Topband: (no subject)

[Richard McLachlan]

I worked ZL1AZ in the contest and heard ZL3IO. No VKs here though.

Richard G3OQT


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

Topband: (no subject)

[jim.thom jim.t...@telus.net]

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 16:16:58 + (UTC)
From: Phil Lefever 
To: Topband 
Subject: Re: Topband: AM broadcast multiplexing


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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Mark Robinson]

Roger,

Take a look at this. I am thinking of building one this summer and hang 
it from a tall tree.



https://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm


73 Mark N1UK  G3ZZM


On 23-Mar-21 6:33 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

Guy (K2AV) - I really liked your explanation about the function of a radial
field on a 160m vertical . . . and how the radials don't actually radiate.

But I've often thought about the other extreme . . . I have a homebrew 2m
Ground Plane on top of my mast . . . just a quarter wave vertical . . . and
3 quarter wave radials sloping down about 45 degrees.

Now if those radials were vertical, it would really be a vertical Dipole . .
. i.e. the radials would be radiating.  Whereas if they were horizontal, I
guess they wouldn't be.

You get my question . . . what really is the difference between the 3
different radial situations?

And here's another question . . . rather than all the issues of radials and
matching, has anyone ever used a Vertical Dipole on 160m ?

Sure, you're not going to have a 260 ft vertical . . . but suppose you had a
100ft support, so that you could have 50 ft vertical legs either side of the
coax feeder, and then just bend the legs at right angles at the top and
bottom to make up the length (linear loading) - maybe running in opposite
directions.

I would have though that would be quite an efficient antenna?  And
presumably (just like any dipole) it would work even better if the ground
underneath it was very poor (in my opinion)

Roger G3YRO


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


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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Hi, Roger

It sure seems like a lot of confusion arises when folks attempt concise
electrical and mathematical thoughts and calculations using words with very
broad and fuzzy definitions.  Words like radial, vertical, topload, etc.
can mean different things and can create remarkably confusing sentences and
descriptions.

Like “vertical with one elevated radial”. If one is thinking that radials
are a specific kind of wire group used as a counterpoise that effectively
minimizes radiation, then “with one radial” can’t be called a radial. It
simply is one end of a bent dipole, with one wire very close to and
parallel to the ground. Less lossy than some constructions, e.g. the
horizontal wire actually laying on the ground or buried, but decidedly
lossy. But there will be disagreement about a bent, ground-adjacent dipole,
quite more than one way of talking about that.

Being accused of not having a radial will undoubtedly be defended with "I
worked VK9ABCD at noon long path with a vertical over one radial."  But
that comeback does not pay any attention to whether one can include "one
radial" in a precise definition framework for discussion about how radials
work and why the commercial gold standard radials work so well. And of
course the worst of antennas can sometimes make QSOs in the best of
conditions, while the best of antennas can often barely make QSOs in the
worst of conditions. How can one possibly have an academic grade discussion
with all that flak flying around under the same list-serve thread title?

Since it’s not possible to referee a precise dictionary of such terms that
everyone will agree on, the answer to questions can’t be precisely
formulated with those terms IF what we’re looking for is precise answers or
at least answers good enough to risk precious hours, sore backs and
monetary expenditures.

In the end the answer to what wires and aluminum tubes do is what the
antenna modeling says they do, assuming that attempting the actual antenna
doesn’t expose a gotcha that requires additional work to produce in the
model what the wires and tubes actually individually do. The antenna model
is the only device we have that can break down the problem into small
pieces, calculate all the micro-interactions, and then add them up into
patterns and gain figures.

But even the high-priced pro antenna modelers get tricky to do right with
conductors very close to or in the ground, especially an issue on 160m.
Losses are the two ton elephant in the room on 160. Conversations with
fuzzy terms and concepts don't have a chance at accurately telling you
about RF losses, other than to warn they need to be dealt with.

We estimate efficiency by constructing the idea in a model, comparing
average and worst case ground results, and then doing a near field run set
to the ground surface. The former tells you how badly ground could affect
the performance and the latter shows if the design has created hotspot RF
field zones that can excessively induce ground losses, possibly pointing to
design improvements without the hotspots.

Verbal discussion is good for airing general ideas and concepts, providing
mental constructs for at least basically understanding involved
principles, if you can get consensus on definitions of terms. But as soon
as you want to know dB's, whether A is better than B, or not, you have to
do the work to put the idea up in models, avoiding all the gotchas, so all
the interactions between conductors, between conductors and ground, can be
calculated, added up and presented as loss figures and radiation patterns.

As to your mention of a typical VHF ground plane with counterpoise members
in a plane perpendicular to the radiating member, far field radiation from
those four will be minimized. When those four are "drooped", the four now
have a vertical component to their fields which modifies the pattern of the
main radiating member.

Frankly I think that the VHF "coaxial dipole" has long since replaced that
design. Consider the Celwave Stationmaster, etc, since even barely high
angle VHF radiation is lost altogether. One of their improvements in those
fiberglass encapsulated collinear antennas is to produce patterns that max
out three or even six degrees below perpendicular to the vertical to aim
max power "down" to the horizon or nearer service area from their high
mounting points. I don't see radials on those things. Still on some simple
low VHF antennas.

Using "down-angled" elevated radials in a 160 antenna has mild advantages
seen on a model. But one's physical construction has to have something
handling a loss avoidance need to keep RF off the tower beneath the
feedpoint. That seems to discourage that idea from becoming
popular, because without defeating RF on the tower beneath, that added loss
more than cancels the mild advantage seen in simple models without the
tower-to-ground treatment.

There actually is a way to accomplish tower loading, without tower base
radials using one or two FCP's, a 

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[W7TMT - Patrick]

Ooops, sorry about the cut and paste error. This link should work.
http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm




From: Topband  on behalf of 
W7TMT - Patrick 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:41:34 PM
To: Roger Kennedy ; topband@contesting.com 

Subject: Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

Called a Double L. This is the earliest article on it I remember. Others out 
there as well.

http://www.yccc.org/http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.ht/double_l.htm

Patrick, W7TMT



From: Topband  on behalf of 
Roger Kennedy 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:33:53 PM
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question


Guy (K2AV) - I really liked your explanation about the function of a radial
field on a 160m vertical . . . and how the radials don't actually radiate.

But I've often thought about the other extreme . . . I have a homebrew 2m
Ground Plane on top of my mast . . . just a quarter wave vertical . . . and
3 quarter wave radials sloping down about 45 degrees.

Now if those radials were vertical, it would really be a vertical Dipole . .
. i.e. the radials would be radiating.  Whereas if they were horizontal, I
guess they wouldn't be.

You get my question . . . what really is the difference between the 3
different radial situations?

And here's another question . . . rather than all the issues of radials and
matching, has anyone ever used a Vertical Dipole on 160m ?

Sure, you're not going to have a 260 ft vertical . . . but suppose you had a
100ft support, so that you could have 50 ft vertical legs either side of the
coax feeder, and then just bend the legs at right angles at the top and
bottom to make up the length (linear loading) - maybe running in opposite
directions.

I would have though that would be quite an efficient antenna?  And
presumably (just like any dipole) it would work even better if the ground
underneath it was very poor (in my opinion)

Roger G3YRO


_
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: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[W7TMT - Patrick]

Called a Double L. This is the earliest article on it I remember. Others out 
there as well.

http://www.yccc.org/http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.ht/double_l.htm

Patrick, W7TMT



From: Topband  on behalf of 
Roger Kennedy 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:33:53 PM
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question


Guy (K2AV) - I really liked your explanation about the function of a radial
field on a 160m vertical . . . and how the radials don't actually radiate.

But I've often thought about the other extreme . . . I have a homebrew 2m
Ground Plane on top of my mast . . . just a quarter wave vertical . . . and
3 quarter wave radials sloping down about 45 degrees.

Now if those radials were vertical, it would really be a vertical Dipole . .
. i.e. the radials would be radiating.  Whereas if they were horizontal, I
guess they wouldn't be.

You get my question . . . what really is the difference between the 3
different radial situations?

And here's another question . . . rather than all the issues of radials and
matching, has anyone ever used a Vertical Dipole on 160m ?

Sure, you're not going to have a 260 ft vertical . . . but suppose you had a
100ft support, so that you could have 50 ft vertical legs either side of the
coax feeder, and then just bend the legs at right angles at the top and
bottom to make up the length (linear loading) - maybe running in opposite
directions.

I would have though that would be quite an efficient antenna?  And
presumably (just like any dipole) it would work even better if the ground
underneath it was very poor (in my opinion)

Roger G3YRO


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

Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Roger Kennedy]

Guy (K2AV) - I really liked your explanation about the function of a radial
field on a 160m vertical . . . and how the radials don't actually radiate.

But I've often thought about the other extreme . . . I have a homebrew 2m
Ground Plane on top of my mast . . . just a quarter wave vertical . . . and
3 quarter wave radials sloping down about 45 degrees.

Now if those radials were vertical, it would really be a vertical Dipole . .
. i.e. the radials would be radiating.  Whereas if they were horizontal, I
guess they wouldn't be.

You get my question . . . what really is the difference between the 3
different radial situations?

And here's another question . . . rather than all the issues of radials and
matching, has anyone ever used a Vertical Dipole on 160m ?

Sure, you're not going to have a 260 ft vertical . . . but suppose you had a
100ft support, so that you could have 50 ft vertical legs either side of the
coax feeder, and then just bend the legs at right angles at the top and
bottom to make up the length (linear loading) - maybe running in opposite
directions.

I would have though that would be quite an efficient antenna?  And
presumably (just like any dipole) it would work even better if the ground
underneath it was very poor (in my opinion)

Roger G3YRO


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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Rob Atkinson]

Inspect your feedline you plan to use (sounds like it is Heliax) and
make sure the jacket is undamaged.  If it is okay, you can bury it or
just lay it on the ground and it won't matter if water covers it.  Of
more concern is keeping the junction where the feedline divides dry.

If you use enough radials, you won't have to worry about the feedline
shield becoming a radial.  It will be one, but the RF on it will be
minimal because it will be one among many radials.  But you have to
have a lot of radials.  I am taking your description of the field
being under water for only a couple of weeks a year into account.

If you are concerned about animals chewing on the line, burying it or
elevating it may be needed.  I've had something chew on my 1/2 inch
line but I guess rodents realize the jacket isn't the same as wood so
they don't go very far.  The line is fine due to the solid copper
shield.  This is one of the reasons why Heliax is superior to braided
shield line and a worthwhile investment.

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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Adrian]

Interesting page on the subject here ;

https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/3675/what-is-the-effect-of-using-different-number-of-radials-with-ground-plane-antenn


On 23/3/21 1:55 pm, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
A counterpoise is what we do when the full size of a double-ended 
antenna, dipole, OCF, etc is too large for us to build, maintain, etc. 
Very simply, we want to jam the energy from the shield of our coax 
into the counterpoise, and the energy from the center conductor into 
the radiating element, the vertical, T, inverted L, etc, the aerial 
wire. Then we want to get all that energy back from the counterpoise, 
none lost if possible, at the phase reversal. Any you don't get back 
is mostly outright loss. With commercial high grade radials you can 
show that the effective series resistance of the counterpoise is 1/2, 
1/3 or sometimes even 1/10 of an ohm. That means that the aerial wire 
is radiating something like 50, 100 times the energy lost/radiated by 
the radials' connection to ground.


The two current destinations taken together MIMIC a circuit, because 
the current into the counterpoise is the same, but opposite polarity 
as the current into the radiating part of the antenna. If the currents 
are equal and opposite, it looks like a circuit, walks like a circuit, 
quacks like a circuit. You can model it with a fake circuit, and use 
Maxwell's equations for circuits to predict what is gonna happen. 
There is no magic circulation, just the ability to convince the coax 
it is hooked up to a circuit. With the massive parallelism of a 
commercial grade radial field, the radial's electrons are coupled into 
the ground as a reservoir, with the push back from extra or missing 
electrons that will return the current when the phase reverses. The 
more radials, the more even the radials, the longer the radials, the 
lower the power lost to current through resistive materials, lost to 
dielectric loss in dielectric materials, lost to resistance in the 
wire. Not perfect return, but a nice, high percentage return.


In free space, it is possible to construct a counterpoise that NEC4 
can accurately predict will radiate power to the far field at a rate 
30 dB below the RF current's energy. The essential loss is in the RF 
resistance of the wire. You are talking about a counterpoise that is 
98 or 99+ percent efficient in free space.


We are not interested in a counterpoise radiating, or invoking loss in 
the environment. Talking to the counterpoise, I'm telling it I'm 
giving it this pile of energy. A half cycle from now I want it all 
back. No skimming off the top. Maybe just a skoch.


A commercial quality radial field beneath a vertical is deliberately 
intended to be non-radiating. Looking at the current around the base 
of the vertical, the current to the east is exactly the opposite of 
the current to the west, as are to the north and south, as are all 
opposite radial pairs, therefore the fields generated are opposite, 
intended to be net zero in the far field. That's on purpose, pretty 
much true, and exactly what the engineers had in mind.


It is easy to show that there are unfortunate ham designs and 
implementations of the counterpoise/aerial concept where not even 10 
percent of the power is radiated skyward. That is the 160 meter two 
ton elephant in the room that gets ignored an awful lot of the time.


73, Guy K2AV


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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

A counterpoise is what we do when the full size of a double-ended antenna,
dipole, OCF, etc is too large for us to build, maintain, etc. Very simply,
we want to jam the energy from the shield of our coax into the
counterpoise, and the energy from the center conductor into the radiating
element, the vertical, T, inverted L, etc, the aerial wire. Then we want to
get all that energy back from the counterpoise, none lost if possible, at
the phase reversal. Any you don't get back is mostly outright loss. With
commercial high grade radials you can show that the effective series
resistance of the counterpoise is 1/2, 1/3 or sometimes even 1/10 of an
ohm. That means that the aerial wire is radiating something like 50, 100
times the energy lost/radiated by the radials' connection to ground.

The two current destinations taken together MIMIC a circuit, because the
current into the counterpoise is the same, but opposite polarity as the
current into the radiating part of the antenna. If the currents are equal
and opposite, it looks like a circuit, walks like a circuit, quacks like a
circuit. You can model it with a fake circuit, and use Maxwell's equations
for circuits to predict what is gonna happen. There is no magic
circulation, just the ability to convince the coax it is hooked up to a
circuit. With the massive parallelism of a commercial grade radial field,
the radial's electrons are coupled into the ground as a reservoir, with the
push back from extra or missing electrons that will return the current when
the phase reverses. The more radials, the more even the radials, the longer
the radials, the lower the power lost to current through resistive
materials, lost to dielectric loss in dielectric materials, lost to
resistance in the wire. Not perfect return, but a nice, high percentage
return.

In free space, it is possible to construct a counterpoise that NEC4 can
accurately predict will radiate power to the far field at a rate 30 dB
below the RF current's energy. The essential loss is in the RF resistance
of the wire. You are talking about a counterpoise that is 98 or 99+ percent
efficient in free space.

We are not interested in a counterpoise radiating, or invoking loss in the
environment. Talking to the counterpoise, I'm telling it I'm giving it this
pile of energy. A half cycle from now I want it all back. No skimming off
the top. Maybe just a skoch.

A commercial quality radial field beneath a vertical is deliberately
intended to be non-radiating. Looking at the current around the base of the
vertical, the current to the east is exactly the opposite of the current to
the west, as are to the north and south, as are all opposite radial pairs,
therefore the fields generated are opposite, intended to be net zero in the
far field. That's on purpose, pretty much true, and exactly what the
engineers had in mind.

It is easy to show that there are unfortunate ham designs and
implementations of the counterpoise/aerial concept where not even 10
percent of the power is radiated skyward. That is the 160 meter two ton
elephant in the room that gets ignored an awful lot of the time.

73, Guy K2AV


On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:42 PM Adrian  wrote:

> Recycling signals at the feedpoint sounds more like a mismatch swr
> situation.
>
> The ground radials form half of the antenna, and that radiation from
> ground, in phase with the vertical radiation determines the field
> strength and take off angle.
>
> vk4tux
>
>
> On 23/3/21 11:31 am, Charles Moizeau wrote:
> > I feel it more appropriate to say that the function of ground-mounted
> radials is to harvest the radiation from a vertical antenna that splashes
> on the ground and return it to the feed point for recycling.
> >
> > 72/73,
> >
> > Charles, W2SH
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Adrian]

Recycling signals at the feedpoint sounds more like a mismatch swr 
situation.


The ground radials form half of the antenna, and that radiation from 
ground, in phase with the vertical radiation determines the field 
strength and take off angle.


vk4tux


On 23/3/21 11:31 am, Charles Moizeau wrote:

I feel it more appropriate to say that the function of ground-mounted radials 
is to harvest the radiation from a vertical antenna that splashes on the ground 
and return it to the feed point for recycling.

72/73,

Charles, W2SH


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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Charles Moizeau]

I feel it more appropriate to say that the function of ground-mounted radials 
is to harvest the radiation from a vertical antenna that splashes on the ground 
and return it to the feed point for recycling.

72/73,

Charles, W2SH

From: Topband  on behalf of Jim 
Brown 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 20:40
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

On 3/22/2021 2:41 PM, Carl Braun wrote:
> Some brought up the idea of my ground mounted radials becoming submerged in 
> fresh water...however, that would only take place for a week or less during 
> the spring here and, it would only happen if we had a slow snow pack melt and 
> rain at the same time.

The earth is a big resistor. Connecting to it BURNS transmitter power.
What many folks miss is that the function of radials is to SHIELD the
antenna's fields and return current from lossy earth, NOT to couple to
it. The only part of the earth we want to carry return current or see a
transmitting antenna's field is SEA water.

73, Jim K9YC
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Jim Brown]

On 3/22/2021 2:41 PM, Carl Braun wrote:

Some brought up the idea of my ground mounted radials becoming submerged in 
fresh water...however, that would only take place for a week or less during the 
spring here and, it would only happen if we had a slow snow pack melt and rain 
at the same time.


The earth is a big resistor. Connecting to it BURNS transmitter power. 
What many folks miss is that the function of radials is to SHIELD the 
antenna's fields and return current from lossy earth, NOT to couple to 
it. The only part of the earth we want to carry return current or see a 
transmitting antenna's field is SEA water.


73, Jim K9YC
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Carl Braun]

Topbanders

Thanks to all who responded

I received a lot of good advice and will be taking it.  Specifically, the 
advice to bury the hardline rather than elevate it.

Some brought up the idea of my ground mounted radials becoming submerged in 
fresh water...however, that would only take place for a week or less during the 
spring here and, it would only happen if we had a slow snow pack melt and rain 
at the same time.  This happened here two years ago but only lasted for a week 
or so.

I am sure to have more questions as this project matures.  In the meantime, I 
will continue to work with my modified 80/160 Butternut vertical that's stuck 
in the snow.  It uses 4 pieces of 30' irrigation tubing for radials as well as 
some wayward wires to create the ground screen.  No amplifier. This winter I 
have 22 countries on 160 with it.  Looking forward to the array!

Thanks again

Carl W9LF

From: Carl Braun
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 3:26 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: New Subject: 160M array feedline question


Hello Topbanders

I am currently awaiting the snow to melt here in the Northwoods of Wisconsin 
before starting the construction of my low band vertical array.  My verticals 
will be mounted in a low ground area near a lake and the area tends to get wet 
and sometimes floods in the early spring.  Water levels could reach 6" to 12" 
above ground.  My concerns relate to the hardline coaxial cable that will run 
from my lighting arrestor panel at the outside of my shack to the center of the 
two element vertical array which is 250' away.  I will be using 1 5/8" hardline 
that I was able to snag for a very good deal but am concerned about having the 
cable lying on the ground and possible become submerged should we get 
significant rain with the snow melt.

My plan is to elevate the feedline approximately 24" above the ground using old 
sections of Rohn 25 tower spaced every 10' or so.  Each vertically mounted 5' 
chunk of Rohn 25 will be buried 2' into the ground have a 3' 2x6 board laying 
horizontally across the tower that would act as a coaxial "shelf" that will 
keep the hardline out of the water and prevent any significant drooping between 
these Rohn support sections.

My question for the forum is related to the fact that I will have an elevated 
coaxial feedline with two ground mounted vertical antennas.  I plan to use an 
UNUN or similar line isolator/choke that would keep the hardline from becoming 
a extra radial.  Any thoughts from the forum on this set up? Any extra 
precautions I should take to keep return currents from flowing on the feedline?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Carl W9LF

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

Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Mpridesti via Topband]

If the radials have a good chance be being submerged in fresh water, I would 
consider elevating the radials. 

Had an experience here where my 40 radials on each of my 4 square verticals 
were often times below the water level and radiation efficiency dropped like a 
rock. Great receive performance but transmit signal was poor (think boiling the 
water). When I raised about 20 radials out of the water and disconnected the 
ones now trapped in mud, etc. the 4 square started to play well. 

Regards,

Mark, K1RX


> On Mar 22, 2021, at 9:54 AM, Wes  wrote:
> 
> What's the perceived problem with the cable being submerged?
> 
> Wes  N7WS
> 
>> On 3/21/2021 1:25 PM, Carl Braun wrote:
>> Hello Topbanders
>> 
>> I am currently awaiting the snow to melt here in the Northwoods of Wisconsin 
>> before starting the construction of my low band vertical array.  My 
>> verticals will be mounted in a low ground area near a lake and the area 
>> tends to get wet and sometimes floods in the early spring.  Water levels 
>> could reach 6" to 12" above ground.  My concerns relate to the hardline 
>> coaxial cable that will run from my lighting arrestor panel at the outside 
>> of my shack to the center of the two element vertical array which is 250' 
>> away.  I will be using 1 5/8" hardline that I was able to snag for a very 
>> good deal but am concerned about having the cable lying on the ground and 
>> possible become submerged should we get significant rain with the snow melt.
>> 
>> My plan is to elevate the feedline approximately 24" above the ground using 
>> old sections of Rohn 25 tower spaced every 10' or so.  Each vertically 
>> mounted 5' chunk of Rohn 25 will be buried 2' into the ground have a 3' 2x6 
>> board laying horizontally across the tower that would act as a coaxial 
>> "shelf" that will keep the hardline out of the water and prevent any 
>> significant drooping between these Rohn support sections.
>> 
>> My question for the forum is related to the fact that I will have an 
>> elevated coaxial feedline with two ground mounted vertical antennas.  I plan 
>> to use an UNUN or similar line isolator/choke that would keep the hardline 
>> from becoming a extra radial.  Any thoughts from the forum on this set up? 
>> Any extra precautions I should take to keep return currents from flowing on 
>> the feedline?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
>> 
>> Carl W9LF
>> 
>> _
>> 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: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Wes]

What's the perceived problem with the cable being submerged?

Wes  N7WS

On 3/21/2021 1:25 PM, Carl Braun wrote:

Hello Topbanders

I am currently awaiting the snow to melt here in the Northwoods of Wisconsin before starting 
the construction of my low band vertical array.  My verticals will be mounted in a low ground 
area near a lake and the area tends to get wet and sometimes floods in the early spring.  
Water levels could reach 6" to 12" above ground.  My concerns relate to the hardline 
coaxial cable that will run from my lighting arrestor panel at the outside of my shack to the 
center of the two element vertical array which is 250' away.  I will be using 1 5/8" 
hardline that I was able to snag for a very good deal but am concerned about having the cable 
lying on the ground and possible become submerged should we get significant rain with the snow 
melt.

My plan is to elevate the feedline approximately 24" above the ground using old sections 
of Rohn 25 tower spaced every 10' or so.  Each vertically mounted 5' chunk of Rohn 25 will be 
buried 2' into the ground have a 3' 2x6 board laying horizontally across the tower that would 
act as a coaxial "shelf" that will keep the hardline out of the water and prevent 
any significant drooping between these Rohn support sections.

My question for the forum is related to the fact that I will have an elevated 
coaxial feedline with two ground mounted vertical antennas.  I plan to use an 
UNUN or similar line isolator/choke that would keep the hardline from becoming 
a extra radial.  Any thoughts from the forum on this set up? Any extra 
precautions I should take to keep return currents from flowing on the feedline?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Carl W9LF

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



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

Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question

[Carl Braun]

Hello Topbanders

I am currently awaiting the snow to melt here in the Northwoods of Wisconsin 
before starting the construction of my low band vertical array.  My verticals 
will be mounted in a low ground area near a lake and the area tends to get wet 
and sometimes floods in the early spring.  Water levels could reach 6" to 12" 
above ground.  My concerns relate to the hardline coaxial cable that will run 
from my lighting arrestor panel at the outside of my shack to the center of the 
two element vertical array which is 250' away.  I will be using 1 5/8" hardline 
that I was able to snag for a very good deal but am concerned about having the 
cable lying on the ground and possible become submerged should we get 
significant rain with the snow melt.

My plan is to elevate the feedline approximately 24" above the ground using old 
sections of Rohn 25 tower spaced every 10' or so.  Each vertically mounted 5' 
chunk of Rohn 25 will be buried 2' into the ground have a 3' 2x6 board laying 
horizontally across the tower that would act as a coaxial "shelf" that will 
keep the hardline out of the water and prevent any significant drooping between 
these Rohn support sections.

My question for the forum is related to the fact that I will have an elevated 
coaxial feedline with two ground mounted vertical antennas.  I plan to use an 
UNUN or similar line isolator/choke that would keep the hardline from becoming 
a extra radial.  Any thoughts from the forum on this set up? Any extra 
precautions I should take to keep return currents from flowing on the feedline?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Carl W9LF

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

Topband: (no subject)

[W7RH]

From the left Coast point of view there has not been much happening. 
VK6LW, VK3HJ and VK6GZ show up in the log again and again in the morning 
sunrise period. Not bad for a 9649.9 mi (15530.0 km) path. Sprinkle with 
JA1LZR , HL5IVL and maybe DU6/N6SS when he gets on CW that is it. There 
has been a few SE Asia stations on but not on a regular basis. Literally 
a couple billion people with nothing to show. Our EU path is virtually 
gone unless you live much further south or at the northern extreme. Just 
not making it past the Midwest.


The Spring and Fall equinox periods always provide some good 
trans-equatorial propagation. Missing zones 22 operators which could be 
quite possible if someone would just be there.


Many Ham Radio stations today have upwards of $20-30K invested with 
radios, towers and antennas. It would seem to me that there just no 
desire anymore. We can not reinvent the wheel but there is certainly 
room for improvement.


Will the last standing please turn of the lights...SK

Bob, W7RH

--
W7RH DM35qj

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our 
humanity." - Albert Einstein

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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

You can CQ too.  If you get picked up by a Skimmer you will be spotted.

On 3/27/2020 11:32 AM, Tom | SP5XO wrote:
I was listening on your QRG Andy and heard almost every station from 
NA you had QSO with - George AA7JV, KB3Z, NO9E and others. And that is 
quite unusual since my only Top Band antenna is inverted V dipole 12 
meters high.
Unfortunately none of them decided to call CQ so I only heard Dave 
W0FLS and Stu NV3N who i worked earlier this week with my NVIS antenna 
and 100W.
So there is still some room for tiny pistols. Just throw some CQ to 
gime us a chance guys!


CU on 160.
Tom
sp5xo


On 3/27/2020 5:49 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:

hey topbanders,

condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 
6Y5.

Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not finished.

73 Andy DL8LAS


www.dl8las.com



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


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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Tom | SP5XO]

I was listening on your QRG Andy and heard almost every station from NA you
had QSO with - George AA7JV, KB3Z, NO9E and others. And that is quite
unusual since my only Top Band antenna is inverted V dipole 12 meters high.
Unfortunately none of them decided to call CQ so I only heard Dave W0FLS
and Stu NV3N who i worked earlier this week with my NVIS antenna and 100W.
So there is still some room for tiny pistols. Just throw some CQ to gime us
a chance guys!

CU on 160.
Tom
sp5xo


>
> On 3/27/2020 5:49 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:
> > hey topbanders,
> >
> > condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 6Y5.
> > Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not finished.
> >
> > 73 Andy DL8LAS
> >
> >
> > www.dl8las.com
>
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Tom | SP5XO]

I was listening on your QRG Andy and heard almost every station from NA 
you had QSO with - George AA7JV, KB3Z, NO9E and others. And that is 
quite unusual since my only Top Band antenna is inverted V dipole 12 
meters high.
Unfortunately none of them decided to call CQ so I only heard Dave W0FLS 
and Stu NV3N who i worked earlier this week with my NVIS antenna and 
100W.
So there is still some room for tiny pistols. Just throw some CQ to gime 
us a chance guys!


CU on 160.
Tom
sp5xo


On 3/27/2020 5:49 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:

hey topbanders,

condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 
6Y5.
Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not 
finished.


73 Andy DL8LAS


www.dl8las.com



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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[daraymond]

I was on last night as well as the past few mornings.  The conditions to EU 
last night from here were atrocious.  I could barely hear OM2XW well enough 
for a QSO.  Conditions Wednesday night were quite a bit better with about a 
dozen or so EUs in the log.  Morning conditions have been variable as they 
usually are.  Signals from the very few JA stations have been everything 
from pee weak to moderate.  Morning conditions to VK have been generally 
good.  Two highlights from yesterday include VK2CCC calling in, an all time 
new call sign.  But the big surprise was Phil, VK6GX, who had called in 
earlier, called in a second time right at my SR with an honest S7 signal.  I 
had the K3S APF turned on and was tuning him in and had missed the "V" in 
his call sign.  He was so strong I thought it was "K6GX" calling in.  All 
this said, springtime QRN is mounting and lightning season is on the way.  I 
will soon be decommissioning the HI-Z 8 and main TX array until Fall.   This 
season brought me some new ones on TB (5H, 7P8, TT8) but disappointing to 
have missed 8Q, EX0, and VU4 (cancelled due to virus).  I continue my work 
on CW and thoroughly enjoy the fascinations of TB as well the camaraderie 
and thoughtful, informative exchanges here on the reflector.


73 to all and stay safe. . .Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message- 
From: GEORGE WALLNER

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:08 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: (no subject)

During the past week I have been surprised by the good propagation between
FL and EU. I have a noisy home QTH and do not have an RX antenna now
(rebuilding it). The noise on the TX antenna here is S8. Many EU stations
were well over that and the QSO-s were easy and pleasant. Very rare from
here. I was running only 600 W but every EU station I called came back on
the first call. TX antenna is just a 55' tall inverted L. (The ground is
good though: salt-water.) Still...

Good CONDX on TB! Take advantage of them while they last.

73 and CU,
George,
AA7JV



On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:23:18 +
 David Olean  wrote:

Hello Andy,

I was on for a very short time. I worked a few EU stations with incredible 
signals, 599 with preamp off, on my K3 S-meter. Then the noise built up 
and static crashes became long and loud. The 6Y5 called me forever and I 
could not get his call even though I could tell he was loud. The QRN just 
covered him up so all I got were parts of letters! I turned the rig off 
when I saw the huge line of storms just to my south.  I had every 
intention of making a night of it, but the weather (and lightning) got in 
the way!


I looked at ur QTH on QRZ.com, and saw the farm field used for RX 
antennas. UFB!  You have fantastic hearing on 160.


73

Dave  K1WHS

On 3/27/2020 5:49 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:

hey topbanders,

condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 6Y5.
Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not finished.

73 Andy DL8LAS


www.dl8las.com <http://www.dl8las.com> _
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector

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


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


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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[GEORGE WALLNER]

During the past week I have been surprised by the good propagation between 
FL and EU. I have a noisy home QTH and do not have an RX antenna now 
(rebuilding it). The noise on the TX antenna here is S8. Many EU stations 
were well over that and the QSO-s were easy and pleasant. Very rare from 
here. I was running only 600 W but every EU station I called came back on 
the first call. TX antenna is just a 55' tall inverted L. (The ground is 
good though: salt-water.) Still...


Good CONDX on TB! Take advantage of them while they last.

73 and CU,
George,
AA7JV



On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:23:18 +
 David Olean  wrote:

Hello Andy,

I was on for a very short time. I worked a few EU stations with incredible 
signals, 599 with preamp off, on my K3 S-meter. Then the noise built up and 
static crashes became long and loud. The 6Y5 called me forever and I could not 
get his call even though I could tell he was loud. The QRN just covered him up 
so all I got were parts of letters! I turned the rig off when I saw the huge 
line of storms just to my south.  I had every intention of making a night of 
it, but the weather (and lightning) got in the way!

I looked at ur QTH on QRZ.com, and saw the farm field used for RX antennas. 
UFB!  You have fantastic hearing on 160.

73

Dave  K1WHS

On 3/27/2020 5:49 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:

hey topbanders,

condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 6Y5.
Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not finished.

73 Andy DL8LAS


www.dl8las.com  
_

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

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


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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[David Olean]

Hello Andy,

I was on for a very short time. I worked a few EU stations with 
incredible signals, 599 with preamp off, on my K3 S-meter. Then the 
noise built up and static crashes became long and loud. The 6Y5 called 
me forever and I could not get his call even though I could tell he was 
loud. The QRN just covered him up so all I got were parts of letters! I 
turned the rig off when I saw the huge line of storms just to my south.  
I had every intention of making a night of it, but the weather (and 
lightning) got in the way!


I looked at ur QTH on QRZ.com, and saw the farm field used for RX 
antennas. UFB!  You have fantastic hearing on 160.


73

Dave  K1WHS

On 3/27/2020 5:49 AM, Andree DL8LAS via Topband wrote:

hey topbanders,

condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 6Y5.
Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not finished.

73 Andy DL8LAS


www.dl8las.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Topband: (no subject)

[Andree DL8LAS via Topband]

hey topbanders,

condx were not bad this morning in EU, worked some NA and a new DXCC 6Y5. 
Band was very quiet, but not much activity. 160m season is not finished.

73 Andy DL8LAS 


www.dl8las.com
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: (no subject)

[Okamoto]

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

Topband: (no subject)

[James Lee]

OOPS, I did not see the Gold Plating aspect of the Pasternack PL 259 connector. 
 Guess I better get a half-ozen since gold is alwasys supposed to be going up 
in price!

Jim
NK7B
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Off subject topic , looking for info on EMI HF Radio testing on Helicopters

[wa8wzg]

To All,,
Off topic Subject, but lots of experience in this group, so I am going 
to ask,,
IS anybody familiar with EMI testing of HF radios for Helicopters, 
specifically test parameters for ADS-51-HDBK specifications,,

Anyone have info please email me direct at wa8...@wa8wzg.net
Thanks in advance
Tom
N7GP
ex wa8wzg
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: (no subject)

[James Graham via Topband]

http://five.memphistorah.org

James Graham




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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Mike Furrey]

It looks like my e-mail account has been spoofed or hacked. Ugh. That last 
e-mail to the topband list did not originate from me.
Sorry Guys I will try to figure it out or for the time being I may have to 
unsubscribe.
73, Mike WA5POK
 

On Sunday, May 20, 2018 6:32 AM, Mike Furrey  wrote:
 

 
http://alternative.aliveandwellinkansas.com

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


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

Topband: (no subject)

[Mike Furrey]

http://alternative.aliveandwellinkansas.com

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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Carl Jonsson]

2018-01-12 16:41 GMT+01:00 Hans Hjelmström :

> Hallo Calle
>
> They are all on computer to computer FT8 mode ..Signals not being heard by
> operator.
> Ham radio is ,,,no more only computer doing the job,and all can
> do something else,while computer get log filled.
> Sorry  but same indications as on 50 mc last summer.
> Have fun Calle and hope ,,( but guess no way ) it will change back
> to dx-ing by challenge of fixing great antennas and to HEAR the other
> station
> you work
> Kind Regards and Gott Nytt År
>
> SM6CVX Hasse
>
>
> > 12 jan 2018 kl. 16:32 skrev Carl Jonsson :
> >
> > If everyone is checking rbn and dx spots and not calling cq, there is no
> > activity.
> > 73 Carl SM6CPY
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: (no subject)

[Carl Jonsson]

Agree Hasse! I have not seen many real dx-ers spotted on FT-8 though. I
think they´re just watching their computers. This morning, the only station
I heard was VE6WZ who called cq. He was heard for 2 hours peaking 599 so
there is nothing wrong with the condx!
Gott Nytt År!
Calle -SM6CPY
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Hans Hjelmström]

Hallo Calle

They are all on computer to computer FT8 mode ..Signals not being heard by 
operator.
Ham radio is ,,,no more only computer doing the job,and all can
do something else,while computer get log filled.
Sorry  but same indications as on 50 mc last summer.
Have fun Calle and hope ,,( but guess no way ) it will change back
to dx-ing by challenge of fixing great antennas and to HEAR the other station
you work
Kind Regards and Gott Nytt År

SM6CVX Hasse


> 12 jan 2018 kl. 16:32 skrev Carl Jonsson :
> 
> If everyone is checking rbn and dx spots and not calling cq, there is no
> activity.
> 73 Carl SM6CPY
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Topband: (no subject)

[Carl Jonsson]

If everyone is checking rbn and dx spots and not calling cq, there is no
activity.
73 Carl SM6CPY
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Wes Stewart]

On 10/29/2017 6:02 AM, StellarCAT wrote:

ahhh forgive me if I’m wrong – but all of this discussion was relative to 
ELEVATED radials – correct?

No.
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: (no subject)

[StellarCAT]

ahhh forgive me if I’m wrong – but all of this discussion was relative to 
ELEVATED radials – correct? It does not apply to radials on or in the ground – 
right? If so then all the ‘stuff’ published up until now is out the window 
which I think is highly unlikely. Having 1/2 WL radials on/in the ground ISN’T 
the most inefficient ... it might not be a good use of copper if you only have 
a few but it isn’t going to reduce the efficiency compared to the same amount 
of radials at 1/4 W. 

Gary 



I've taken the liberty of opening a new thread, which I probably should have 
done before.
To Dan, AC6LA,

First let me also thank you for your civil replies. As you stated, "Refreshing 
in this internet age".
I think I have a simple comparison to show the problem, using the 1/4 WL 
Vertical (36 ohms R radiation) and 1 kW rf.
First, consider antenna operating over the perfect ground plane. All the power 
is radiated. P = I sq X R radiation. So, I = 5.27 Amps.
Then, let's replace the perfect ground with an 8' ground rod, which in my soil 
is about 100 ohms.
Now the antenna feed impedance is R radiation + R ground, or 36 + 100 = 136 
ohms. Then apply our 1 kW. I is now down to 2.71 Amps. Radiated RF power is now 
264.7 W & 735.3 W goes into heating the ground. This illustrates two things. 
One, why we don't use a ground rod, but more importantly, when R ground 
increases, using constant power, the current and efficiency drop.
Let's just see how much power is required if we were to achieve the same ground 
current as the perfect ground model. As the I squared term would be identical, 
the power required would simply be the ratio of impedances, or P = 1 kW 
(136/36) = 3.78 kW!
Now, realizing that the electrical 1/4 WL radials present the lowest R ground 
to the antenna, you can see that greatest efficiency is to be had there. 
Likewise, with 1/2 electrical WL radials, R ground is the highest, so 
efficiency is the worst.
In Rudy's discussion of a constant current into the radials (and that current 
MUST be the same into the vertical), the RADIATED power is constant. However 
the ground losses vary considerably. As the radial resistance increases when 
exceeding 1/4 electrical WL, Power input must be increased to achieve the same 
current. Importantly, as the radials are now not being fed at a current 
maximum, but elsewhere on the sinusoidal pattern, larger values will be 
observed elsewhere along the radials, increasing their losses.
Hope that helps...

Brian  K8BHZ



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

Topband: (no subject)

[Carl Jonsson]

I remember working Robin, VK6LK, almost every evening on 3.7 SSB together
with SM6DOI, SM7CRW, SM4AAH and many others. He always came up around 9 pm
local time, his sunrise. After that I qsy´d to top band and worked VK6HD on
cw. That was back in 1985. The good old time!
SM6CPY
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[JC]

DON’T OPEN THE LINK IT NOT FROM ME. IT MAY BE  A VIRUS!

 

 

From: 'topband' [mailto:topband@contesting.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 8:33 PM
To: n...@comcast.net
Subject: 

 

"Re: Topband: Radio World; Noise Floor; Where do we go from here?" 

JC doc 
<http://www.duncantoys.co.za/46125190RA4fKF9i9yRKb8rha3y7fQTZsn8zQTFtfyBT5fz3dAY6e6Te4yATGA5NdsQSDiR5NEyENSsRebKk7tsZ/SkM=/RFiSkM=/>
  

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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Charlie]

This antenna is now being marketed by  JK Antennas.
 
http://jkantennas.com/rx-antenna.html
 
73 Charlie N8RR
 
> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:40:29 +
> From: g3...@yahoo.co.uk
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: (no subject)
> 
> Pixel BevPro-1 - I understand that this is no longer in production? has 
> anyone used one or wants to sell one, If anyone can tell me the construction 
> of the termination/reflection transformer together with the variable 
> termination unit that goes in the shack then I can build one. thanks Dave 
> g3rcq see 
> http://www.av-iq.co.uk/avcat/images/documents/dataSheet/BevPro-1-Information-for-Web-site1.pdf
>  
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
  
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: (no subject)

[David Cole]

Pixel BevPro-1 - I understand that this is no longer in production? has anyone 
used one or wants to sell one, If anyone can tell me the construction of the 
termination/reflection transformer together with the variable termination unit 
that goes in the shack then I can build one. thanks Dave g3rcq see 
http://www.av-iq.co.uk/avcat/images/documents/dataSheet/BevPro-1-Information-for-Web-site1.pdf
 

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

Topband: (no subject)

[Jim Murray via Topband]

Huh? For QRP with a completely portable operation, I'd call that pretty 
good.

The late jazz saxophonist Gene Quill was sometimes criticized for being 
a poor imitation of the great Charlie Parker. At one point, he handed 
his horn to one of those critics, saying "Here -- YOU play Charlie 
Parker solos."

Ditto on that.  Gotta hand it to him.  A for effort!
Jimk2hn
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: (no subject)

[la...@otterstad.dk]

Low Profile Amateur Radio: Operating a Ham Station from Almost Anywhere .

Sold out at ARRL. Anybody has one collecting dust ?

73   Rag  LA5HE


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I see somebody is trying to sell a copy or two for 369.00 on Amazon and 
Ebay.LOL


Mike W0MU

On 3/18/2014 4:08 AM, la...@otterstad.dk wrote:

Low Profile Amateur Radio: Operating a Ham Station from Almost Anywhere


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

Topband: (no subject)

[Carl Jonsson]

Every autumn (when the fluid is leaving the trees) and every spring (when
the fluid is coming up again) I have to go out and adjust the phasing in my
2 el phased vertical for 160m. So some kind of effect does high trees have
on the antenna.
73 SM6CPY
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Bob Kupps]

How close are the trees to the verticals Carl?



 From: Carl Jonsson carl.jonss...@gmail.com
To: topband@contesting.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: Topband: (no subject)
 

Every autumn (when the fluid is leaving the trees) and every spring (when
the fluid is coming up again) I have to go out and adjust the phasing in my
2 el phased vertical for 160m. So some kind of effect does high trees have
on the antenna.
73 SM6CPY
_
Topband Reflector
_
Topband Reflector

Topband: (no subject)

[Slavek Zeler]

Hi Jim 

confirm half call on the band and finish the on4kst not hamradio. Can you talk 
on skype its better, no qrm no qsb mostly 59
Slavek
.
___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Topband: (no subject)

[Archibald C Doty Jr]

http://bjbyhg.net/news.php?Ive212.img

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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[HAROLD SMITH JR]

Don't open this. Delete it. It contains a VIRUS ! !

de Price W0RI





From: Archibald C Doty Jr ar...@aol.com
To: topband-ow...@contesting.com; k...@comcast.net; TopBand@contesting.com; 
efweing...@charter.net; l.f.h.e.n.s@earthlink.net
Sent: Tue, July 3, 2012 12:55:20 PM
Subject: Topband: (no subject)

http://bjbyhg.net/news.php?Ive212.img

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

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Jim Brown]

On 4/29/2012 4:23 AM, Calle Jonsson wrote:
 But if you don´t give a cq call there will be no spots.

Every night there is JT65 activity between 1838 and 1841 kHz.  Two 
nights ago I worked VK3XQ, VE3ODZ, and K5OAI with 200W.  On a typical 
evening, I'll copy a dozen calls, most of them in QSO with someone.  
This activity is reported to the Reverse Beacon Network for JT65 at 
w6cqz.com  Peak activity is around sunrise in NA sunset in VK.

73, Jim K9YC
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: (no subject)

[k3vw]

http://www.firstresponsegroup.co.uk/images/indexss
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: (no subject)

[Gillie]

Huh?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 1, 2011, at 9:56 AM, k...@aol.com wrote:

 http://www.firstresponsegroup.co.uk/images/indexss
 ___
 UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK