevent it from becoming 
part of the radial system. This matters most when the radial system is 
relatively limited, but is quite important when it is elevated. See 
N6LF's work on this, published as a 2-part piece in QEX several years 
ago, and available on his website. Google his call to find it.


The executive summary is that ground losses are least when the current 
is equally divided between many radials, which is affected by their 
length, their number, soil quality, and proximity to the earth. The loss 
in a radial is I squared R, where R is loss coupled from the earth. The 
more radials present, the greater the division of the base current 
between them, thus the smaller the I. And because power is I squared, 
lost power falls in proportion to the number of radials.


When there are only a few radials, current distribution will be strongly 
affected by the nature of the earth under them, which can vary a lot 
over a radial field. In this case, radials that carry greater current 
will dissipate more power, and the total power loss will be greater. The 
significance of the feedline choke is that it prevents the feedline from 
disturbing that balance.


73, Jim K9YC


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

Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes

[Charles Cu nningham]

I agree.  We really  don't want the coax shield to be part of the antenna,
regardless of whether the antenna is vertical or horizontal. If the coax
shield is part of the antenna, it can seriously distort  the resonance and
the driving point impedance - hence the need for some common-mode isolation.

Regards,
Charlie, K4OTV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Harmon
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:21 PM
To: Top Band Contesting
Subject: Re: Topband: Question on common mode chokes

Jim,

It will be interesting to see what others say but my take on this is that
the tuner function is to provide an impedance match to the vertical and
doesnt provide any choking.  You still should have the choke.

73,
Bob
K6UJ



 On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:42 AM, James Rodenkirch rodenkirch_...@msn.com
wrote:
 
 I seem to recall, while reading up on common mode chokes, where I wouldn't
need one if I employ an autotuner at the base of the antenna...is that
true/factual?
 
 I have an LDG Z11ProII autotuner right at the base of my vertical - I did
add a common choke at the input to the autotuner (21' of my LMR-400 coax
wound around a piece of 4.5 PVC for the low bands) but wonder if that is
really necessary.  
 
 72, Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Gary Smith]

Mike,

don't know your support system as regards trees around you but if 
you can get to your radial plate, the spud gun I made works 
perfectly. look at my qrz page for the photo  info. You wouldn't 
have to do as much as I did  some use a valve like a ball valve to 
launch the projectile. A google for pneumatic spud gun will bring up 
all kinds of alternate ideas  instructions. While I think mine is 
the best I've seen for my wishes, it's also overkill for most 
people's needs. Something less involved will be just as effective (I 
simply made mine a project to get the max results from as I was tired 
of putting up new 160 wires 4-5 times a year).

But once made, any of these  a bicycle pump will get your antenna 
back up  you on the way back to the house in 15 minutes if you use 
tree supports for the antenna.

73,

Gary
KA1J

 Eddy,
 
 Unfortunately many technical nets have been replaced by group discussions. I 
 participate in the group discussions but I enjoy talking about station and 
 antenna setups and hearing the results of the experimentation on the air.
 
 My 160 inverted L came down during the first snowfall of the season. I'm 
 waiting for the ice and snow to melt before so that I can fix it. Hopefully 
 I'll meet you on the air.
 
 Mike N2MS
 
  
 - Original Message -
 From: Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca
 To: mstang...@comcast.net
 Cc: topband@contesting.com
 Sent: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:34:52 - (UTC)
 Subject: Re: Topband: Question...
 
 
 On 2015-02-27, at 4:04 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote:
 
  Eddy,
  
  You do have a computer in the shack. You are an internet operator.
  
  Ham radio was one of the first forms of social media. We used to discuss 
  operating and contesting issues on the air with our nets. We replaced the 
  radio social media with internet groups and chat rooms.
  
  I bet you're like me and spend more time on internet groups that on the air.
  
  We have met the enemy and it us.
  
  Mike N2MS
 
 
 
 
 
 Hi Mike,
 
 Yes, that is quite true: lately I probably spend more time in front of the 
 computer, than I do in front of the rig. I keep telling myself that it's 
 merely a phase I'm going through, but on-the-air QSOs just don't seem like 
 what they used to be. 
 
 Seem to be more challenging  interesting encounters  people on-line, than 
 on-the-air, of late. 
 
 ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Eddy Swynar]

On 2015-02-27, at 4:04 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote:

 Eddy,
 
 You do have a computer in the shack. You are an internet operator.
 
 Ham radio was one of the first forms of social media. We used to discuss 
 operating and contesting issues on the air with our nets. We replaced the 
 radio social media with internet groups and chat rooms.
 
 I bet you're like me and spend more time on internet groups that on the air.
 
 We have met the enemy and it us.
 
 Mike N2MS





Hi Mike,

Yes, that is quite true: lately I probably spend more time in front of the 
computer, than I do in front of the rig. I keep telling myself that it's merely 
a phase I'm going through, but on-the-air QSOs just don't seem like what they 
used to be. 

Seem to be more challenging  interesting encounters  people on-line, than 
on-the-air, of late. 

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Question...

[mstangelo]

Eddy,

Unfortunately many technical nets have been replaced by group discussions. I 
participate in the group discussions but I enjoy talking about station and 
antenna setups and hearing the results of the experimentation on the air.

My 160 inverted L came down during the first snowfall of the season. I'm 
waiting for the ice and snow to melt before so that I can fix it. Hopefully 
I'll meet you on the air.

Mike N2MS

 
- Original Message -
From: Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca
To: mstang...@comcast.net
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:34:52 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Question...


On 2015-02-27, at 4:04 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote:

 Eddy,
 
 You do have a computer in the shack. You are an internet operator.
 
 Ham radio was one of the first forms of social media. We used to discuss 
 operating and contesting issues on the air with our nets. We replaced the 
 radio social media with internet groups and chat rooms.
 
 I bet you're like me and spend more time on internet groups that on the air.
 
 We have met the enemy and it us.
 
 Mike N2MS





Hi Mike,

Yes, that is quite true: lately I probably spend more time in front of the 
computer, than I do in front of the rig. I keep telling myself that it's merely 
a phase I'm going through, but on-the-air QSOs just don't seem like what they 
used to be. 

Seem to be more challenging  interesting encounters  people on-line, than 
on-the-air, of late. 

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Question...

