Re: Topband: Radial wire

[Brian Pease]

I just use 2-conductor military field phone wire with the 2 insulated 
wires in parallel.  There is so little current in each radial (I have 
137 radials 100 ft long) that the small partly-steel wire works fine.  
The rugged poly insulation should protect the wire forever and makes 
zero difference in radial performance.  I just stretched it out in my 1 
acre field with garden staples and in one year it has been buried by the 
thatch.  I did solder each crimped terminal, and they are above ground 
and protected from the weather.


On 9/4/2018 10:14 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

On 9/4/2018 4:36 PM, Jeff Draughn wrote:

I’m looking for suggestions for radial wire that will lay as flat as
possible.  I realize that’s probably what everyone is looking for, 
however




See:  http://www.alcotec.com/us/en/products/tie-wire.cfm

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



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

Re: Topband: Air Wound Coil

[Brian Pease]

I used #10 plastic insulated solid "house wire" salvaged from 
2-conductor + ground cable for the small 5 inch dia coil on my 630m 
inverted-L.  The insulation automatically provides a spacing of about 1 
wire diameter and measured Q was 300 at 475kHz.


On 8/30/2018 8:31 AM, David Cutter via Topband wrote:

If you don't have plastic pipe, select a plastic beaker from the kitchen
cupboard.
David G3UNA-G6CP

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Don Kirk
Sent: 30 August 2018 12:53
To: Tim Shoppa
Cc: Trevor; topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Air Wound Coil

To follow up on what Tim said, I often just use PVC pipe for my coil forms
and wind my coils using enamel coated wire (16 or 14 gauge enamel coated
wire), and to keep things simple I often just use close wound turns (no
space between turns).  With no space between turns the coil loss will not be
minimized, but compared with most stations ground systems the additional
coil loss is typically just a small additional loss.

Don (wd8dsb)

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:27 AM Tim Shoppa  wrote:


That is a very nice transmitter tank coil for a kilowatt amplifier.
But if you have already calculated or measured the inductance you
need, you can just wrap reasonable gauge insulated wire around any
cardboard or plastic form you find. I used magnet wire around a
cardboard tube. You can see a picture of the coil I wound for my 160M
antenna match here, along with some other more complicated link
coupled tuners:  http://n3qe.org/tuners.html

Tim N3QE


On Aug 30, 2018, at 2:44 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE  wrote:

Hi All

I'm looking for an Air wondering coil like in this link,

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Product.php?productid=404-0669

I've had one on order from MFJ via a UK company for 4 months now and
no

sign of it, I want to build a at matching network for my 160m inverted
T using it or something similar,

Can anyone tell me where I can get one of these or similar that is
in

stock today,

I don't have access to the tools/parts to wind one my self,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
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



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

Re: Topband: WWV/WWVH as prop-indicator for EU stns

[Brian Pease]

This is exactly what WSPR was designed to do.

On 8/26/2018 4:29 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

FT8 and PSK reporter will work.


On 8/26/2018 1:01 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

On 8/26/2018 9:29 AM, Dr. Wolf Ostwald wrote:

hello !



In my 40yrs + as a ham, it became a habit to first check WWV/WWVH 
and then carry on with tuning around.




We already have ham band propagation beacons on 20 through 10 meters.
If we could get them on the low bands as well, it would be
even better than WWV, etc.  And now we have the reverse beacon
network, so you can be your own beacon on topband.

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: OT - US Hams, WWV closure

[Brian Pease]

It seems to me that this may be similar to the time when the Government 
threatened to cut the VHF weather broadcasts or when schools threaten to 
cut popular arts or sports programs.  I could be wrong, but they may 
simply be trying to gain sympathy for a larger budget.

Brian, W1IR, VT
On 8/22/2018 8:29 AM, Dale Putnam wrote:

Seems to me that if they get to cut one program.. they will go after the next 
one with speed and alaricity.

Nothing slows a money hungry bureaucrate, when on the trail of free money.

and closing something they don't know about.. is free money to spend on a pet 
project they do know about.


Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln



From: Topband  on behalf of Don Kirk 

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 4:10 AM
To: HP
Cc: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: OT - US Hams, WWV closure

Hi Hank,

The 60 kHz transmissions are done by WWVB.  No mention of WWVB being
impacted by the new budget proposal.

Just FYI, and 73.

Don (wd8dsb)


On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 1:02 AM, HP  wrote:


Seems to me the people who should be screaming bloody murder are all the
millions with watches and clocks
that correct using the 60 kHz transmissions . Most of those millions
probably know absolutely nothing about this .
How do you reach them ?

Hank K7HP
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband Archives - Contesting Online Home
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display:. 
Description:. Sort:



_
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: Radial plate

[Brian Pease]

I have a DX Engineering radial plate bolted to the tilt-over base of my 
aluminum tower.  It is very nice, and I use the coax cable feature to 
ground my feedline.


It is really overkill for your purpose.  I would crimp *_and solder 
_*ring terminals onto each radial, with perhaps 1/4" holes.  I would 
then stack them on a long 1/4-20 Stainless hex head bolt along with the 
wire to run up the pole, then seriously tighten the bolt.  Trivial cost 
& easier to do.


On 6/27/2018 9:08 AM, N2TK, Tony wrote:

Planning on changing from elevated radials to ground mounted radials for my
80 M 4-sq. After twice having to rebuild the elevated radials this past
winter from the snow/ice storms it is time to go to the ground. I plan on
having the feedpoints on 4x4 posts with the feedpoints 3’ up from the ground
so they don’t get snow covered often.

Looking at the DXEngineering Radial plates. It looks like an easy way to tie
the radials together on the ground then run a ground wire up to a box at the
feedpoint. Any comments or issues with using these radial plates?

  


Also going to use buried feedlines – RG6, ¾ wave with 8 turns through #31
big clamp-on core at the feedpoint.

73,

N2TK, Tony

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



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

Re: Topband: Radials in the desert

[Brian Pease]

One partial solution might be to collect small rocks and place them 
along each radial on top of the wire close enough together to provide 
clear visual cues.


On 6/20/2018 9:23 AM, MICHAEL ST ANGELO wrote:

Chet,

Have you tried digging a shallow trench with an edge trimmer? They are also 
known as edgers.

Mike N2MS



On June 20, 2018 at 8:06 AM Chester Latawiec  wrote:



Any suggestions on burying radials in the desert sands of Kingman AZ?  Radials 
placed on the surface just stay there and are constant tripping hazards.
The desert sand is like rock.  The top 1/4 inch is loose sand but below that 
it's like rock.  You vertually need a pick axe to loosen the sublayer.  One 
option is to pick axe a shallow trench for each radial in the desert sun, but 
tripping over the radials would be a better alternative.
Any suggestions?
I'm really getting tired of tripping over the radials of Jess, AI9L's radial 
field.
73
Chet VE3CFK


Sent from my Samsung device
_
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: sorry wrong number

[Brian Pease]

I also received a spool of the wire today, brand new in original box.  
It is a good buy, but still cost twice what I paid for a couple of 2km 
spools of the same wire at about $60.00 each with shipping about 1 year ago.


On 6/8/2018 7:39 PM, terry burge wrote:

I finally called the Sportsmans Guid number 800-888-3006 and received a spool 
of the Military phone wire. It looks brand new and the price even with shipping 
was $28.98 which seems great to me. Plan to use it for radials and maybe 
another beverage.
Terry
KI7M

On May 31, 2018 at 2:54 PM N7DF via Topband  wrote:


should be 2068-625526
https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/us-military-surplus-20-gauge-phone-cable-new?a=2185687



_
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: Laying ground radials

[Brian Pease]

when I buried all of the cables for my tower 100m from the shack, a 
neighbor used his small tractor to pull an ancient small modified plow.  
The left side of the blade was removed, so it cut a small furrow and 
flipped the lawn and field sod to just one side.  This took 10-15 
minutes.  I stood on the plow and held it upright.  Then I dropped the 
cables onto the hole and flipped the sod back over it with my foot.
This would still be a lot of work for a radial field.  A device to slit 
the ground and bury the wire ij one step is shown in ON4UN's Low Band 
DXing book.
I used cheap insulated army field phone wire for radials in the unused 
field that I mowed first.   Insulation makes zero difference.  Nec4.2 
agrees.
Too bad the livestock are there.  In one season here the weeds & grass 
grew up and were matted down by snow & rain so you would never know I 
had laid 137 radials on the surface!


On 6/6/2018 7:31 PM, VK3HJ wrote:
Later this year, I plan to lay down an in-ground radial field. I have 
sourced a copper wire supplier and have costed approximately 2000 m of 
1.2 mm bare copper at around $800.


Presently, I use an elevated counterpoise of 4 x quarterwave radials 
each for 180 and 80 m.


I need to lay the wire just under the turf as I have livestock in the 
paddock.


The radial field will be mostly in shallow mountain soil, with a 
couple of surface granite rocks to negotiate, as well as a large gum 
tree on one edge with many surface roots.


I have a tractor, but feel that this will churn up the ground too much 
with the density of the work to be done. I have a ride-on mower that 
may be more useful.


I will need to lay in the radials by hand around the rocks and tree 
roots, but would like to do it more easily for the rest of the job!


What sort of implement can I obtain or create for this job?

73,

Luke VK3HJ

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



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

Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions

[Brian Pease]

Yes run the wires NE-SW for 160.  This might not help (or hurt) 80m.
Even a flat (low) dipole has vertical radiation off the ends.  I have a 
full-size NE-SW 630m dipole only 2m off the ground that has been heard 
in EU many times on WSPR.


On 4/1/2018 8:19 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:

Meaning run the wires NE-SW?

The article I read did mention the polarity being vertical in the direction of 
the wires, consistent with your model.

Would the same apply to the 80m portion?

Thanks & 73,
Dick

-Original Message-
From: Brian Pease <bpea...@myfairpoint.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2018 7:41 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions

I modeled an inverted-V last week.  If the feed is balanced, the total 
radiation pattern (Hor + Ver) is omni-azimuthal with a lot of upward radiation. 
 Directly broadside, the radiation is horizontal but off the ends it is 
entirely vertical.  For 160 to EU I would orient NE-SW.

On 4/1/2018 6:41 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:

Hi all,

   


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

   


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

   


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

   


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

   


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

   


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

   


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

   


73, Dick WC1M

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




_
Topband Reflecto

Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions

[Brian Pease]

I modeled an inverted-V last week.  If the feed is balanced, the total 
radiation pattern (Hor + Ver) is omni-azimuthal with a lot of upward 
radiation.  Directly broadside, the radiation is horizontal but off the 
ends it is entirely vertical.  For 160 to EU I would orient NE-SW.


On 4/1/2018 6:41 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:

Hi all,

  


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

  


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

  


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

  


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

  


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

  


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

  


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

  


73, Dick WC1M

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



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

Re: Topband: Soil conductivity maps

[Brian Pease]

Another bit of advice is to move as far north as you can stand, because 
up here the population is steady or declining as folks migrate away from 
the snow belt.


On 4/1/2018 2:31 PM, HP wrote:

My first priority would be a RF quiet location and best prospects of it staying
that way - Been in same house over 40 years - last ten years in particular
ambient noise and incredible numbers of ever increasing RFI sources
overwhelm my ability to try to resolve . I was on edge of town , pitch black
at night - little 2 lane road from downtown on other side of mountain preserve .
Now 8 lane freeway 400 feet away (because the millionaires and political
influence got the proposed freeway route moved from their area) Houses ,
shopping centers etc as far as you can see - sea of lights and RF noise.

Just sayin .. If you can't hear 'em you can't work 'em well RHR etc .

Hank K7HP


On 4/1/2018 7:45 AM, Jeff Kinzli N6GQ wrote:

So I'm looking to purchase a new QTH. I'm not particular about
location, but would like to optimize for soil conductivity and any
other parameters that would increase near and far field propagation
and minimize ground losses. I've seen the US Gov M3 maps, but they are
very coarse. They also only define conductivity, and I'm wondering
what other quantities would be useful to look at.

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



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

Re: Topband: Subject: Re: Straws in the Wind ....A 160m Dx'ing Sea Change

[Brian Pease]

I assume that the same thing occurred when CW (Continuous Wave) started 
to replace spark, and tube receivers started replacing crystal sets. 
"Its to easy, takes away the challenge".
Back in the 80s I used a pocket-size 2 Watt 20m kit xcvr to work >100 DX 
entities in a 1 year period on CW.
Try for DXCC with 5 or 10W using CW and digital modes.  The fun is still 
there, now for more Hams, as is good antenna design.


On 4/1/2018 12:44 PM, Pete Rimmel N8PR wrote:

This is just the same type of comment that was made back when SSB took over for 
AM Phone operations.

SSB was considered “Not Real Ham Radio”  and now is not even a pause in 
anyone’s mind about it being a “development” mode.

FT8 is the same...  a development that allows us to hear deeper into the noise.

I work EME using JT65 and most of the QSOs on 2 meter EME would not have been 
made if the stations were using CW.

I don’t understand why there is resistance to change and progress.

You must remember that since CW is no longer required to get a license in the 
US, why denigrate those who want to work DX with a mode other than CW and SSB 
(oh, and RTTY,PSK31, Heilschreiber, Olivia...)?

BTW, Is not part of ham radio figuring out how to put together effective 
stations and antennas?  Without that ability, the rare ones would not be 
worked, ,no matter what mode is used.

Many hams still have not figured out that FT8 is a WEAK SIGNAL mode, not a LOW 
POWER mode.  1500 Watts and a good TX antenna is still frequently not good copy 
on the other side of the world on 160.  the testament to that is that if you 
watch the signal reports on FT8 anything lower than a – 12 SNR report would not 
be good copy on CW...  I see and have worked – on HF – stations with a –24 
SNR...  Yes I know that it is said that lower than  -19 is not possible on HF 
with FT8, but That is not true, since I use a Waller Flag receive antenna on 
160 through 30 Meters, which hears better than most receive antennas other than 
phased beverages, and unless you have 100 acres, you cannot have them in at 
least 8 directions.  My WF rotates to point at any incoming sighal, and will 
change polarization, as well.

73, and Keep complaining... as long as you are on here typing, I’m on there 
working the DX without you in my way  --  LOL  !!

73,  PeteR  N8PR


Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 07:16:07 +
From: Peter Sundberg 
To: "k...@aol.com" ,topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Straws in the Wind A 160m Dx'ing Sea Change
is Upon us!
Message-ID: <20180401071612.32fc3ac9...@mx.contesting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


Apparently SV5DKL made 13.000 QSO's on the bands in a few months,
totally without operator intervention. I bet many hams were happy to
put SV5 as a new DXCC in their log, Isn't it wonderful that his
computer was so helpful with that while the operator was busy with
other things.

As for the legal aspects of unattended operation of a ham radio
station - who will be able to tell if the operator is there or not as
it is fully automatic anyway..

In the near future - if we embrace this way of operating -   for
Wednesday activity nights on 160m we just let our computer do the
work and check in the morning how many contacts that were made and
how many that are already credited via LotW. Simple as that.

In contrast to this digital automation it was very interesting to
read Jeff K1ZM's report from the Spratly expedition on how the
experienced and highly skilled crew put in a BIG effort to make real
radio contacts. Way to go!  And I am glad that they did not leave an
FT8 robot station behind, neatly tucked away in a corner of the
conference room.. :-)

I do not want to take part in this modern Internet driven computer
game. If people would disconnect their FT8 computers from the report
services on the net there would be a lot less amazing contacts in the
noise as the "a priori" advantage is lost. Then it would be more
apparent what the radio channel is actually providing for them.

I think that the statement from Ken K4ZW in his recent posting is
very appropriate:

"For those who think guys like me are dinosaurs, I would kindly
suggest you don't understand what motives us. 73 Ken K4ZW"

We can't change/stop this new lazy way of automatic band harvesting.
Many will even make huge amounts of money on the new way of operating.

But we can still do it the old fashion way, as it pleases us to make
radio contacts. Therefore I will continue to populate the 160m band
with my CW signal until there are no more stations to work.


73
Peter SM2CEW
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Laser Com introducing a breakthrough Top Band antenna at Dayton

[Brian Pease]

Hey, the great minds that financed the Solyndra Solar debacle might go 
for it!


On 4/1/2018 12:09 PM, Allan Culbert wrote:

And today is??

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 12:01 PM,  wrote:




Laser Com Announces New Topband Antenna System




Reported by Woody K3YV


Laser Com, Inc. of Titusville, Florida recently announced their
development of a revolutionary new 160 meter antenna system
based on their proprietary laser communications system.


Dr. Benjamin Dover, Laser Com’s chief engineer, cited their research
into laser-based space communications as providing the “happy
accident” that led to the discovery of the laser based 160 meter
antenna system.


Dr. Dover said that an accidental connection of the wrong cable
led to the discovery. A cable that had been carrying 1.8 MHz
signals was inadvertently connected to the modulation input of the
laser transmitter that that Ben was testing. “Imagine our surprise,”
said Dr. Dover, “when we noticed that 1.8 MHz radio frequencies
were being radiated all along the laser beam. This is something we
never expected. The possibilities are endless.”



Laser Com plans to market the laser antenna not only as a commercial
product, but also as a low cost 160 meter amateur radio antenna.
Dr. Dover set up the prototype as a demonstration of the product’s
simplicity.


The secret to the 160 meter laser antenna is in the base unit’s
modulation transformer that directly modulates the Plesseo-Dyminium
laser crystal. The user simply places the laser box on the ground and
adjusts the laser beam straight up into the air. As the laser beam rises
into the sky, the 160 meter signal travels up the laser beam and is
radiated all along the length of the optical beam.


The laser beam shines nearly a mile into the atmosphere. However,
due to path losses along the beam, the actual 160 meter radiation is
only transmitted by the first few hundred feet of the laser’s beam. The
result is an omni-directional vertical 160 meter antenna that is several
hundred feet high.


Acting like a co-linear antenna array, the over all antenna gain is
approximately 10 to 15 dB in the 160 meter band.


Dr. Dover said, “We're really excited about this product. There are no
antenna restrictions on an invisible light beam, no lightning risks, and
no damage from wind storms. The only down side is s ignal attenuation
due to heavy fog, which can attenuate the 160 meter signal by as much
as 6 dB. Otherwise, this is as near to a perfect antenna as you can
hope for.”


Laser Com plans to introduce the amateur version of this antenna at the
Dayton Hamvention this May.

_
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: Soil conductivity maps

[Brian Pease]

Look for deep rich moist farm soil.  Recent chemical fertilizer use 
should make it even more conductive


On 4/1/2018 10:45 AM, Jeff Kinzli N6GQ wrote:

So I'm looking to purchase a new QTH. I'm not particular about
location, but would like to optimize for soil conductivity and any
other parameters that would increase near and far field propagation
and minimize ground losses. I've seen the US Gov M3 maps, but they are
very coarse. They also only define conductivity, and I'm wondering
what other quantities would be useful to look at.

I know that a salt water takeoff or marsh is awesome, but that's not
gonna happen in this iteration - looking very much central USA (W5,
TX), inland.

So, any more fine-grained maps available? Or other quantities that
would be worth looking at? Books that discuss this sort of thing?
Mostly for either pinpointing optimal areas, or making sure that a
good looking property is at least half-way decent...

Thanks for any guidance,

de N6GQ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Straws in the wind, continued or, "Where's the DX?"

[Brian Pease]

In my experience (sine 1957) casual CW DX contacts have nearly always 
been RST, QTH, Name, and for a long QSO maybe Rig.  A memory keyer can 
do most of TX, and nowadays there are fairly good CW decoders.  Not much 
different from other digital modes.
It seems to me that most of the thrill of DX is when the DX first 
returns your call.  Soon you are ready to move on to another conquest.

Contacts between friends are an entirely different matter.

On 4/1/2018 9:20 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:

There is good and bad with the FT8.

The good is that it is bringing guys into the HF DX realm who never 
got active in DX because for whatever reason they felt they did not 
have a good DX station.  The bad is that the focus on RTTY (my 
favorite mode) has become less especially for DXpeditions in favor of 
the idea of FT8.  The logic behind these varies with the guy - but I 
think after the excitement and shine of FT8 wears off, the net will be 
still more total participants in HF.  That's got to be a good thing.


I don't feel bad for the dxpedition community especially wanting to 
promote FT8 over RTTY.  Working a RTTY pileup on the dxpedition end 
can result in pathetic rates and there has been no effort to promote a 
multi-slot skimmer type of software package that would make RTTY 
pileup into the high rate that is possible.  Along comes FT8 with the 
promise to do just that in an upcoming package so I view the 
dxpedition guys moving to FT8 as a logical choice over RTTY simply 
because it will end up having a higher rate than what most RTTY runs 
end up being.  I don't run FT8 at the moment but if a dxpedition is 
only running FT8 for the digital slot, I guess I will run it.  The 
genie is out of the bottle there.


It would certainly help if the ARRL especially had not homogenize the 
RTTY and all other digital modes into one for the purpose of the 
DXCC.  Why not issue separate certificates for each popular mode and 
benefit from the fees that would bring to the ARRL?  That would also 
make a lot of guys who have worked their life's for the RTTY DXCC 
count not feel as if the accomplishment is being diluted by FT8 and 
the other ether-modes.  But the ARRL's decisions more and more defy 
logic so I suppose that's a topic for another day.


But for contesting and rag chewing and DX, I'm in the camp as the 
other traditionalists are - the op on the end talking into the mic, 
slapping the paddle or typing to try to keep up with the RTTY feed is 
what a real QSO is about.  FT8 does result in a technical QSO but I'm 
not sure where the sustained enjoyment in that mode is beyond making 
the contact.


73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com

On 01-Apr-18 7:49 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:

Some questions in my mind.

How important is RF in the evolution of amateur radio? Would those 
who operate using FT8 be a lot less interested if it were just 
computers linking them with others without transmitted RF? How about 
operator involvement or skill?


How important is it that hams retain 4 MHz of spectrum on 6m or other 
bands if most everyone has abandoned CW and SSB?


Is there some sense of achievement when there is so much headroom in 
power alone that another 3 dB or even another 20 dB is so easy to 
achieve?


About 50% of my enjoyment of the hobby is thinking, many hours of 
every day, about how to somehow achieve another dB on some band or 
another with a better antenna.  After about 50 hours of modeling I am 
now drilling tubing to make what I hope will be a great pair of 
tribanders to take to ZF9CW location.  One person's total waste of 
time is another's passion.


To each his own, but for the long term future of what has provided so 
many of us with a lifetime of enjoyment, woe is me.


73... Stan, K5GO
_
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: Straws in the Wind ....A 160m Dx'ing Sea Change is Upon us!

[Brian Pease]

I predict that it won't be long before there is an FT-8 robot, or 
something similar, on the Moon!  What better way to test a new antenna 
than a long haul s/n report?
No one has mention Amateur satellites yet that in some cases have 
allowed working thousands of miles with a handheld.


On 3/30/2018 3:54 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
I've "made a contact", if you want to call it that, with that robot 
twice now.  That's about the only use I have for FT8; making contacts 
that shouldn't count for anything, although, I think ARRL accepts them 
for the grid chase thingy.


Wes  N7WS

ps. At least it didn't send me a text via JTAlert telling me what to 
send next, as happened on a "QSO" with some west African station.


On 3/30/2018 12:23 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
actually happening as we speak ( or type)..Jupiter Research 
Foundation has an unmanned boat type drone searching the pacific for 
humpback whales, and the drone has a solar powered ham transceiver on 
board, passing out FT8 contacts as it motors around the 
pacificlast I looked made a little over 1100 qsos.from some 
pretty rare grid squares  


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



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

Re: Topband: Straws in the Wind ....A 160m Dx'ing Sea Change is Upon us!

[Brian Pease]

When 90% of band activity is taking place in ~1% of the available 
bandwidth, it gets one's attention, doesn't it.
Personally, I have always considered DXpedition, and especially contest, 
CW exchanges to be a bit silly, with nearly everyone getting a 5NN 
signal report.  With today's technology I think eventually a computer 
will be able  sort out a CW pileup nearly as well as a human, and do it 
24/7 while perhaps giving more accurate signal reports.  Maybe someday 
there will be unmanned solar-powered stations on remote DX entities.  It 
is certainly much easier than self-driving cars, which should be sorted 
out in a few years.


On 3/30/2018 1:02 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:

My thoughts on FT8:

  


-  How is it actually a Q from our normal perspective?  The comments
Jeff made on the fact that 2 operators (on both sides of the circuit) could
see evidence of each other for 20 minutes before the "computers" finally
made the connection - is proof that the operator is not making the QSO.

-  There is a floating robot in the Pacific making FT8 QSOs with
people right now - unattended.

-  3Z9DX has stated that they will leave an FT8 station going 24/7
(which means unattended) on T31.

-  Are these what we want to count as QSOs?  What about in contests
- FT8 is already infiltrating VHF contests.  Should they be considered valid
contest Qs - while you sleep?

-  I agree with Jeff and others that for people that that consider
topband a PTA to operate and/or are not CW operators - 160M looks like the
perfect place to drop a robot and go concentrate on something else.  But
isn't this a slippery slope?  What about 10M/12M since the sunspots are low.
Or 80M because the static crashes in the tropics are terrible - etc.  Before
you know it the whole DXpedition is an FT8 robot while the "crew" is
lounging about the pool with the XYL/YLs.

-  If we continue to facilitate such nonsense, they we deserve what
we get in my opinion.  If we decide that the band counter is so important we
don't care how we have to get it, then its time to look in the mirror folks.

-  On the other hand, maybe some people are happier with the
computer doing the heavy lifting of digging out the QSO.  Personally, count
me out of that list.

  


Ed  N1UR

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



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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

[Brian Pease]

Just for fun, I modeled a 160m low inverted-V in NEC4.2, using 4NEC2 to 
look at the patterns.  The apex was 15m up.  Each leg was 40.7m long 
with the ends 7.5m up.  It was fed with 300 Ohm open wire dropping 
vertically to 1m above the ground.  I fed it from a 300 Ohm source.   
Directly under the antenna I created 36 radials 30m long in order to 
compare 3 different configurations.  I used Sommerfeld standard ground.  
All wire was #14 bare copper.

1) the balanced, ungrounded, inverted-V.
2) The same antenna, but with a 1m wire connecting one side of the 
feedline to the ground plane to simulate a real unbalance.
3) The same antenna but with both sides of the feedline fed against the 
ground plane as a "T".


As expected, the results support vertical radiators, and balance in the 
inverted-V


 Vertical radiation off the ends
_Antenna     of the inv-V at 30 degrees el Radiation 
Efficiency Comments_
1) Balanced inv-V -8.8dBi 7.03% Total 
radiation pattern (H + V) is omni but with vertical nulls off the sides.
2) Unbalanced inv-V -11dBi  3.95% Total 
radiation pattern is omni, low angle vertical is also omni.
3) Inv-V used as "T" +1.4dBi    38.4% Peak 
radiation at 30 degrees el, mostly vertical, -2.8dB nulls off the sides.


On 3/29/2018 10:11 AM, K4SAV wrote:
If you run a NEC analysis it will show that a 160 dipole at a half 
wavelength height will blow away any vertical when the signal is 
broadside to the dipole.  The people that have tried this say it aint 
so.  At least some of the reasons are that NEC knows nothing about 160 
propagation and it knows nothing about the effect of Earth's electron 
gyrofrequency.  That varies a lot depending on where you are located 
on this earth. Analysis is nice and easy but you have to include 
everything for it to simulate the real world, and the real world on 
160 is very complicated.


Jerry, K4SAV


On 3/28/2018 9:50 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

I don't think so.  In my Electromagnetic Fields and Waves class in EE
school (way back when dinosaurs just stopped roaming the earth and
Constellations still graced the skies...) the prof derived the 
equation for

a received signal.  The polarization terms disappeared after the first
ionospheric bounce.

73 Mark K3MSB


On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 9:03 PM Steve Maki  wrote:


Interesting. Some say that on 160 vertical polarization rules, while on
80, horizontal polarization rules (or at least *often* rules). Of 
course

polarization and angle of arrival are two different things...

-Steve K8LX

On 03/28/18 17:23 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:


Well I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again . . .

In my experience, most DX propagation on 160m ISN'T low angle  (unlike

80m

when it nearly always IS.)

For the past 45 years, at several different QTHs I've always used a
horizontal co-ax fed halfwave dipole, only 50ft high . . . I'm sure 
most
people would agree I put a respectable DX signal.  I've regularly 
worked

all

over the world on Top band, and I've never had trouble getting through
pile-ups to work Dx-peditions.

Plus a dipole at 40 feet will never really be an inverted vee ! 
(just a
horizontal antenna with drooping ends) - You'd have to have the 
centre at

least 100ft high for it to be an inverted vee.

Roger G3YRO

_
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: Wednesday 160m DX Activity Night

[Brian Pease]

You were 579 in VT but you could not hear my 100W.

On 3/29/2018 5:55 AM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

Well conditions seemed pretty good last night . . . my RBN reports were
certainly encouraging from several NA stations - one was even 49 dB over the
noise !

However, there was a distinct lack of activity - I stayed on from 0100Z for
nearly 2 hours, but only worked 9 NA stations.

Nothing like the dozens of stations that came on a few weeks ago when we
started these Wednesdays . . .

Come on guys !

73 Roger G3YRO

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



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

Re: Topband: FCC authorizes 1KW wireless power transmission

[Brian Pease]

I read their experiment.  They will transmit only a CW (unmodulated) 
signal for the minimum time needed to complete a field strength 
reading.  The only frequency where they will run 1000W "radiated" is 
1710kHz.  On other freqs they plan to run 100W "radiated" & try to avoid 
interfering with us.


On 2/13/2018 3:36 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

I don't care that this will never be a practical way of transferring power .
. .

But aren't any of you guys worried about the fact that their licence allows
them to transmit ANWHERE within Top Band?

This could be some horrible wideband signal that generates a lot of QRM !

Roger G3YRO


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



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

Re: Topband: FCC authorizes 1KW wireless power transmission

[Brian Pease]

I agree about the pie.  I have done a bit of reading.  Their 
experimental station will use a 50kW broadcast xmtr to (they say) 
generate a Zenneck surface vertical EM wave with little radiation loss 
into the sky by using a special "probe".  Zenneck waves are real and 
have been demonstrated in a lab at a much higher frequency.  They fall 
off as the square root of distance.  They well be doing field strength 
vs distance measurements in Texas.  The only problem is that it takes an 
infinitely long straight array of vertical antennas (ie a lot) to 
generate a pure Zenneck wave.  50 to 1 kW is another issue, not to 
mention ground loss..


On 2/7/2018 1:45 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:16:15 -0500 (EST)
From: donov...@starpower.net
To: topband 
Subject: Topband: FCC authorizes 1KW wireless power transmission
experimental station WJ2XGB on 160 meter band



https://swling.com/blog/2018/02/fcc-authorizes-wireless-power-transmission-experimental-station


https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=204036=.


http://www.texzontechnologies.com/technology

##  IMO, this is pie in the sky.   Pure psuedo junk science at its finest.
Tesla  tried sending vast amounts of energy via  wireless,  didnt work out too 
well.
S meters are calibrated in microvolts, not megawatts.

##  well, you could buy shares in the company, let them peak  with all the 
hype, then dump
all of em real quick.The entire scheme is about 3 steps  below fractal ants.

Jim   VE7RF

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



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

Re: Topband: Sod staples

[Brian Pease]

I used the same source twice and was very pleased.
Brian W1IR

On 2/12/2018 9:15 AM, cqtestk4xs--- via Topband wrote:

After getting a four square for 80 radial system buried and now starting the 
160 system I wanted to pass along a good cheap source of yard staples.  A 
company called sandbaggy has been my source.  You can find their stuff on ebay. 
 Cost is around $45/1000 for 6 inch staples.  Best part is they ship FREE via 
USPS priority mail...a very big issue for us out in KH6 since the package of 
1000 is quite heavy.

Bill K4XS/KH7XS  (KH7B this weekend)
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Fwd: [TowerTalk] Loss in CCS conductors at low freqs (was Voltage Breakdown For Enameled Wire)

[Brian Pease]

My guess is also the steel wires, which have very poor conductivity at 
HF compared to copper.  Aluminum fence wire is also not a good choice 
and would likely literally dissolve if buried, depending on soil 
characteristics.  I use army surface field phone wire, which is a mix of 
copper and steel strands, both wires in parallel for each radial.  The 
insulation makes zero electrical difference with buried radials but 
should preserve the wire for many years.  About $60.00 for 2km on Ebay 
including shipping.


On 1/29/2018 6:48 PM, terry burge wrote:

Hi guys,

I've had two or three different hy-towers in my time and I don't recall any of 
them having this high of SWR on 80/75 mtrs at resonant. Maybe it is the 
galvanized radials from the local farm store (Wilco)?



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

Re: Topband: WKYW on 1810kc

[Brian Pease]

Solid copy in Northern VT.  Obviously a bad connection. I want their 
antenna!


On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, Steve Babcock wrote:

FYI….Making it all the way to western Canada in VE6.
Very solid on East Beverage.

de steve VE6WZ.


On Jan 10, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Bill Stewart  wrote:

Is anyone copying a AMBC stn around 1810kc. They are 30db over S9 here. The sig 
was cutting
in and out but for last few mins. has been on full time. Did hear them mention 
'1490' and Frankfort
KY. Web info comes back to WKYW. Heard them yesterday as well.
Tnx de Bill K4JYS
Near Smithfield, NC
_
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: CATV RG6 with messinger wire for support

[Brian Pease]

I have a 1000 ft bi-directional beverage that is built with RG-6 with 
steel messenger wire.  The wire seems to have no electrical effect but 
makes the beverage really strong.  A transformer at the far end puts the 
reverse-direction signal between the center conductor and shield.  2 
feedlines are used, each with a transformer.  I just copied a design 
that is out there.


On 1/9/2018 10:06 PM, terry burge wrote:

Hello Guys,


I have been give a bunch of CATV RG-6 coax like the cable company uses. I would 
like to know if the coax with a solid support (messenger) wire will work 
alright for building beverages? It almost looks like it could be use for 
building a bi-directional beverage utilizing the coax shield for one direction 
and the insulated support wire for the opposite direction. Anyone have some 
experience with this? I have also thought of trying in as a BOG beverage.


Terry

KI7M

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



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

Re: Topband: Detuning Relay Flyback Diode

[Brian Pease]

You can put the diode directly across just the LED if the relay speed is 
important.  The LED series resistor won't slow it much.


On 12/23/2017 11:15 AM, Paul Christensen wrote:

Brad,

If you use an LED with a dropping resistor across the coil to monitor relay
status, then you must use a fly-back diode.  The coil of the type you're
using will produce substantial EMF as power is removed and the coil field
rapidly collapses.  The collapsing field will produce E-I beyond the LED's
maximum ratings.  Failure occurs even when the LED is current-limited
through a series dropping resistor.

On my remote-controlled homebrew balanced tuner, I was replacing LEDs until
I discovered that the collapsing vacuum relay field was immediately burning
out LEDs.  Never a problem after installing 1N400X fly-back diodes.

Paul, W9AC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Brad
Denison
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2017 10:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Detuning Relay Flyback Diode

I have a couple of 6ms 12V Kilovac relays wired up as a detuning circuit
during RX.  One question comes up before implementation regarding flyback
diodes - would they be needed?  Seeking opinions on this question.  The
relays are powered during TX and not powered for RX direct keyed by the
radio with no sequencer.

Thanks,

Brad W1NT 
_
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: FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing?

[Brian Pease]

I think that digital modes such as FT8 are a boon to hams in homes with 
covenants, allowing them to work the world with minimal, even indoor, 
antennas and QRP power levels. For them, at least, the challenge is 
still there. I think FT8 is so popular because there is more reward 
(contacts) for a given station setup compared to older modes.  No one is 
being forced to use FT8, which currently only occupies a tiny 1% of the 
160m band (~2kHz).  Also, no internet spotting assistance is needed to 
see who is active (and copy-able) on the band.  I can listen to the 
music of FT8 by simply turning up the volume control on my K3S.


On 10/25/2017 9:38 AM, jayb1...@optonline.net wrote:

I guess I don’t understand what makes the new Digital modes any different
from old RTTY...the “sounds” are similar enuf to learn to love and the words
are still displayed on (in the old days) paper or a screen.
There are many audibly-compromised hams out there – such as me – who really
welcome a mode that doesn’t require sharp hearing to work CW or especially
SSB.
In addition, I have recruited several new (young) hams by attracting them
with the computer-based modes...all but eliminates “mike-fright” and
“key-freezing”.
I guess a lot of old-timers (I am 75) feel that the awards like DXCC and
WAS, etc. earned with FT8 have less merit than they did with good-old CW or
Phone or RTTY.  But few people objected when CW filters were invented or SSB
replaced AM or smaller, lighter, more efficient radios replaced the old tube
stuff...so is a CW DXCC earned in 1948 somehow worth more than one earned in
2000 using these major tech improvements ?
There will always be a place for CW and voice modes in ham radio for those
that want to practice those..and remember one of the major facets of ham
radio is to “advance the state of the radio art” which surely describes the
new digital modes.
Room for everybody out there, guys73 Jay NY2NY
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Shunt Feed help

[Brian Pease]

I have used NEC4 to model my short 50 ft tower for shunt feed on 160, 
80, and 40 meters.  It has a small triband beam with all elements 
grounded.  The 160m shunt wire goes to the top, of course, and NEC gave 
a good estimate of the impedance.  On 80m, my first guess was pretty 
close to 50 Ohms.  It took 3 tries on 40m where I was 3-4 ft off.
 I could extend the model to your height and lengthen my 3 elements to 
roughly simulate your beam & estimate the 160m shunt length. I assume 
that you have enough radials.


On 10/10/2017 8:22 AM, bob burton via Topband wrote:

  Looking for some shunt feed wisdom from the list. Trying to shunt feed 25G tower ( 8-10ft 
sticks, 8ft flat top, base 18" out of the ground = total tower 89.5 ft) has a F12 C31XR 
just above the thrust bearing (@90ft) with 6ft 2" mast above the tribander with a F12 
D140 dipole (@96ft). Based on various archive reading I can't get a good sense of how much top 
loading I may have (some say only the boom, others say much more). That said I've first tried 
a cage wire ( four 14ga wires spaced 6" apart) all the way at the top of the tower spaced 
about 2ft out. Trying to dip this with an Autek RF-1 yielded about 1.15 Mhz which didn't seem 
right. Cage was taken down and tried just a single wire at a lower tap height of 60ft. 
Strangely enough I get about the same frequency but the Z dropped. Moving farther down to 50ft 
again about the same frequency but again Z dropped. I'm assuming the frequency readings are 
completely off and I'm getting overload from nearby AM broadcast as I am surrounded by them. 
I'm unsure now if I should continue trying tap points farther down the tower just looking for 
the best Z or use some other approach. If anyone has experience with how much top loading a 
C31XR could represent I could use the graphs in ON4UNs book to perhaps get close, but I'm 
unsure what the loading looks like and found no real answers searching the archives. Any help 
appreciated to help eliminate many more trips on the tower looking for the nearest 50 ohm 
spot. Tnx 73's Bob - N4PQX
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband




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

Re: Topband: underground cables question

[Brian Pease]

I installed buryflex along with direct burial control cables last year.  
I learned that it is best to directly bury the cables without conduit.  
Water from condensation will eventually fill the conduit even if rain 
doesn't get in.  Possibly a different story in low humidity areas, I 
suppose, but I am in VT.  I have actually seen humidity fill multiple 
vertical pipes 2 feet high with condensation.


On 10/5/2017 2:56 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:

It's really dangerous to make these "all" statements.

I've been keeping rainfall numbers and reporting them to rainlog.org 
for 11 years.  My last measurable rain was 0.02 inches on Sept 14. The 
total for this year is 7.74 inches.  If I want my conduit filled with 
water I need to use a garden hose :-)


Wes  N7WS

On 10/5/2017 7:12 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:

2) All conduits will fill with water. That is their NATURAL state unless
you specifically and effectively mitigate it. At any time other than 
first

installed, filled with water is their most probable state.


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



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

Re: Topband: 160 meter 1/4 vertical

[Brian Pease]

I erected a 50 ft self-supporting grounded aluminum tower last fall, 
with a triband beam as a top load.  I installed 137 radials 30m long 
(because I could!).  I first shunt fed it on 160m and it works well.  I 
added 80m shunt feed this spring and it is superb.  I modeled 40m and 
30m in NEC4.2.  It should work great shunt fed on 40m where it is ~1/2 
wave, but the 30m pattern is terrible with a high angle main lobe - just 
too tall.


On 7/3/2017 7:37 PM, Dale Putnam wrote:

The delta loop corner fed. Which corner? Makes a huge difference, doesn't it?

Make this a great day
Dale


On Jul 3, 2017, at 5:34 PM, Cecil Acuff  wrote:

We've run balloon supported 1/4 wave and 3/8 wave wires over our buried radial 
field with great results for contests. The balloon is a pain with any weather 
or wind but loads of fun.

Cecil
K5DL



On Jul 3, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm  
wrote:

Many have tried balloon or kite supported  5/8 wave verticals on 160 with
disappointing results.  I used to have a 308 self supporting tower which i
could use at night on 160 but it never ever beat a corner fed delta loop
supported by the same tower.


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Peter Voelpel  wrote:

Please check the pattern on 60 and 40m where the 37m high vertical is going
to be used.
You certainly will see the high angle lobes.

73
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Moizeau
Sent: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 00:10
To: Herbert Schoenbohm; TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 meter 1/4 vertical

The free-space pattern of current in a vertical (and also  horizontal)
antenna is crescent shaped with its maximum at the midpoint, and a minimum
at each end.  It shows nothing that could be termed an extraneous lobe.
Any
such lobes would seem to be the result of improper matching, or more
likely,
the fact that in the real world such an antenna is in an environment that
is
certainly not free space.
higher angles.


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
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



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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian Pease]

10 Watts is considered high power on the digital modes.  Is using 1000 
Watts on 160m (+20dB) and 250Hz receive filters (+10dB) on both ends of 
a CW QSO more challenging than 10W on JT65 on the same link?  Perhaps not.


On 5/15/2017 7:44 PM, Jim Murray via Topband wrote:

 I hate to weigh in on this since it's been beaten to death already but 
just another opinion.  Over the years I've tried several digital modes starting 
with psk31.  There weren't many  signals on the band at that time but now I see 
there are many.  Not to long ago I ventured into JT65 and JT9.  Quite a 
learning curve for an Ol'timer.  I considered all the digital operation as 
something new to learn for a change and enjoyed the learning part.  Once I got 
everything running properly I would begin to loose interest.  To me, just not 
the challenge of dxing mostly cw and ssb.  Seems the biggest skill comes from 
the people who write the software like Joe Taylor or Peter Martinez.  From that 
point you just click the mouse or type on the keyboard.  Very impersonal at 
times using F key exchanges etc..  But, that's just ones opinion.  Whatever 
floats your boat.

Jimk2hn
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

[Brian Pease]

True enough, but time marches on.  This is similar to the discussion 
about whether Columbus or Captain Cook would have used GPS if it had 
been available, or instead navigated without it just for the challenge.  
I have, in fact "navigated" once across the Atlantic using a sextant, 
but I made use of time signals and a programmable pocket calculator.  I 
compared results to Satnav, the 1-satellite doppler predecessor to GPS.  
I guess this was the equivalent of using CW vs JT.


On 5/14/2017 8:25 AM, Mark K3MSB wrote:

Well said Victor.

I'm going to offend with this email no matter how nice I try to make it,
but I am trying to not be inflammatory. Here goes

A human ear can not compete with a computer that extracts signals below the
noise level.

Being a software engineer my friends are somewhat amazed I have no interest
in RTTY or the JT modes. A few years ago they got me to do some RTTY
contests. Talk about boring. You set the computer up, spin the VFO to align
vertical cursor and push the correct buttons. Ditto with PSK31 only using a
waterfall display. Download the software, spin the VFO, and push the
buttons. As I told my friend “Even a caveman can do this”.

The JT modes certainly have their place as an advancement in communications
technology and capability. But from a competition perspective, machine and
human detected modes need to be strictly segregated.

My hat's off to those that get DXCC on 160 via CW and SSB. Sorry, but the
hat stays on for using digital to get “the last few”. Not crying over spilt
milk here; I have my TB DXCC and none of it is the JT modes.

The ARRL needs to address this, but I doubt they're going to. We've gotten
to the point where single band awards need to be split between human and
machine detected modes.

As posters in other threads have noted, the JT modes on TB will enable
those with limited real estate to work 160M DX easily. This is both a
blessing and a curse (as the saying goes). Yes, they may be able to use the
JT modes to “easily” work DX on 160, but compare them to the guys in the
same situation that work TB DX on CW / SSB and take years to do it.

73 Mark K3MSB

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Victor Goncharsky via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:


Wrong.
Both in SSB and AM cases the operator's skills and abilities are involved.
Even more of those are needed on CW.
On those JT modes an operator is just a computer accessory.



Воскресенье, 14 мая 2017, 5:41 +03:00 от Mike va3mw <

va...@portcredit.net >:

JT9 vs JT65 over CW

The same conversation happened when SSB started to gain strength over AM.

73

Mike va3mw


--
73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), P.E.
UARL Technical and VHF Committies
DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone), 9BDXCC, 8BWAS
DXCC card checker (160 meters).
_
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: Top Band and JT65

[Brian Pease]

This may sound strange, but my opinion is that hams like the musical 
tones of JT65.


On 5/13/2017 3:27 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Why not JT9? It has a 2 dB improvement in S/N ratio on 160, while using
only 1/10 of the bandwidth.

I cannot understand why JT9 is used so little on 160 thru 20. JT65 is a VHF
mode.

physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html


73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On May 13, 2017 2:03 PM, "James Denneny" <57jndenn...@comcast.net> wrote:

I am hoping more DX stations will take advantage of the JT65 mode on 1838
next season.  I have been using it on 20M recently and am amazed at its weak
signal performance.

This mode should enhance the capture of DX entities on TB particularly with
propagation decline. It's main drawback is the time involved with exchanges
due to decoding but, the enhanced performance makes up for that.

Jim

K7EG
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: RBOG installation

[Brian Pease]

Google "garden staples ebay".  $11.50/100 free shipping.

On 4/25/2017 12:54 PM, James Denneny wrote:

My garden tractor lawn mower ate one of my RBOG's.  I thought 2.5 inch blade
height was sufficient but the updraft from the mower deck lifted the wire
into the blade.

  


Yes, I can raise blade cut to 3 inches.  I prefer a closer cut for neatness.
However, I am contemplating pinning the wire with DXE ground staples every 5
to 10 ft versus burying the wire an inch into the soil.  I am concerned the
latter approach might defeat signal reception.

  


Comments?

  


Jim K7EG

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



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

Re: Topband: Sept 12 JT65 on 1838khz...nice opening to Eu.

[Brian Pease]

JT-65 is a QRP mode, like WSPR where I use10W.  High power can ruin it 
for everyone else.  Read the documentation.


On 3/17/2017 8:36 AM, Lennart m wrote:

I do not agree with you Pedro. More is not always better. Use no more than you 
need. JT65 allows more noise than does CW, thus one doesn’t need as much power.
73
Len
SM7BIC

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] För CT1EKD
Skickat: den 17 mars 2017 12:50
Till: topband@contesting.com
Ämne: Re: Topband: Sept 12 JT65 on 1838khz...nice opening to Eu.

Hi Jorge
Hi Jorge
JT65 is no diferent from CW or SSB, more power is better...use no more than 50% 
of your amplifier power, if you have an extra fan use it on top of your 
amplifier..

Pedro - ct1ekd
  


Citando Jorge Diez - CX6VM :


Hello

so how much power to use in JT65 on 160 mts for DX ?

15-25 watts in OK on high bands, but how much pwr people are using on
160 mts?

thanks,
Jorge

2015-09-12 14:51 GMT-03:00 Jim Brown :

On Sat,9/12/2015 7:33 AM, Mike Waters wrote:

How much of this was JT9? Is it ALL JT65?

It's all JT65.

Notice all the CQs going unanswered. Except for the Ukraine station,
those EU stations all had pretty good signals at your QTH, good
enough that some of the guys in W1/W2 should have copied them if they had 
decent ears.

One of the issues with JT65 and JT9 is that many stations using it
are running QRP into wet strings, and they can't hear. A year or so
ago, I ran a sked with a guy in ND or SD running 20W or so. I copied
him just fine, but had to crank the amp to 400W to get him to hear me.

The quality of the A/D converter also matters a lot. A good outboard
sound card will decode 10-12 dB further down into the noise than the
sound cards built into most computers.

73, Jim K9YC

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

--
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
_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: twisted house wiring

[Brian Pease]

I installed a vanity in a old house in New London, CT.  The BX only had 
2 wires for the original light & 2-prong outlet. Fortunately the jacket 
was grounded although it had never been connected to the old fixture.  I 
needed the ground for the new GFI outlet.


On 2/22/2017 5:06 PM, MICHAEL ST ANGELO wrote:

BX cable is still required in New York City. I had to use it when I lived in 
Queens.

How did the metal wrapper get hot? Was current passing througgh it? The BX I 
had included a ground wire; maybe the earlier BX used the wrapper as the ground.

Mike N2MS



On February 22, 2017 at 3:45 PM K1FZ-Bruce   wrote:




Live near a housing development with many tenants. The high line on the road is 
about 20  feet diagonally from my attic.  Getting a lot of noise even with my 
house main breaker off.
Appears to be induced into the attic wiring.

Question. Anyone tried some form "twisted pair with green wire"  house wiring 
to reduce noise ?
If Yes, how did it work ?
Wiring laws vary from state to state.   If anyone has something that worked, 
then I can ask local electrical law enforcement about it.

Years ago they had a BX cable   . It was twisted wires inside a metallic 
wrapper.  When I was very young they used to think the metal wrapper got hot 
and started house fires.

73
Bruce-k1fz
http://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html
  
_

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: Echo on 160m yesterday morning

[Brian Pease]

I experienced long delayed CW echos once on 20m, back in the 1980s 
before there was much wireless stuff.  Also, I lived in the country with 
no close neighbors.  The delay was significant because I was not using 
instant break-in, with the rig taking at least 1/4 sec to switch to 
receive.  I think it might have been longer than the delay of an around 
the world path.  Besides, I think I was using my 2 Watt QRP rig.


On 2/6/2017 12:23 PM, JC wrote:

Nowadays we have a huge amount of RF repeaters in use for several services,
like , Wi-Fi , LTE4, Data links. Microwave links, FM stations link, TV video
links.

All these systems has a receiver and a transmitter. The intermediated
frequency used can be close to few MHz depending the services. Like video.
Our HF signal can become data in these system,. A lot of this system does
not have the quality necessary, price is always a sales point, so poor
shield is very common.

  SDR technology that provide long delays, and  with very bad IP3 front end
are very common used on these system.

The long cables with not appropriate ground can become efficient antennas
for low bands, the common mode noise can get into the IF system and on the
receiver side and retransmitted on the transmitter side.

My point is that atmospheric plasma loops may not be the only answer for
250ms echo's. It is most unlike due the small power used during the event
observed. Manmade echo are more likely to explain the echo.

73's
JC
N4IS



  repeaters, Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Shoppa
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 4:44 PM
To: on7eh 
Cc: topBand List 
Subject: Re: Topband: Echo on 160m yesterday morning

I have heard echoes of my own signal under some circumstances too. More
often on 80M but a couple times on 160M. Often in the hour before dawn.

These echoes were also heard on other stations within a few hundred miles,
especially ones to my north.

For the 160M echoes, some stations in W1 were nearly uncopyable on my
receive antenna (K9AY) because of the echo. The echo was very similar to a
dit length and very similar in strength.

Interestingly enough, if I went to listen on my transmit antenna (Vertical),
the echo completely went away.

Tim N3QE

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:32 AM, on7eh  wrote:


For the first time,
I heard my echoes on topband, yesterday morning starting around 05 UTC.
They lasted for at least 1 hour, with some OFF-periods in between.
I had to quit at 06 UTC. (still 1 hour before surise)

The echoes were loudest on the short Beverages (<60m long) heading N/S
and NE/SW and several dB lower on the NW/SE Beverage. (about 130m long).
The Tx setup is modest with Elecraft K3/100 and inv L at 15m height,
sloping down to 11m.

Only DX heard that morning was USA (typical condictions) so I wonder
what else does hearing echoes indicate?


73,
Michel, ON7EH



_
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: tower vertical

[Brian Pease]

The base insulator is certainly the most effective way to detune, and 
the most efficient way to drive the tower, but it is nice to have the 
tower grounded and use shunt feed.  You can detune the tower by turning 
the bottom section into a parallel-resonant trap during receive, 
probably using the TX shunt wire with a series capacitor to the bottom.  
See ON4UNs book pg 7-109


On 1/31/2017 12:49 AM, Bob Kupps via Topband wrote:

Hi I have decided to put up a 40m tower to use as a transmitting vertical for 1.8mHz 
out away from in between our other towers and where I can run 1/4 wave radials all 
the way around, and will probably use locally available 12" steel sections with 
a conical-type pin base. I would like to insulate the base in order to make it 
easier to detune on receive (this will be located in the exact center of our 8 
circle rx arrays). Has anyone used HDPE or similar to make a homebrew base insulator 
for a tower monopole? Any other comments about the need for a base insulator also 
welcome.
73 Bob HS0ZIA

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: My Shunt Fed Tower

[Brian Pease]

It may be good to decouple the inverted-Vs from the tower.  This would 
involve a tuned trap at each feedpoint made up of the feed coax and a 
resonating capacitor.  See ON4UNs Low Band DXing, 5th edition pg 6-69.


On 1/29/2017 9:23 PM, Bob Garrett wrote:

Greetings Listers,

  


I'm looking to this group for some input on my shunt fed tower loaded down
with antennas HI.

  


I have 85 feet of Rohn 25G with three sets of broken up guy wires that was
installed in 1999.  Probably 200 to 300 short radials that have been put in
since 1988 for the previous tower and added to over the years, all bonded to
the base of the tower.

  


On top, from bottom up I have - Optibeam 9-5 9 EL yagi, 5 EL M2 6 meter yagi
and at 100 feet, an Optibeam 30 - 40 rotary dipole.  All cables run inside
the tower and are grounded at the base.  I use an omega match made up of two
vacuum variables.

  


Now, this season, I wanted to have a few more options for contesting.  I
installed a 3 foot metal support from KF7P and put up a 80 meter inverted
VEE at 70 feet and a 60 meter inverted vee at 60 feet using the same
arrangement.  I did have to adjust the omega match after adding the two
additional antennas.

  


Regarding the shunt, I use a piece of RG8X with the attachment point at
about 48 feet and a spacing of 24 inches, a 1KPF variable in series and a
probably 400PF cap for the omega match.  No problem getting a perfect match.

  


Over the years, this arrangement prior to adding the two inverted vee
antennas this year performed very well.  Now I know about TB conditions so,
I am not making sweeping statements but, seems like I just don't get through
those pileups as quickly as before.

  


My questions - Is there any fact to the statement that an 80 meter antenna
on a 160 meter shunt fed tower will degrade the performance?  Is it just one
happy amount of loading?  Anything else I should be considering?  The
problem is I live on a small lot and only have so many options to cover all
bands.  Any input appreciated.  73, Bob K3UL

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



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