Don k4kyv wrote:
I would be interested in looking at any actual experimental data compiled
to quantify ground losses, using physical antennas fed with physical rf
watts with data collected using a variety of physical ground planes.
In 1937, Brown, Lewis and Epstein of RCA Labs published a
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Carl k...@jeremy.mv.com wrote:
Subject: Re: Topband: Ground mounted 1/2 wave
** All that means is that the elevation peak of the wave as seen in the
typical 2D plot increases by .38dB and as expected. It does not say what
happens from that peak down to zero
Murtada is a very experienced DXer, and I think he was not hearing a lot
of
the stations because of local QRM. He even mentioned this as a problem,
which is why he probably did not consider the need to go split.
I concur with Mark's assessment. Murtada was only able to hear stations
that were
** All that means is that the elevation peak of the wave as seen in the
typical 2D plot increases by .38dB and as expected. It does not say what
happens from that peak down to zero elevation which is what 160M DXers
care
about.
What is the FS at 5, 10 degrees when going from a ground rod to a
Thanks for the insight guys. I know the DX is far more experienced than me, and
I think I gained some insight into what they must be hearing on their end on
the low bands. Earlier this fall (first week of October) I worked several
stations in middle east on 80M, and conditions were marginal
Where is the helicopter you insisted we need?
On Dec 18, 2012 10:03 AM, Carl k...@jeremy.mv.com wrote:
I guess I wasnt clear enough so lets start again.
We both agree that the .38 db increase is at all elevation angles since
the increase in efficiency at the feed doesnt change the pattern
I think this thread has gone to the limit, because the argument is
between
emotional conviction laced with constant personal insults and science.
Too bad the thread was marred by the insults and implications.
There was lots to be learned even from the digressions, once one had
figured out
Carl wrote:
My point all along is that ground losses change the shape of the main lobe
curve at low elevations and reduce signal levels there.
Just to note that NEC4 analyses of the fields of the elevation plane pattern
from a monopole using a set of buried radial ground wires show
We both agree that the .38 db increase is at all elevation angles since
the increase in efficiency at the feed doesnt change the pattern shape,
just levels. OK ?
There you say pattern shape does not change, and the change is uniform at
all angles.
Where the differences are is in the
After several frustrating weeks of trying to figure out why
my ARRL LOTW uploads were not registering I decided to
contact the company. It seems they are back logged beyond
comprehension. Not even the most recent DX-Peditions who
have uploaded all there logs are showing up. As a result
The queue is currently almost 10 days behind. You can track it here
http://www.arrl.org/logbook-queue-status
Everyone keeps uploading over and over and over because they don't see
their QSO's, which likely is compounding the problem to massive levels.
They have a new server on order but 6
Herb,
I complained in past posts about the lack of fairness in the
ARRL 160 Meter Contest for not treating the U.S. Territories
as DX, no not even KP1 or KP5, none. But with the ARRL 10
Meter contest that followed, stations located in the U.S.
Territories are indeed DX as it should be.
Joe, I don't ask for bothjust wish to be treated the same way as
another station a few miles north (VP2V) . Actually there is little
DX on during this contest compared to the others like CQ and TBDC.
The ARRL has a list of DXCC entities which works for all their other
contests but for
On 12/18/2012 2:05 PM, Dave Clouser wrote:
The queue is currently almost 10 days behind. You can track it here
http://www.arrl.org/logbook-queue-status
Everyone keeps uploading over and over and over because they don't see
their QSO's, which likely is compounding the problem to massive levels.
ARRL 160 meter contest is based on *Sections*. KP2 and KP4 are
*SECTIONS* as are South Florida, North Florida, West Central Florida
and any other section. It makes no earthly sense to change the rules
for one or two sections after thirty plus years of the contest.
If you don't like the rules,
On 12/18/2012 3:11 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
ARRL 160 meter contest is based on *Sections*.
Only in part -- it's also based on DX entities as multipliers, and
US/VE stations get 2.5X the point credit for a QSO with a DX station.
It makes no earthly sense to change the rules
for one
On 12/18/2012 7:11 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
You have bitched for years that DX
thought the could not work you - I can find the references in the
archives going back almost to be beginning of this list) but it
would mean that you got to count each QSO with the rest of us on
the mainland as 5
It's a contest - I don't care if I miss KP4 and KP2 as long as everyone
else does too!
73,
geo - n4ua
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Herb Schoenbohm he...@vitelcom.net wrote:
I guess if I do as you suggested then next time stations will not only
miss KP4 which did not show this time but
Some may say this is poor sportsmanshipbut I have tried to get
someone to recognize that changes are important to bring out a better
contest product. I understand those in their ivy covered office
buildings and who call the shots, really don't care to even entertain
change for the
Let's not lose the fact that contests on 160 are events as much as contests…
they are times when an otherwise barren band fills up. There's a lot of fun
just in working all you can.
Those of us in deep valleys in Western Colorado have a hard time appreciating
the extreme difficulties faced by
I use Logic software for normal logging, awards tracking and for
contesting. I should learn N1MM for when I help out with a team effort
and if they use that. I believe the author was one of the original
authors for the LOTW format.
http://www.hosenose.com/logic/default.aspx
I meant to say
Like most of us I have been reading and trying to absorb the excellent
technical information in this group, but really, personal
attacks and comments should be avoided.
Or is this simply normal, a reflection of what is happening on the bands too?
I hope this comes to an end, I would hate to
22 matches
Mail list logo