[k8bhz]

I seeyou copy CW at hundreds of words per minute in your head? 
Congratulations! One of my most memorable meteor scatter qso's was with a 
lady from the South who had the most beautiful accent, accentuated by the 
scatter effects. It's hard to equate that to a chirp of high speed CW or 
data. Actually hearing the excited voices of those you worked was most of 
the thrill. It's a shame that all the hype of the high speed, computer read 
CW or data turned most people off to meteor scatter, because it's  so easily 
done with existing, very modest stations.


I'll also never forget my first EME qso when I thought I heard a WA3 calling 
cq, only to realize on the next qsb rise that it was actually a JA3! 
Likewise, I will always remember hearing my own ghostly voice coming back 
from the moon. Sorry Jim, it's just not the same at all.


Brian  K8BHZ

-Original Message- 
From: Jim Brown

Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:51 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Question...

On Fri,2/27/2015 2:33 PM, k8...@hughes.net wrote:
Now people swap qsl's for contacts that they personally never heard; one's 
that their computers have worked instead


That's funny -- I work meteor scatter and other WSJT modes, and I damned
sure DO hear virtually all meteor scatter QSOs. There ARE some JT65 and
JT9 QSOs that I see but don't hear. :)  But that's part of the fun too.
I don't do these modes instead of CW, but in addition to CW.

73, Jim K9YC


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


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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Jim Brown]

On Fri,2/27/2015 2:33 PM, k8...@hughes.net wrote:
Now people swap qsl's for contacts that they personally never heard; 
one's that their computers have worked instead


That's funny -- I work meteor scatter and other WSJT modes, and I damned 
sure DO hear virtually all meteor scatter QSOs. There ARE some JT65 and 
JT9 QSOs that I see but don't hear. :)  But that's part of the fun too. 
I don't do these modes instead of CW, but in addition to CW.


73, Jim K9YC


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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Jorge Diez CX6VM]

Ufff

Again, again and again

Would be great to have a REMOTE reflector!!

73,
Jorge


Enviado desde mi iPhone

 El 27/02/2015, a las 10:34, Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca escribió:
 
 Hi Guys,
 
 My appreciation of computers in the Ham shack, I'm afraid, is limited to 
 placing the contest QSOs that I might make into Cabrillo format , 
 post-contest, for benefit of to-day's contest sponsors---and I was dragged, 
 kicking  screaming all the way, into that stage, several years ago...!
 
 I don't know why, but my ...spidey senses always go on high alert 
 whenever radio  computers are mentioned in the same subject. 
 
 No doubt that accounts for my ignorance as to to-day's Amateur scene...so I 
 have an ignorant question, from an otherwise ignorant Ham: somebody please 
 bear with me,  kindly give me the condensed Coles Notes version in your 
 reply...
 
 Specifically, suppose I want to work the (imaginary, of course) upcoming 
 DX-pedition to North Korea that is being mounted as a distraction to 
 basketball, by Dennis Rodman  a few of his well-heeled Ham friends. I would 
 dearly LOVE to log the operation on 160-meters CW---but I understand that 
 their topband aerial will be limited to a very simple random 130' length of 
 wire, thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself via 
 the internet to some remote ...rent-a-station in, say, nearby Japan, and 
 use that station to QSO them, all the while using my callsign of VE3CUI...?
 
 Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant Ham---but I 
 would like to know the answer, just the same...!
 
 Many thanks, 
 
 ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Question...

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

This is just another genie in a long list of genies that have been let 
out of the bottle.  We will all live through it.


Mike W0MU

On 2/27/2015 9:07 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:

Hi Guys,

Wow...! What an interesting question I've posed re. my fictional 
...working-North-Korea-from-a-remote-location scenario...!

Amazingly enough, fully 7 of the direct respondents to me stated that---in one way, 
shape, or form---one COULD, indeed, have the physical ability to do just what I 
proposed...but whether it would be legal, or not, was questioned by about half of 
those respondents,  nearly everyone made mention of the morality / honour in 
doing such a thing.

The genie is surely out of the bottle, as somebody pointed out earlier. There are cheaters  
...win-at-any-cost types in every field of endeavour---Ham radio is certainly no exclusion 
to this---and no doubt, more than a few of the rules will be vulcanized by some, as they 
have always been...

But know what...? I personally don't care. I don't have a berth for my computer in my shack,  neither do I plan to 
set one up there any time soon, either. And as I thought about the issue, it suddenly dawned upon me: the Amateur world 
is probably, right now, at a cross-roads much as I think it it was in the 1930's,  50's, when self-styled 
...REAL Hams still built their own super-duper receivers, from scratch, and thumbed their noses at those 
appliance operators who purchased the offerings from Hallicrafters, RME, Hammarlund, etc. Somehow the hobby 
managed to survive through that well enough,  I'm sure people will somehow find a way to incorporate this latest 
incursion into our comfort zones, as well.

C'est la vie...! after all...

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi Eddy,

You certainly can. However, you may not. I suspect the Japanese 
regulatory agency will have some say in how you operate in Japan and 
what you may use for a callsign. Your real question might be will 
dishonest hams do this? Probably. But where are you going to find any 
dishonest people (hams or not)? evil grin


73,

Bill  KU8H


On 02/27/2015 07:34 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:

Hi Guys,

My appreciation of computers in the Ham shack, I'm afraid, is limited to placing 
the contest QSOs that I might make into Cabrillo format , post-contest, for benefit 
of to-day's contest sponsors---and I was dragged, kicking  screaming all the 
way, into that stage, several years ago...!

I don't know why, but my ...spidey senses always go on high alert whenever 
radio  computers are mentioned in the same subject.

No doubt that accounts for my ignorance as to to-day's Amateur scene...so I have an ignorant 
question, from an otherwise ignorant Ham: somebody please bear with me,  kindly give me 
the condensed Coles Notes version in your reply...

Specifically, suppose I want to work the (imaginary, of course) upcoming DX-pedition to North 
Korea that is being mounted as a distraction to basketball, by Dennis Rodman  a few of 
his well-heeled Ham friends. I would dearly LOVE to log the operation on 160-meters CW---but 
I understand that their topband aerial will be limited to a very simple random 130' length of 
wire, thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself via the internet to 
some remote ...rent-a-station in, say, nearby Japan, and use that station to QSO 
them, all the while using my callsign of VE3CUI...?

Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant Ham---but I 
would like to know the answer, just the same...!

Many thanks, 

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Marsh Stewart]

Well, you probably can operate a remote station somewhere via the Internet
to work the next DXpedition to a rare-one, and/or North Korea if/when they
get on the air. The QSO should count for your 160M total - but ONLY for your
160M DXCC total from where the transmitter, receiver, and antennas are
located - clearly NOT from your remote control point in VE3.

Marsh, KA5M
 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eddy
Swynar
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:35 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Question...

Hi Guys,

My appreciation of computers in the Ham shack, I'm afraid, is limited to
placing the contest QSOs that I might make into Cabrillo format ,
post-contest, for benefit of to-day's contest sponsors---and I was dragged,
kicking  screaming all the way, into that stage, several years ago...!

I don't know why, but my ...spidey senses always go on high alert
whenever radio  computers are mentioned in the same subject. 

No doubt that accounts for my ignorance as to to-day's Amateur scene...so I
have an ignorant question, from an otherwise ignorant Ham: somebody please
bear with me,  kindly give me the condensed Coles Notes version in your
reply...

Specifically, suppose I want to work the (imaginary, of course) upcoming
DX-pedition to North Korea that is being mounted as a distraction to
basketball, by Dennis Rodman  a few of his well-heeled Ham friends. I would
dearly LOVE to log the operation on 160-meters CW---but I understand that
their topband aerial will be limited to a very simple random 130' length of
wire, thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself
via the internet to some remote ...rent-a-station in, say, nearby Japan,
and use that station to QSO them, all the while using my callsign of
VE3CUI...?

Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant Ham---but I
would like to know the answer, just the same...!

Many thanks, 

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[mstangelo]

Eddy,

This is fine as long as you sign VE3XZ/JA drone.

Mike N2MS


On 02/27/2015 07:34 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:
 Hi Guys,

 My appreciation of computers in the Ham shack, I'm afraid, is limited to 
 placing the contest QSOs that I might make into Cabrillo format , 
 post-contest, for benefit of to-day's contest sponsors---and I was dragged, 
 kicking  screaming all the way, into that stage, several years ago...!

 I don't know why, but my ...spidey senses always go on high alert 
 whenever radio  computers are mentioned in the same subject.

 No doubt that accounts for my ignorance as to to-day's Amateur scene...so I 
 have an ignorant question, from an otherwise ignorant Ham: somebody please 
 bear with me,  kindly give me the condensed Coles Notes version in your 
 reply...

 Specifically, suppose I want to work the (imaginary, of course) upcoming 
 DX-pedition to North Korea that is being mounted as a distraction to 
 basketball, by Dennis Rodman  a few of his well-heeled Ham friends. I would 
 dearly LOVE to log the operation on 160-meters CW---but I understand that 
 their topband aerial will be limited to a very simple random 130' length of 
 wire, thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself via 
 the internet to some remote ...rent-a-station in, say, nearby Japan, and 
 use that station to QSO them, all the while using my callsign of VE3CUI...?

 Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant Ham---but I 
 would like to know the answer, just the same...!

 Many thanks, 

 ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Doug Renwick]

I believe I understand what you are saying ... if you can't control it then
legalize it.

Doug

-Original Message-

thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself via the 
internet to some remote ...rent-a-station in, say, nearby Japan, and use 
that station to QSO them, all the while using my callsign of VE3CUI...?

 Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant Ham---but

 I would like to know the answer, just the same...!

 Many thanks, 

Eddy,

It is always good to figure out how the something we complained about 
actually works, and what the impact is. I see you still cling to the rental

myth that is used to stir people up.

The fact is, there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of completely free 
unmonitored stations on line right now.

My opinion is, if someone wanted to do what you describe, they would likely 
do it through one of the many free open access small stations all over the 
world, of which there are probably hundreds. They would be invisible and 
unrecorded.

It seems illogical to me that someone would join a club or group, become 
identified, and pay a deposit they lose if caught breaking terms, and a fee 
for a monitored and logged system when they can do it free and without 
logging.

I'm not sure how that could be controlled, because anyone who can download 
software and has the right equipment can connect.

This entire topic seems backwards to me, because the most vocal ranters 
appear to be the very people who don't understand the system, and who have 
not thought through the impact and how to solve or reduce problems.

For example, the ARRL is being blamed for profiting from DXCC, but they 
probably have no idea if DXCC is a net loss or net profit for the ARRL. I 
personally do not think it is a fund raiser for them, but that's my guess. I

would not publically rant about it one way or another without research.

We all know, factually, many years ago DXCC became a matter of the person 
and not the station or station location (other than  being within a 
country). Some people would like to see this to go back to the station or at

least worked within reasonable bounds of distance (I am one of them). Unlike

some, I don't think this is an ethical thing. I think a rule is a rule, and 
if we don't like the rule we carefully and thoughtfully change the rule. 
(I've never even applied for DXCC, but I do enjoy working countries for my 
own satisfaction. I do have RCC, but after the strange looks at show and 
tell in eighth grade I have kept that hidden.)

After thinking about this for a few years, I think there should be a 
requirement that no radio transmitter be openly accessible to the general 
public. To me, that is no different than having a running unmonitored 
transmitter on a table in a public shopping mall. I think anyone offering a 
transmitter (or receiver in real time, without induced latency) to the 
general population without reasonably secure user control is setting the 
world up for problems.

The really odd thing about this thread is some people dislike controlled 
systems and people who have or use controlled systems, but they have no 
comment on what amounts to hundreds of radios openly accessible with no 
controls, restrictions, and no monitoring. They have no problem with someone

driving to a station that isn't theirs and counting the country, but they 
have a problem if it is via a link.

W6YY used a remote link in 160 contests way back around 1963. John was my 
first or second California contact on 160. This has been going on quite a 
while.

73 Tom 

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


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

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Eddy Swynar]

Hi Guys,

Wow...! What an interesting question I've posed re. my fictional 
...working-North-Korea-from-a-remote-location scenario...! 

Amazingly enough, fully 7 of the direct respondents to me stated that---in one 
way, shape, or form---one COULD, indeed, have the physical ability to do just 
what I proposed...but whether it would be legal, or not, was questioned by 
about half of those respondents,  nearly everyone made mention of the morality 
/ honour in doing such a thing.

The genie is surely out of the bottle, as somebody pointed out earlier. There 
are cheaters  ...win-at-any-cost types in every field of endeavour---Ham 
radio is certainly no exclusion to this---and no doubt, more than a few of the 
rules will be vulcanized by some, as they have always been...

But know what...? I personally don't care. I don't have a berth for my computer 
in my shack,  neither do I plan to set one up there any time soon, either. And 
as I thought about the issue, it suddenly dawned upon me: the Amateur world is 
probably, right now, at a cross-roads much as I think it it was in the 1930's, 
 50's, when self-styled ...REAL Hams still built their own super-duper 
receivers, from scratch, and thumbed their noses at those appliance operators 
who purchased the offerings from Hallicrafters, RME, Hammarlund, etc. Somehow 
the hobby managed to survive through that well enough,  I'm sure people will 
somehow find a way to incorporate this latest incursion into our comfort 
zones, as well.

C'est la vie...! after all...

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Question...

[mstangelo]

Eddy,

You do have a computer in the shack. You are an internet operator.

Ham radio was one of the first forms of social media. We used to discuss 
operating and contesting issues on the air with our nets. We replaced the radio 
social media with internet groups and chat rooms.

I bet you're like me and spend more time on internet groups that on the air.

We have met the enemy and it us.

Mike N2MS

- Original Message -
From: Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:07:17 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Question...

Hi Guys,

snip 

But know what...? I personally don't care. I don't have a berth for my computer 
in my shack,  neither do I plan to set one up there any time soon, either.

snip

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[Tim Shoppa]

I don't think signing VE3XZ/JA is good enough for remote through Japan.
The ones I know who do such stuff, have a special foreigner in JA call
that starts with 7J, and there's even a special block of callsigns for
club of foreigners in JA.

The truly groundbreaking remote operations I know of, are guys who travel
to JA or BY and operate their USA station remote from there. They have had
very nice QEX and NCJ articles about their efforts. My opinion of folks who
can put together a remotely-controlled station and run a contest with it,
is very high.

Tim N3QE

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:22 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote:


 Eddy,

 This is fine as long as you sign VE3XZ/JA drone.

 Mike N2MS


 On 02/27/2015 07:34 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:
  Hi Guys,
 
  My appreciation of computers in the Ham shack, I'm afraid, is limited to
 placing the contest QSOs that I might make into Cabrillo format ,
 post-contest, for benefit of to-day's contest sponsors---and I was dragged,
 kicking  screaming all the way, into that stage, several years ago...!
 
  I don't know why, but my ...spidey senses always go on high alert
 whenever radio  computers are mentioned in the same subject.
 
  No doubt that accounts for my ignorance as to to-day's Amateur
 scene...so I have an ignorant question, from an otherwise ignorant Ham:
 somebody please bear with me,  kindly give me the condensed Coles Notes
 version in your reply...
 
  Specifically, suppose I want to work the (imaginary, of course) upcoming
 DX-pedition to North Korea that is being mounted as a distraction to
 basketball, by Dennis Rodman  a few of his well-heeled Ham friends. I
 would dearly LOVE to log the operation on 160-meters CW---but I understand
 that their topband aerial will be limited to a very simple random 130'
 length of wire, thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I
 link myself via the internet to some remote ...rent-a-station in, say,
 nearby Japan, and use that station to QSO them, all the while using my
 callsign of VE3CUI...?
 
  Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant
 Ham---but I would like to know the answer, just the same...!
 
  Many thanks, 
 
  ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
  _
  Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Question...

[mstangelo]

Tim,

The whole call would be - VE3XZ/JA drone. 

This was my attempt at satire. I am referring to remote operation as drone 
operation

Who knows? Maybe the IARU will authorize the drone suffix.

Mike N2MS 


- Original Message -
From: Tim Shoppa tsho...@gmail.com
To: mstang...@comcast.net
Cc: topBand List topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:58:01 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Question...

I don't think signing VE3XZ/JA is good enough for remote through Japan.
The ones I know who do such stuff, have a special foreigner in JA call
that starts with 7J, and there's even a special block of callsigns for
club of foreigners in JA.

The truly groundbreaking remote operations I know of, are guys who travel
to JA or BY and operate their USA station remote from there. They have had
very nice QEX and NCJ articles about their efforts. My opinion of folks who
can put together a remotely-controlled station and run a contest with it,
is very high.

Tim N3QE

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:22 PM, mstang...@comcast.net wrote:


 Eddy,

 This is fine as long as you sign VE3XZ/JA drone.

 Mike N2MS


 On 02/27/2015 07:34 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:
  Hi Guys,
 
  My appreciation of computers in the Ham shack, I'm afraid, is limited to
 placing the contest QSOs that I might make into Cabrillo format ,
 post-contest, for benefit of to-day's contest sponsors---and I was dragged,
 kicking  screaming all the way, into that stage, several years ago...!
 
  I don't know why, but my ...spidey senses always go on high alert
 whenever radio  computers are mentioned in the same subject.
 
  No doubt that accounts for my ignorance as to to-day's Amateur
 scene...so I have an ignorant question, from an otherwise ignorant Ham:
 somebody please bear with me,  kindly give me the condensed Coles Notes
 version in your reply...
 
  Specifically, suppose I want to work the (imaginary, of course) upcoming
 DX-pedition to North Korea that is being mounted as a distraction to
 basketball, by Dennis Rodman  a few of his well-heeled Ham friends. I
 would dearly LOVE to log the operation on 160-meters CW---but I understand
 that their topband aerial will be limited to a very simple random 130'
 length of wire, thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I
 link myself via the internet to some remote ...rent-a-station in, say,
 nearby Japan, and use that station to QSO them, all the while using my
 callsign of VE3CUI...?
 
  Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant
 Ham---but I would like to know the answer, just the same...!
 
  Many thanks, 
 
  ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
  _
  Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: Question...

[k8bhz]

I think you've missed Eddy's point. Like him, I don't have a computer in the 
shack. The radios are in my lab down in the basement; my computer is 
upstairs in the computer room. Yes, I'm obviously on that computer now, 
but I have never pretended that it's a radio! I used to enjoy working meteor 
scatter  EME, until both were improved with computers. Now people swap 
qsl's for contacts that they personally never heard; one's that their 
computers have worked instead...Somehow it's not the same. To each his own. 
There used to be a large number of hams participating in meteor scatter, but 
now that it's made easy, very few do. As BB King said The thrill is 
gone...


Brian Mattson  K8BHZ

-Original Message- 
From: mstang...@comcast.net

Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 4:04 PM
To: Eddy Swynar
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Question...

Eddy,

You do have a computer in the shack. You are an internet operator.

Ham radio was one of the first forms of social media. We used to discuss 
operating and contesting issues on the air with our nets. We replaced the 
radio social media with internet groups and chat rooms.


I bet you're like me and spend more time on internet groups that on the air.

We have met the enemy and it us.

Mike N2MS

- Original Message -
From: Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:07:17 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Question...

Hi Guys,

snip

But know what...? I personally don't care. I don't have a berth for my 
computer in my shack,  neither do I plan to set one up there any time soon, 
either.


snip

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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


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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Richard Fry]

The r-f loss at the operating frequency in a set of buried radials varies 
with the conductivity and permittivity of the earth in which they are 
buried.


The NEC4.2 study below shows that for poor earth conditions (within about 
1/2WL from the base of the monopole), the number and length of buried 
radials needed to maintain an r-f loss of a few ohms in the ground return 
rises from that needed for more conductive earth.


In the case of AM broadcast stations, the use of 120 buried radials each 
1/4-wavelength (in free space) produces a ground system loss of 2 ohms or 
less.  This is true no matter what are the characteristics of the the earth 
in which those 120 radials are buried.


For a 1/4-wave, unloaded monopole with 35 ohms of radiation resistance and 2 
ohms of ground system loss, antenna system radiation efficiency is 35/37 = 
95% of the applied power (approx).


The FCC requires that a minimum inverse distance groundwave field of 241 
mV/m is produced by an applied power of 1 kW at at a distance of 1 km by 
even the lowest class of AM station (Class C).  A perfect 1/4-wave monopole 
driven against a perfect ground plane produces about 313 mV/m for those 
conditions.


A typical installation using an unloaded 1/4-wave monopole driven against 
120 x 1/4-wave buried radials produces about 306 mV/m for those 
conditions -- which field is consistent with a monopole system with a 
radiation efficiency of 95%.


The 241 mV/m minimum field required for Class C AM stations could be 
produced by a 1/4-wave monopole+ground system with about 59% efficiency.


Class A AM stations such as WLW, WJR, WGN etc are required to generate an 
inverse distance groundwave field of 362 mV/m at 1 km for 1 kW of applied 
power.  This cannot be done with a 1/4-wave monopole.  Most of the Class A 
stations use monopole heights ranging from 180 to 195 degrees.


WJR, Detroit uses a 195-deg monopole system that produces about 403 mV/m at 
1 km for 1 kW of applied power.  At their licensed transmitter power of 50 
kW, that field becomes 403 x SQRT(50) = 2.85 V/m, approx.


http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/10m_Vert32Buried_Radials.jpg

RF 


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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Charlie Cunningham]

That's a lot of good information, Richard! Thanks for sharing!

73,
Charlie, K4OTV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Fry
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 7:00 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

The r-f loss at the operating frequency in a set of buried radials varies 
with the conductivity and permittivity of the earth in which they are 
buried.

The NEC4.2 study below shows that for poor earth conditions (within about 
1/2WL from the base of the monopole), the number and length of buried 
radials needed to maintain an r-f loss of a few ohms in the ground return 
rises from that needed for more conductive earth.

In the case of AM broadcast stations, the use of 120 buried radials each 
1/4-wavelength (in free space) produces a ground system loss of 2 ohms or 
less.  This is true no matter what are the characteristics of the the earth 
in which those 120 radials are buried.

For a 1/4-wave, unloaded monopole with 35 ohms of radiation resistance and 2

ohms of ground system loss, antenna system radiation efficiency is 35/37 = 
95% of the applied power (approx).

The FCC requires that a minimum inverse distance groundwave field of 241 
mV/m is produced by an applied power of 1 kW at at a distance of 1 km by 
even the lowest class of AM station (Class C).  A perfect 1/4-wave monopole 
driven against a perfect ground plane produces about 313 mV/m for those 
conditions.

A typical installation using an unloaded 1/4-wave monopole driven against 
120 x 1/4-wave buried radials produces about 306 mV/m for those 
conditions -- which field is consistent with a monopole system with a 
radiation efficiency of 95%.

The 241 mV/m minimum field required for Class C AM stations could be 
produced by a 1/4-wave monopole+ground system with about 59% efficiency.

Class A AM stations such as WLW, WJR, WGN etc are required to generate an 
inverse distance groundwave field of 362 mV/m at 1 km for 1 kW of applied 
power.  This cannot be done with a 1/4-wave monopole.  Most of the Class A 
stations use monopole heights ranging from 180 to 195 degrees.

WJR, Detroit uses a 195-deg monopole system that produces about 403 mV/m at 
1 km for 1 kW of applied power.  At their licensed transmitter power of 50 
kW, that field becomes 403 x SQRT(50) = 2.85 V/m, approx.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/10m_Vert32Buried_Radials.jpg

RF 

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

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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Bill Cromwell]

On 02/14/2014 09:15 AM, Charlie Cunningham wrote:

That's a lot of good information, Richard! Thanks for sharing!

73,
Charlie, K4OTV


The whole topic of radials as it applies to me on my small lot is put 
in as many as you can. The same probably applies to others on small 
lots. On top band I do not have room in *any* direction for a quarter 
wavelength radial..not even one. In some directions a quarter wavelength 
radial wire might be bent to fit but that begins the many compromises. 
Obviously that setup would have the antenna in one corner of the lot so 
there would be no radials at all in one or two directions. So.. no 
quarter wave radials at all. I have been buying small spools of wire and 
will be adding them to whatever puny little radial field I DO have.


As soon as the ice and snow is gone (maybe in June?) I will be elevating 
my wire antenna the rest of the way to the treetops and adding in the 
radial wires. In the process of elevating the antenna I will learn to be 
ace with a rod n reel grin. The whole point of that exercise is to 
*miss* the tree and go over the top. So far I've only ever tried to 
*hit* a spot out on the water. It's not hard to hit the water wink. I 
didn't do too badly finding a particular spot on the water with the 
bait. But the tree top is not over there. It's up there.


73,

Bill  KU8H
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Carl]

While Tom touched on the subject yesterday the subject of an individuals 
ground conductivity has to be stressed, continuously it seems. The FCC maps 
arent perfect and hams usually dont have the options of perfect siting for 
their verticals as do many of the BC stations.


Home developers often remove all of the good topsoil and sell it. They back 
fill with rocky sand and whatever else is cheap or worthless and finish with 
a skimcoat of real topsoil just thick enough to grow grass.


My own attempt with 60-65 quarter wave radials 30 years ago at another home 
were dismal since the ground was pure sand left behind by the glaciers 
with a fresh water table about 4' down. Great for mixing concrete and 
drainage only.
After I installed a 2X4 fence mesh around the base and out 50' could I 
reliably work DX.


Going to elevated radials here on a granite hill in the same town saved a 
lot of work and works very well.


Carl
KM1H 


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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Charlie Cunningham]

Hi, Bill

Well, like you, I also live on a fairly small city lot with way too much
bedrock coming up to the surface and a long concrete driveway, so buried
radials just aren't feasible for me! So I hung my inverted L in a tall tulip
poplar in one corner of the lot and I ran two elevated resonant radials down
the fence lines - elevated about 5-6 feet. I worked good stuff all over the
world including JA and Indian Ocean, and VK6. If I could hear 'em, I could
work 'em! BEST thing I EVER did for myself was to build a KAZ terminated
receiving loop for the low-bands 160-30m, so I could HEAR more!  Worked
great!! And no, I didn't have 100 buried radials, but just a few elevated
resonant radials will produce very effective results for the transmit
antenna!

73
Charlie, K4OTV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Cromwell
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:02 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

On 02/14/2014 09:15 AM, Charlie Cunningham wrote:
 That's a lot of good information, Richard! Thanks for sharing!

 73,
 Charlie, K4OTV


The whole topic of radials as it applies to me on my small lot is put in as
many as you can. The same probably applies to others on small lots. On top
band I do not have room in *any* direction for a quarter wavelength
radial..not even one. In some directions a quarter wavelength radial wire
might be bent to fit but that begins the many compromises. 
Obviously that setup would have the antenna in one corner of the lot so
there would be no radials at all in one or two directions. So.. no quarter
wave radials at all. I have been buying small spools of wire and will be
adding them to whatever puny little radial field I DO have.

As soon as the ice and snow is gone (maybe in June?) I will be elevating my
wire antenna the rest of the way to the treetops and adding in the radial
wires. In the process of elevating the antenna I will learn to be ace with a
rod n reel grin. The whole point of that exercise is to
*miss* the tree and go over the top. So far I've only ever tried to
*hit* a spot out on the water. It's not hard to hit the water wink. I
didn't do too badly finding a particular spot on the water with the bait.
But the tree top is not over there. It's up there.

73,

Bill  KU8H
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Charlie Cunningham]

Yeah, just a few elevated resonant radials can work wonders as you have
discovered, Carl!  And rock does get in the way of buried radials!! The
models teach that elevated resonant radials should work very well!

73,
Charlie, K4OTV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Tom W8JI
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

While Tom touched on the subject yesterday the subject of an individuals 
ground conductivity has to be stressed, continuously it seems. The FCC maps 
arent perfect and hams usually dont have the options of perfect siting for 
their verticals as do many of the BC stations.

Home developers often remove all of the good topsoil and sell it. They back 
fill with rocky sand and whatever else is cheap or worthless and finish with

a skimcoat of real topsoil just thick enough to grow grass.

My own attempt with 60-65 quarter wave radials 30 years ago at another home 
were dismal since the ground was pure sand left behind by the glaciers 
with a fresh water table about 4' down. Great for mixing concrete and 
drainage only.
After I installed a 2X4 fence mesh around the base and out 50' could I 
reliably work DX.

Going to elevated radials here on a granite hill in the same town saved a 
lot of work and works very well.

Carl
KM1H 

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

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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Mike Waters]

w0btu.com/Optimum_number_of_ground_radials_vs_radial_length.html

Check the links on that page to N6LF, Rudy Severns' pages. His work has
been called the gold standard of radial science.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM, DALE LONG dale.l...@prodigy.net wrote:

 I understand that 120 radials is the golden standard.  At what point is
 there no significant improvement?

 How much worse is 60 radials?  How much worse is 24 radials (4 of 1/4
 lambda and 20 or 1/10 lambda)?

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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

N6LF has done quite a bit of actual testing of various in ground and 
elevated radial systems.  See: http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/


K3LC has done extensive modeling of both in ground and elevated
radial systems: http://www2.gcc.edu/dept/elee/Faculty/Christman.htm

However, if the majority of your on/in ground radials are only 0.1 wave
you won't need many before the point of diminishing returns.


73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/13/2014 6:12 PM, DALE LONG wrote:

I understand that 120 radials is the golden standard.  At what point is there 
no significant improvement?

How much worse is 60 radials?  How much worse is 24 radials (4 of 1/4 lambda 
and 20 or 1/10 lambda)?

This may have been discussed in the past, but if there is any engineering 
reference or field testing that has been done, I would like to know the results.

Thanks

Dale - N3BNA
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Tom W8JI]

I understand that 120 radials is the golden standard. At what point is there 
no significant improvement?


120 radials never was a gold standard.

The FCC said if a AM BC station uses something like 110 radials, I forget 
the exact number, they can avoid doing a radial system proof of performance. 
I think Hams assumed that somehow meant 110 radials or whatever the exact 
number was were somehow perfect.


There is no improvement here on 40M at about 20-30 radials. YMMV.

This will be different on different bands at the same location, and 
different on the same bands at different locations, and even different with 
different antennas. So what happens in one cause is probably not true in 
others.


Read carefully, and you will see even Rudy Severns says that, so his gold 
standard isn't gold.


73 Tom

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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Brad Rehm]

Jerry Sevick, W2FMI, has an interesting comment about the 120 number in
his book, The Short Vertical Antenna and Ground Radial.  At the end of
the first chapter he notes:

...it should be mentioned that the world standard for the number of
radials to be used with verticals in the AM broadcast band is 120.  This
number was based on the classic paper published in 1937 by Brown, Lewis,
and Epstein.  During the course of a business meeting with Dr. Brown, I
asked him how he and his colleagues arrived at the 120 radial
figure--because I was quite sure 100 would work as well.  His answer was
interesting.

He said that he and the others had been thinking in terms of 100 radials,
but the farmer who plowed in 100 radials had wire left over because copper
is soft and stretches easily.  When he asked what to do with the extra
wire, the farmer was told to plow it in.  The result was a world standard
of 120 radials.

H!

Brad, KV5V


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote:



 I understand that 120 radials is the golden standard. At what point is
 there no significant improvement?

 120 radials never was a gold standard.

 The FCC said if a AM BC station uses something like 110 radials, I forget
 the exact number, they can avoid doing a radial system proof of
 performance. I think Hams assumed that somehow meant 110 radials or
 whatever the exact number was were somehow perfect.

 There is no improvement here on 40M at about 20-30 radials. YMMV.

 This will be different on different bands at the same location, and
 different on the same bands at different locations, and even different with
 different antennas. So what happens in one cause is probably not true in
 others.

 Read carefully, and you will see even Rudy Severns says that, so his gold
 standard isn't gold.

 73 Tom

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

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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Tom W8JI]

Jerry Sevick, W2FMI, has an interesting comment about the 120 number in
his book, The Short Vertical Antenna and Ground Radial.  At the end of
the first chapter he notes:

...it should be mentioned that the world standard for the number of
radials to be used with verticals in the AM broadcast band is 120.  This
number was based on the classic paper published in 1937 by Brown, Lewis,
and Epstein.  During the course of a business meeting with Dr. Brown, I
asked him how he and his colleagues arrived at the 120 radial
figure--because I was quite sure 100 would work as well.  His answer was
interesting.

He said that he and the others had been thinking in terms of 100 radials,
but the farmer who plowed in 100 radials had wire left over because copper
is soft and stretches easily.  When he asked what to do with the extra
wire, the farmer was told to plow it in.  The result was a world standard
of 120 radials.


That's an interesting story, but the story-teller must never have looked at 
the papers.

BL and E used 113 radials maxium, not 120.

Brown, Lewis, and Epstein's papers are all over the web, if you search for 
them.


The FCC says:

At the present development of the art, it is considered that where a 
vertical radiator is employed with its base on the ground, the ground system 
should consist of buried radial wires at least one-fourth wave length long. 
There should be as many of these radials evenly spaced as practicable and in 
no event less than 90. (120 radials of 0.35 to 0.4 of a wave length in 
length and spaced 3° is considered an excellent ground system and in case of 
high base voltage, a base screen of suitable dimensions should be 
employed.)


So you see, the FCC requires 90 radials unless you prove you can make 
efficiency with fewer. They do not say 120 quarter wave radials, they 
require 90 1/4 wave or longer, and say 120 radials .35 to .4 wl is 
considered excellent.





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

Re: Topband: Question - optimum number of radials

[Dan Maguire]

For anyone interested in modeling a vertical with a variable number of radials 
you might refer back to this post:

http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/2013-04/msg00017.html

Near the bottom you'll find a link to download a .weq format model for use 
with AutoEZ.  AutoEZ requires Microsoft Excel and EZNEC v5.

(Shooting myself in the foot here.)  Even using the free demo version of AutoEZ 
you can still take advantage of the multi-config aspect of the model.  
Manually set the variables to any desired values (such as variable N for 
number of radials) then use the View Ant button.  That will build a temporary 
.ez format model and send it to EZNEC.  Then switch over to the EZNEC main 
window and click the EZNEC FF Plot button or other buttons as desired.  In 
effect you are using AutoEZ to build the model and EZNEC to process it.

If you don't have the Pro/4 (NEC-4) version of EZNEC you can simulate buried 
radials by putting them ~0.001 wavelengths above ground.  For info on that 
subject see the EZNEC Help Index  Elevated Radial Systems.

Dan, AC6LA
http://ac6la.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: question about antenna bandwidth

[k8gg]

Rob:

A typical 3/8 wl inverted-L antenna is about 65 feet
vertical and 125 feet horizontal or sloping back downwards at a slight
angle.  This means that 2/3 of the wire is horizontal near the ground
and is a high angle radiator - semi NVIS - and the vertical part is
radiating at a low angle.   Not good unless you want to work a
lot of US and nearby VE stations.

It would be best if you can
model the various configurations of 1/4 wl, 5/16 wl and 3/8 wl inverted-L
antennas on a PC so you can see the results on the monitor and print them
out for evaluation.

IMHO going beyond 160 feet of wire
inverted-L (5/16 wl on 160 meters) is not the best solution.
Just my
2 cents worth

73  GL 
George  K8GG


 Thanks, gentlemen (Eddy, K8GG, ZR,
Roy, Herb, et. al.), for all the 
 feedback on this. So, it seems
it's pretty much what I expected -- 
 if you tune an antenna for
better results on one frequency, you 
 detract from its operation
on another. Maybe one of these days I'll 
 get around to playing
around with that 3/8 wavelength L anyway... 
 
 Rob /
KD8WK 
 
 On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 03:22:19PM -0400, Herb
Schoenbohm wrote: 
 Another rule for this is the lower
the Q of the matching network the 
 greater the
bandwidth. 
 
 Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ 
 
 On 5/7/2012 1:48 PM, Roy wrote: 

 If I were to extend my 1/4-wave inverted-L to a 3/8-wave L, and tune

  out the inductance with a fixed capacitor at the base,
what would this 
  do to the broadbandedness of the
antenna? 
  
  There is an old basic
principle to remember about this, The fewer the 
 
components in general, the broader the bandwidth. 

 
  73, Roy K6XK 
 

___ 
 UR RST IS ...
... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK 
 

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about antenna bandwidth

[Roy]

 If I were to extend my 1/4-wave inverted-L to a 3/8-wave L, and tune
 out the inductance with a fixed capacitor at the base, what would this
 do to the broadbandedness of the antenna?


There is an old basic principle to remember about this, The fewer the 
components in general, the broader the bandwidth.

73,   Roy   K6XK





___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about antenna bandwidth

[Herb Schoenbohm]

Another rule for this is the lower the Q of the matching network the 
greater the bandwidth.


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ





On 5/7/2012 1:48 PM, Roy wrote:
 If I were to extend my 1/4-wave inverted-L to a 3/8-wave L, and tune
 out the inductance with a fixed capacitor at the base, what would this
 do to the broadbandedness of the antenna?

 There is an old basic principle to remember about this, The fewer the
 components in general, the broader the bandwidth.

 73,   Roy   K6XK





 ___


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about antenna bandwidth

[Mirko S57AD]

I don't know how much bandwidth you could get with coaxial quarterwave
transformer (say, two quarterwave lengths of coax in parallel to transform
12 Ohm of an inverted L to 50 Ohm)?
In previous life I was used to use quarterwave 75 Ohm cable to broaden
bandwith of 80m dipole(s)...

73  Mirko, S57AD

2012/5/7 Rob Stampfli r...@cboh.org

 Thanks, gentlemen (Eddy, K8GG, ZR, Roy, Herb, et. al.), for all the
 feedback on this.  So, it seems it's pretty much what I expected --
 if you tune an antenna for better results on one frequency, you
 detract from its operation on another.  Maybe one of these days I'll
 get around to playing around with that 3/8 wavelength L anyway...

 Rob / KD8WK

 On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 03:22:19PM -0400, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
  Another rule for this is the lower the Q of the matching network the
  greater the bandwidth.
 
  Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
 
  On 5/7/2012 1:48 PM, Roy wrote:
   If I were to extend my 1/4-wave inverted-L to a 3/8-wave L, and tune
   out the inductance with a fixed capacitor at the base, what would this
   do to the broadbandedness of the antenna?
  
   There is an old basic principle to remember about this, The fewer the
   components in general, the broader the bandwidth.
  
   73,   Roy   K6XK

 ___
 UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about antenna bandwidth

[DAVID CUTHBERT]

Roy, you didn't specify the vertical length of your inverted-L but I'll
assume it is 50' and that your base-referred ground loss is 5 ohms.

Using NEC-2 for the 1/4 wavelength inverted-L I get a 2:1 VSWR bandwidth of
51 kHz. Note the base resistance at resonance is 18 ohms.

For the 3/8 wavelength inverted-L I get a 2:1 VSWR bandwidth of 30 kHz.
Note the base resistance is 44 ohms and a 142 pF series capacitance is used
to tune out the inductive reactance.

Dave WX7G


On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Roy royan...@ncn.net wrote:



  If I were to extend my 1/4-wave inverted-L to a 3/8-wave L, and tune
  out the inductance with a fixed capacitor at the base, what would this
  do to the broadbandedness of the antenna?


 There is an old basic principle to remember about this, The fewer the
 components in general, the broader the bandwidth.

 73,   Roy   K6XK


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Question about antenna bandwidth

[Eddy Swynar]

On 2012-05-06, at 2:42 PM, Rob Stampfli wrote:

 If I were to  extend my 1/4-wave inverted-L to a 3/8-wave L, and tune
 out the inductance with a fixed capacitor at the base, what would this
 do to the broadbandedness of the antenna?
 

Hi Rob,

The 2:1 SWR points on my extended 3/8-wave inverted L elements are about 
70-KHz apart...I have no idea what those points might be in a regular 
1./4-wave vertical.

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about RX splitter

[George Dubovsky]

Or, if you don't want to do your own packaging, I have a large quantity of
new Minicircuits ZSC-2-1-75 available (same two-transformer design, although
smaller cores).

http://www.minicircuits.com/pdfs/ZSC-2-1-75+.pdf

They have 75 Ohm BNC connectors (100% mechanically compatible with 50 Ohm
BNC males). There is a 150 Ohm chip resistor inside that can be changed to
100 Ohm if you're working in a 50 Ohm system - I'll send you the resistor if
you ask.

$15 for 1, $12 for each additional, plus $5.25 for the small flat-rate box.

73,

geo - n4ua

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

 This high performance 3 dB splitter kit is available from Clifton
 Laboratories for only $5.00 including first class postage within the USA.
 Overseas price is only $6.00 including first class (air) postage.   Easy
 payment via PayPal

 http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/z10050a_3_db_hybrid.htm

 73
 Frank
 W3LPL
 ___
 UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about RX splitter

[donovanf]

This high performance 3 dB splitter kit is available from Clifton Laboratories 
for only $5.00 including first class postage within the USA. Overseas price is 
only $6.00 including first class (air) postage.   Easy payment via PayPal

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/z10050a_3_db_hybrid.htm

73
Frank
W3LPL
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about RX splitter

[n4is]

Guilles

 I cannot use a commercial splitter 

The small you can get is direct from Mini-circuits

http://www.minicircuits.com/pdfs/ADP-2-1.pdf
or 
http://www.minicircuits.com/pdfs/PSC-2-2+.pdf


The best one available is a kit from K8ZOA

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/z10050a_3_db_hybrid.htm

Jose Carlos
N4IS
73's

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: question about RX splitter

[ZR]

- Original Message - 
From: VE2TZT ve2...@arrl.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 5:17 PM
Subject: Topband: question about RX splitter


 Hi Top band community,




 For a comming DXpedition I need to build a specific splitter with the
 following functionalities: 75 ohms input with common mode rejection, two 
 50
 ohms outputs. The band pass will never need to be more than 1.8 to 15 Mhz.



 If I follow the rough way, I need a first core for the 1:1 common mode
 isolation, two cores for the splitter itself (the first for 2:1 input
 impedance lowering and the second for the splitting function including a 
 1:4
 impedance transformation) and one core at each output for auto 
 transforming
 75 ohms to 50 ohms. That's obviously too much cores.




 I have found on the internet an article from John Bryant and Bill Bowers

 ( http://www.dxing.info/equipment/rolling_your_own_bryant.dx)

 where they use only one core for the splitter. Additionally the primary of
 the splitter transformer is symmetric and isolated from the secondary so, 
 it
 seems that this splitter can at the same time provide common mode 
 isolation.
 If to end I adjust the number of turns of the primary to have an impedance
 transformation, It seems that I can get all the above functionalities with
 only one core.



 I know that there are no free meals so, what is wrong in my reasoning?



 73, Gilles VE2TZT



I suggest the KISS principle Gilles.

Use either a 100 Ohm resistor for the splitter and call it 50 Ohms or use 
150 Ohms and call it 75. The antenna and the radio wont know the difference 
since all the interconnect coax is just a small fraction of a wavelength. 
Ive been using 75 Ohm feedlines for TX and RX for over 30 years and no rig 
from vacuum tube to modern has suffered. The resistors here are 100 Ohm.

One binocular core wound as a 2:1 transformer (50 to 25 Ohms or 75 to 37.5) 
for common mode isolation driving another bifilar (or a standard toroid) for 
the split. Use identical windings for either feed impedance. For high common 
mode rejection isolate the binocular windings in seperate Teflon or other 
sleeves; #28 wire works fine that way using BN73-202 cores.

Carl
KM1H 

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK