Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[w5zn]

Good dang deal Jeff.

Sharon has been there in DXCC for a long, long time and she knows the 
"skinny".


ZN


On 2018-11-19 17:19, k1zm--- via Topband wrote:

Joel
Quite a few 160m friends have sent emails to Sharon Tarantula - and
she has replied to each of us - saying the matter will be
investigated.
Thanks for your support of this matter.
73 JEFF
In a message dated 11/19/2018 11:24:08 PM Coordinated Universal Time,
w...@w5zn.org writes:

I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process
closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10
years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real
inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so 
I

have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to
validate 160 meter DXCC cards.

Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and
also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another
Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough
folks raise the issue.

73 Joel W5ZN


On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote:

"There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be
cards. 73


Clive GM3POI"


Thanks Clive.  I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had 
closed


the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly
not

the case.  This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since
at

least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been
corrected

by now.  Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X,
crosscheck

with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL
President

would do...LOL).  I don't know what the qualifications are for "160
certified"

log checkers but this may need to be reviewed.


I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of

LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING
connected

to the Internet is subject to hacks.  I'm sure ARRL will be
investigating

everything in their validation process.  They are our last and best
hope

for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country

cheating, which is another topic).


73,  Bill  W4ZV


P.S  I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160
cheating,

so yes, ARRL does care about this.
_
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: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[k1zm--- via Topband]

Joel
Quite a few 160m friends have sent emails to Sharon Tarantula - and she has 
replied to each of us - saying the matter will be investigated.
Thanks for your support of this matter.
73 JEFF
In a message dated 11/19/2018 11:24:08 PM Coordinated Universal Time, 
w...@w5zn.org writes:

I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process 
closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10 
years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real 
inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so I 
have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to 
validate 160 meter DXCC cards.

Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and 
also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another 
Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough 
folks raise the issue.

73 Joel W5ZN


On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote:
>>> "There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be 
>>> cards. 73
> 
> Clive GM3POI"
> 
> 
> Thanks Clive.  I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had closed
> 
> the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly 
> not
> 
> the case.  This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since 
> at
> 
> least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been 
> corrected
> 
> by now.  Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, 
> crosscheck
> 
> with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL 
> President
> 
> would do...LOL).  I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 
> certified"
> 
> log checkers but this may need to be reviewed.
> 
> 
> I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of
> 
> LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING 
> connected
> 
> to the Internet is subject to hacks.  I'm sure ARRL will be 
> investigating
> 
> everything in their validation process.  They are our last and best 
> hope
> 
> for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country
> 
> cheating, which is another topic).
> 
> 
> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> 
> 
> P.S  I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 
> cheating,
> 
> so yes, ARRL does care about this.
> _
> 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: Impedance of inv l?

[donovanf]

Hi Jamie, 


I forgot to mention that nearby conductive objects, especially nearby 
towers can significantly affect the base impedance of a vertical. 


Nearby on 160 meters is about 200 feet... 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 

- Original Message -

From: donov...@starpower.net 
To: "Topband"  
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 1:31:27 AM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l? 


Hi Jamie, 


I use my AA-54 frequently in exactly the manner you're using your 
AA-23, I've never had any reason to be suspicious of any of its 
readings. I'm lucky to have no AM broadcast stations within ten 
miles. 


Your AA-230 is telling you that at least half of your power is being 
lost to ground resistance and need to at least double the number of 
radials to significantly reduce your resistive losses. 


The 2000 feet of wire in your radial system likely would have produced 
much better results with twice as many radials of half the radial length 
you used. Quarter wavelength radials aren't cost effective until many 
more than 60 radials are used. 


www.w0btu.com/Optimum_number_of_ground_radials_vs_radial_length.html 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 




- Original Message - 

From: "Jamie WW3S"  
To: "Topband"  
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:33:13 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l? 

several have asked how I am measuring the impedance.I'm using an AA-230, 
and am all the ALL PARAMS setting.the 230 defaults to a series model, is 
that what I want, don’t see how to change it to parallel. I think the symbol 
for impedance is |Z|, correct? 

-Original Message- 
From: F Z_Bruce 
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 3:20 PM 
To: wes_n...@triconet.org ; Topband 
Subject: Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l? 


The far end is high impedance voltage, and has minimum horizontal 
current radiation. The inverted L is a good trade off signal vs 
available height. Not an expensive antenna to build. 

73 
Bruce-k1fz 
 
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 12:31:38 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote: 

That also drives up the current in the horizontal wire with attendant 
increased 
horizontal radiation. 

I chose for a couple of reason to do the opposite; shorten the wire to make 
the 
feedpoint capacitive and use a shunt inductor to get a 50-ohm match. 
This 
really doesn't improve the 2:1 VSWR, that I consider acceptable, however. 

Wes N7WS 

On 11/18/2018 8:55 AM, F Z_Bruce wrote: 
 That sounds about right. As you put a good ground system under it, that 
value will come down, and the efficiency will come up. 
 
 Many add extra antenna wire that pushes the current up the wire, this 
also raises the impedance, hopefully to near 50 ohms with the right 
length. 
 A capacitor (variable, then fixed) in series at the feed point can 
cancel the added inductance. 
 
 73 
 Bruce-k1fz 
 https://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html 
 
  
 On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:41:36 -0500, WW3S wrote: 
 
 What should the Z be for a 1/4 wave inv l, with the radials attached to 
a radial plate? Mine seems to be 60 ohms or so 
 
 Sent from my iPad 
 _ 
 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 

--- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. 
https://www.avg.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: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[w5zn]

I haven't really followed the 160 meter DXCC card checking process 
closely since I retired from ARRL elected volunteer service almost 10 
years ago and after my good friend Dave NN1N departed I lost any real 
inquiry opportunity other than a "regular" member would have ":-))" so I 
have no clue what the current procedure is for a DXCC Field Checker to 
validate 160 meter DXCC cards.


Regardless, as Jeff ZM urges, drop a note to the DXCC desk at HQ and 
also maybe your ARRL Director (please don't bug a Director in another 
Division, bug yours!). I would expect it to be investigated if enough 
folks raise the issue.


73 Joel W5ZN


On 2018-11-17 08:08, Bill Tippett wrote:
"There have been no uploads for OK1YQ therefore it all has to be 
cards. 73


Clive GM3POI"


Thanks Clive.  I was under the mistaken impression that ARRL had closed

the previous loopholes in their paper card process but that is clearly 
not


the case.  This (paper cheating on 160 cards) has been going on since 
at


least the late 1980s, so I thought the process would have been 
corrected


by now.  Something as simple as "IF 160 total is in the Top X, 
crosscheck


with someone knowledgeable about 160" (even a past or current ARRL 
President


would do...LOL).  I don't know what the qualifications are for "160 
certified"


log checkers but this may need to be reviewed.


I was also not intending to cast any aspersions about the integrity of

LOTW, but as we've seen in the news the past few years, ANYTHING 
connected


to the Internet is subject to hacks.  I'm sure ARRL will be 
investigating


everything in their validation process.  They are our last and best 
hope


for maintaining the integrity of DXCC (notwithstanding remote country

cheating, which is another topic).


73,  Bill  W4ZV


P.S  I know of at least 6 folks who have been disqualified for 160 
cheating,


so yes, ARRL does care about this.
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector

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

Re: Topband: CB1H

[Filipe Lopes]

Hi,

What antenna for TX and RX you guys have?

73's Filipe Lopes
CT1ILT - CR6K
F4VPX - TM3M


Marco Quijada  escreveu no dia segunda, 19/11/2018 à(s)
22:27:

> Hello:
>  CB1H will be on the air as M/S in CQWW CW contest. We try on 160
> for first time :-)
>
> 73, CE1TBN
>
> <
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >
> Libre
> de virus. www.avg.com
> <
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: CB1H

[Marco Quijada]

Hello:
 CB1H will be on the air as M/S in CQWW CW contest. We try on 160
for first time :-)

73, CE1TBN


Libre
de virus. www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[F Z_Bruce]

Correct Rob,

Things are sometimes the reverse of what they initially seem to be.

When I was a very young kid I watched workers put in telephone poles, then put 
wire lines on them. I knew the poles supported the wires.

Later another kid said the wires hold up the poles. I disagreed, but he got me 
wondering. About a year later a fast driven car hit a pole and knocked
out about 6 feet of pole at the bottom, and the pole was suspended by the 
wires. This got me wondering for some time.

Its well known the current does most of the radiating. Voltage/impedance 
at the top of a vertical can be minimized by going to a fat antenna to maximize 
current radiation. But
the vertical needs something to work against. Salt water is great, but 
otherwise most DXers go for an efficient radial field. Lower 
restive loss to the radials, the less power loss occurs.
A matching network can change this low resistance (impedance) to that of your 
coax.

73
Bruce-K1FZ
https://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html


On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:58:31 -0600, Rob Atkinson wrote:

My inv. L is 50 feet up and 70 horizontal. Wire is #14 bare 7 strand
hard drawn. 3 feet out from mast. 101 radials, two ground rods and
aluminum siding on garage strapped in to ground sys. on around 1840 Z
is 11 R and ~ 20 ohms X. A typical inverted L with a good ground
system should be down around 15 ohms at feedpoint from my experience
and rapidly change above and below the minimum reactance point. High
resistance flat antennas have an inadequate ground system.

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

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

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Rob Atkinson]

My inv. L is 50 feet up and 70 horizontal.  Wire is #14 bare 7 strand
hard drawn.  3 feet out from mast.  101 radials, two ground rods and
aluminum siding on garage strapped in to ground sys.  on around 1840 Z
is 11 R and ~ 20 ohms X.  A typical inverted L with a good ground
system should be down around 15 ohms at feedpoint from my experience
and rapidly change above and below the minimum reactance point.  High
resistance flat antennas have an inadequate ground system.

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

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Edward Sawyer]

I am not sure where you are getting your information that cutting the losses
in your 160 vertical from 60 - 37 Ohms will have no difference in
performance - technically or noticeably but its not correct.

 

Reducing ground losses is THE ISSUE on 160M.  Calling a 1.2:1 SWR great and
not realizing what is being traded to get there, it really lacking of the
right solution.

 

A 160M antenna should have the lowest possible losses for the site and then
the resulting SWR matched or tolerated.  Not the other way around.

 

73

 

Ed  N1UR

 

 

"Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:41:12 -0500

From: 

To: , , "Topband"



Subject: Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

Message-ID: 

Content-Type: text/plain;charset="UTF-8"

 

Theoretical impedance for a perfect 1/4 wave ground plane is 37 ohms. 60 

ohms is great; 1.2:1 VSWR ? leave it alone, you will never notice any 

difference if you try to improve it. It will change with rain, snow, etc 

anyhow..73 Jay ny2ny"

 

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

Topband: Joel...W5ZN

[kent]

Yes Joel W5ZN…I am receiving your direct emails.

Tnx for the bandwidth!!
Kent
N8ZRD
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: For Kent N8ZRD

[w5zn]

Kent N8ZRD are you not receiving my direct emails??

73 Joel W5ZN
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Wes Stewart]

Yes, the "far end" has minimal radiation; it's the wire getting there that 
does.  Doubt me, model it.


Wes

On 11/18/2018 1:20 PM, F Z_Bruce wrote:


The far end is high impedance voltage, and has minimum horizontal current 
radiation.  The inverted L is a good trade off signal vs available height.  
Not an expensive antenna to build.


73
Bruce-k1fz


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