Re: Topband: HEBA antenna

[Jeff Blaine]

What I found interesting in the HEBA103 document was that it seemed the 
FS measurements were taken at ground level along two compass points.  If 
I'm not mistaken, the power radiated is spread out over a 3-dimensional 
space and from that standpoint, I don't see how improved FS measurements 
taken on the near field at ground translate directly into "high 
efficiency."


But on this topic, the only think I know **for certain** is that I'm a 
mental micro-midget compared to Maxwell.


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

On 4/20/2024 3:19 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

On 4/20/2024 9:18 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

Similarly, to the AM broadcaster, "Broadband" simply means sufficient
bandwidth to keep the transmitter happy and avoid distortion of an
IBOC digital signal.  That is far more narrow than even a "50 KHz
under 1.5:1" for amateurs on 160.


Great points, Joe. I grew up a mile or two from a 5kW DA-N on 930 kHz, 
and as a college student worked at the station. One summer, I helped 
the chief engineer silver-solder new radials to new ground screens for 
the 4-tower array. The bandwidth issue jumped out at me as I drove 
through one of their nulls -- where the carrier cancelled, the 
sidebands didn't.


73, Jim K9YC

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

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

Re: Topband: [TowerTalk] New N6LF Ground Probe Designs

[Jeff Blaine]

I think there are a couple of reasons I want to try this method.

First is that it's a technically cool use of a VNA - which is my 
personal favorite gadget in general.


I live in an area surrounded by farm lands and assume that the soil here 
is nice and conductive.  But I have no idea what that really means.  
Maybe the area around here is not that conductive. Making a set of 
measurements would be a way to quantify that assumption.  I do realize 
that this is a data point specific to the place you took the 
measurement.  So taking the similar measurement around the area would 
give some idea of how much variation there may be.


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

On 3/2/2024 11:51 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

On 3/1/2024 10:44 AM, Brian Beezley wrote:
Rudy Severns, N6LF, has updated his writeup on ground parameter 
measurement with several new probe designs. A ground probe and NanoVNA 


I'm not trying to take away anything from Rudy's excellent work, but 
he doesn't explain in the posted article what useful advantage we can

derive from the measurements.  It only gives a spot measurement of the
top foot of soil.  And the soil that matters is the soil at large
distances from the antenna.  It is unlikely that this probe could be
used to survey all that area of land that isn't owned by the ham with
the antenna.

Also, I would prefer Rudy's previous method using a low 1/2 wave dipole.
It covers more area and presumably would penetrate into the soil more
than a foot.

Another thing I would prefer is to simply put up a vertical and a dipole
and A/B them for signal strength on various RBN stations.

Finally, it is also possible to build a Beverage antenna and run
a current probe along it as I have done and determined how fast
it attenuates with distance.

I know very well that my QTH is over highly conductive ground without
ever using an OWL probe.

73
Rick N6RK

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

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

Re: Topband: Using 4 - 6 elevated radials in lieu of 120 buried wires

[Jeff Blaine]

There is another practical issue here.  I would agree that elevated 
radials can work great.  But in practice, MAINTENANCE of the elevated 
radials is a non-ending headache.  Around here we have deer and ice and 
wind and on and on.  I ran various 40m 4SQ elevated radial schemes for 
years and eventually went to an in-ground installation because I was 
tired of the hassle.


You are probably a far better mechanical and electrical hand than I am.  
But this maintenance aspect of elevated radials is something I don't 
think gets enough mention.


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

On 1/5/2024 8:42 AM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

I was about to recommend Rudy's work.  He is a prolific experimenter and 
writer; reading his stuff will answer almost anything you ever what to know 
about vertical antennas, ground systems and receiving antennas.
I have a folder on my hard drive with 30-40 of his papers.



   On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 01:03:55 AM MST, Jim Brown 
 wrote:


Some thoughts about that particular installation and why it worked well,
based on my study of Rudy Severns' excellent work on the topic.
   
_

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

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

Re: Topband: We need better preamps for 160 because FT8 activity

[Jeff Blaine]

Saw the interview.  Fascinating.  The guys have done a ton of work and 
that approach makes sense for these environmentally hyper-sensitive QTH.


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

On 5/25/2023 9:57 PM, j...@kk9a.com wrote:

Tim Duffy's AA7JV R.I.B. interview is on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XqBhp7M2Uk

John KK9A

N1RR Wrote:

George, Jim,
Where can we find George's work for these items ??
-Charlie N1RR

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

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

Re: Topband: We need better preamps for 160 because FT8 activity

[Jeff Blaine]

The RIB is an interesting concept.

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

On 5/24/2023 4:05 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

On 5/24/2023 11:10 AM, Charles Morrison wrote:

Where can we find George's work for these items ??


Just looked at his AA7JV qrz page, where there's extensive description 
of their Oceania trip and Radio In A Box, with lots of photos. 
George's deep pockets are the result of some important mass-market 
patents.


73, Jim K9YC

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

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

Re: Topband: Ground conductivity discussions

[Jeff Blaine]

Grant, that higher Rr is the path I took as well.

My 160m antenna is a bit longer than 1/4wl - trimmed in length so that 
the resistivity component of Z was 50 ohms.  It's got Xl of course, so I 
use a series C bread slicer at the tower base to to cancel the Xl.


My thought back then was that whatever the ground loss was, it would be 
about 1/3 less if the native feedpoint R was 50 ohms instead of 
something more close to a true 1/4 WL of around 35 ohms.


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


On 12/4/2022 11:19 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:

Sounds like a great project.

Isn't the reality that conductors (radials) in or near lossy mediums 
(earth, even salt water) have loss?  And that the near field extends 
beyond the 1/4wl of the radials?  The coupling among elements might be 
the reason 4:1 matching was used.


So while more & longer radials reduce the loss, there is a limit.  
Note that my prior post for my antenna shows the feedpoint Z equals 
the Rr value of about 14 ohms only when the radials are elevated 
100ft.  Often called a ground plane antenna.


I played a bit in Eznec with my antenna and a lot (128) more radials a 
few inches above your ground and saw essentially no change in Rg.  
Your higher conductivity ground will improve the pattern - more gain 
at lower angles.


So I suspect adding 26 more radials to the existing 32 1/4wl will not 
make much improvement in Rg.  I think Severns and Christman show this 
in their papers.


Other solutions to lower ground loss is higher Rr of the antenna to 
improve the ratio Rr/Rg.  eg 1/4wl tall verticals. The center fed 
720ft BCB antennas eg KDKA are another solution. ie vertical dipoles.


Grant KZ1W

On 12/3/2022 08:54, Dennis Ashworth wrote:
Very interesting and timely discussions on radials and ground 
conductivity.
I’m currently rebuilding an 80M broadside array (with shortened, top 
loaded

elements) in SW Utah that I’ve modeled at 12 ohms impedance. The current
antenna was tested and the impedance measured was 25 ohms. Each 
element in

the array (4 total) also measured 25 ohms. What accounts for additional
system loss?

Upon consulting the original builders, I learned they had also 
predicted an

impedance of approximately 12 ohms. I’m not clear what methods or models
they used for their prediction. There are 4:1 baluns at the base of each
vertical which begs the question whether the array impedances were ever
checked post-install. I suspect not … and I doubt anything has 
changed over

the years that would equally affect the impedance *on all 4 verticals.*

Where I don’t blindly trust models (antennas or otherwise), I do believe
the 12 ohm figure is reasonable given the short, top loaded elements. I
reviewed the FCC conductivity tables for the locale and they indicate 
15-30

millimos/meter. That’s pretty good! I would think the loss from a ground
system of 32, 1/4 wave plus radials would NOT account for the 12 ohms of
loss ground losses. But what if my ground conductivity is less than 
the FCC

tables report?

I’m going to the site again next week to install 26 additional 1/4 wave
radials on one of the verticals and see if (and how much) the measured
impedance drops. I’ll share my results here.

This loss has to be a ground system issue. If so, adding radials and 
seeing

a corresponding drop in impedance should confirm my suspicions.

At some point, I’ll measure the ground conductivity, but it needs to 
wait

for warmer temps (current temp at site is 19F!).

Insight from the masses always appreciated.


Dennis, K7FL
Las Vegas, NV
_
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: What antenna would you build?

[Jeff Blaine]

The casual antenna nut considering a parasitic vertical array will need 
to pay very close attention to the comment on having a VERY SERIOUS 
ground radial system on all elements.


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


On 3/24/22 11:55 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:

Different people have differing views on the definition of a serious antenna.

An 8 circle with 8 directions of BSEF verticals would definitely be serious.

If you wanted one tower and didn’t want to do the work to install a minimum of 
100 radials or more I would consider one tall tower with elevated radials.  The 
best antenna I ever had in Arkansas was 192 feet of 25G which I put up in 1980. 
 This tower was shunt fed with the feed point at 60 feet and had 9 radials (3 
per leg) taking up several acres  with the ends pretty high.

Nobody had a four square back then so competition was not as great, but it was 
a great performer.  I think it was better than most serious antennas at the 
time which would be quarter wave verticals with extensive, on ground, radial 
systems.

That antenna for transmit and a half dozen thousand foot Beverages would be a 
serious 160m setup even today.

73… Stan, K5GO



Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 24, 2022, at 10:34 AM, w...@w5zn.org wrote:

Hi Dino,

I started with a single 1/4 wave vertical as Tree notes and it worked extremely well for 
years, however after a period of time I had a desire to upgrade the single vertical to a 
system that offered some gain on TX. I came across the array that Tim, K3LR, mentioned in 
"Low Band DX'ing" that describes his systems and discovered I could build this 
array around the existing 1/4 wave vertical and achieve 4-square performance in a smaller 
footprint area. I have now used the array for four years and the performance has been 
outstanding. After reading the info regarding this array in Low Band DX'ing I documented 
some additional details of my experience that were presented at the Dayton Antenna Forum 
and also published in the National Contest Journal. Copies of those documents can be 
found here:

https://www.kkn.net/dayton2018/2018_Dayton_Antenna_Forum-160_meter_TX_Array.pdf

https://ncjweb.com/features/sepoct18feat.pdf

As Tree notes, the very first step is to determine exactly what your objective 
is. The five element parasitic array has met my objectives for both contest and 
DX activities.

73 Joel W5ZN



On 2022-03-23 22:38, Dino Darling wrote:
If you may and you are willing to indulge me; if you were about to buy
5-acres with no neighbors or restrictions and wanted to erect a
serious 160M antenna system, what would you build and why? We can pass
on the Radio Arcala discussion; nobody's that cool.
A loaded 4-square? 1/4 wave stick (or longer)? Phased dipoles? (fill
in the blank)?
I've seen a 200' tower with three phased dipoles tilted on end. The
end of one side of the dipole was anchored and insulated at the top of
the tower and came down like guy cables. About half way down was the
feedpoint, were an isolated anchor cable continued down the same path
to ground (like a guy cable). However, the second half of the dipole
was pulled back to the base of the tower, from the center feedpoint
insulator. It looked like an arrowboard chevron or a regular dipole
that was turned 90 degrees on its side. The coax was horizontal back
to the tower. There were three of these spaced 120 degrees apart and
fed with a phasing network to steer it. I understand it works great.
So what would you build?
Dino - KX6D
_
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: Series LC to notch AM broadcast ?

[Jeff Blaine]

The secret to using this sort of solution is to apply just enough of it 
to kill off the mixing products that are the result.  The good news is 
that you get (generally speaking) a 3:1 payback - so 1 db attenuation of 
the BC station will knock the mixing product down by 3 dB.  So 45 dB (as 
the article provides) is not needed to get meaningful mitigation.


The L/C ratio does set the Q of the notch.  And a series R can cut down 
on the notch depth, as well as reducing the SWR impact. There is a 
balancing act between these factors but generally the highest Q, and 
maximum R combo that is stable enough over the temp range, will do the job.


Have fun!

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


On 2/20/22 8:42 PM, donro...@hiwaay.net wrote:

We had a 1550khz in town and a 1450khz moved 2 blocks away from 1550.

Yep mix products on 1650khz and 1350khz. ( and to some extent 
1500khz )


a simple 1550 notch on the top of the 1450 transmitter eliminated the 
mix products and didn't bother the 1450 transmitter.


Don W4DNR

On 2022-02-20 12:14 pm, Nick Hall-Patch via Topband wrote:


Hello Jim,

Better, I think, is this notch, found at the IRCA Reprints:

https://www.ircaonline.org/editor_upload/File/reprints/irca-reprint-index.pdf 



Look for Reprint A-063, An RF Notch Filter by VE6JY.

You really should only need to notch the carrier of the offending AM 
station, as  that's where the bulk of the overload will be coming  
from.  It's a pretty amazing device, in my estimation.


73

Nick

VE7DXR

At 17:41 2022-02-20, jim.thom jim.t...@telus.net wrote:

Has anybody tried using a simple series L-C to notch out ONE 
offending AM
broadcast station ?  I'm talking about wiring from hot side of 
coax...to

chassis / groundlike via a T connector etc.

On paper, it should work. Did some minor research, and one comment 
was that
by using higher values of L would result in  higher Q..and a deeper 
notch.
Another comment stated to use some initial values, like what spits 
out on a
L-C  online calculator for practical values. then multiply one 
value
by the other...then take the square root of the result.   Then you 
ended up
with 2 x numerically equal values of L + C. and supposedly the 
greatest

notch depth.

On software, I tried several values..from one extreme to the other, and
they all resonate on the same freq.   Also tried in software, using 2 x
numerically same values..and it too, also resonates on the same freq.

The rationale behind all of this is... in some cases, there is only one
offending AM broadcast station.  Typ  HP  filters offer little 
rejection

towards the top end of the AM broadcast band. like 1200-1710 khz.

I would like to try it, but am still confused as to which combo (using
practical values) will result in the deepest notch.  It would have 
to be
wide enough to remove the 20 khz wide AM signal.  A fixed coil + 
variable

cap, or padded variable cap could be used to fine tune the notch freq.

Perhaps   2 or more LC filters could be used in parallel, to notch 
out 2 or

more offending stations ?

Jim   VE7RF
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
Reflector


Nick Hall-Patch
Victoria, BC
Canada _
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: K9YC and LU8DPM

[Jeff Blaine]

Worked him this weekend from KS first night.  5:17Z.  Only DX seen in my 
whopping 2 hours of activity.


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


On 2/1/22 12:03 PM, w3...@roadrunner.com wrote:

Jim, I said the same thing in the ARRL 160 contest. I heard DPM loud
and clear and called my head off...to no avail. And he wasnt coming
back to anyone. Assumed his QRN/M problems must be monumental.

But this time he came back on the third call. Go figure.

-From:
topband-requ...@contesting.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday February 1 2022 12:04:13PM
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 230, Issue 1

  Send Topband mailing list submissions to
  topband@contesting.com

  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
  /> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
  topband-requ...@contesting.com

  You can reach the person managing the list at
  topband-ow...@contesting.com

  When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
  than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."

  Today's Topics:

  1. Re: CQWW160MDX-CW Contest summary for W3HKK (OH)
  (w3...@roadrunner.com)
  2. Antenna check for V31XX (cqtestk...@aol.com)
  3. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (Wes)
  4. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (Mike Smith VE9AA)
  5. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (Don Kirk)
  6. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (Don Kirk)
  7. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (Jim Brown)
  8. Re: K9AY RX antenna (HP)
  9. Really Frustrating (Roger Kennedy)
  10. Antenna check for V31XX (Roger Kennedy)
  11. Square "loop" antenna for 160 (Radio KH6O)
  12. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (FZ Bruce)
  13. Re: Antenna check for V31XX (Jan Erik Holm)
  14. New 9 circle PCB with CMCs (VE6WZ_Steve)

  --

  Message: 1
  Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 18:50:36 +
  From: w3...@roadrunner.com
  To: "'topband@contesting.com'"
  Subject: Re: Topband: CQWW160MDX-CW Contest summary for W3HKK (OH)
  Message-ID:
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

  Fri night rates in Ohio were below average but open to EU. Sat night
  was slow with few signals as the night progressed, and 51 dupes. :<

  My 3830 summary:

  W3HKK: 18:45 hrs OTA 694 Q's ( plus another 51 dupes (6.9%) that dont
  count of course) =57 Sections + 36 DX entities - Score: 186,744 pts.
(
  the 4th highest score out of my seven CQWW160CW log submissions.)
  Struggled to achieve a contest rate of 35 Q's/hr, with a high rated
of
  108/HR early on Friday night.

  ===

  STATION: IC7610 - Acom 1000 amp - N1MM+ Logging software - cw buddy
  memory keyer/memory/real time keyboard supplementing the 8 cw
memories
  in the 7610.

  TX ANTENNA: No radials! This year I failed to lay out my 26 x 100 ft
  radial system before the wx turned too cold to do so. So I was
running
  700w into a 1/4 wave 160m INV-L with a vertical leg of 52 ft, and the
  78 ft of wire sloping down to the E, ending about 15 ft above ground.

  The only RF ground for the INV-L was a single 8 ft copper clad steel
  ground rod dating to 2009, plus of course the earth beneath it. A 50
  ft black walnut tree was my antenna support. Ohio loam conductivity
  must be pretty good!

  That means the L puts out a slightly stronger signal to the W. And as
  usual, I have very good results towards the US West Coast, working
  many CA (19) & AZ(8) stations in particular. .

  RX ANTENNA: SAL 30 ( four short delta loops 30 ft tall,
  electronically rotatable in 8 directions.)

  CONTEST CATEGORY: Single Op - High Power ( 700w) - Assisted

  CONDITIONS: FRIDAY night was about average, with some decent openings
  into EU. And many strong US sigs, but not as many of them. ie My best
  actual hourly rate in 2022 was about 65% of my Personal Record Year
of
  2020; and my score was also about 65% of my Personal Best Year of
2020
  - which happened to be at the solar minimum. My 2022 average contest
  rate ( total Q's divided by total hours OTA) was a humbling 35/hour
  due eto the very slow 2nd night. It was hard work to say the least.

  SATURDAY night had MUCH slower rates, and far fewer - and weaker -
  sigs. Required a lot of searching and pouncing to separate fresh meat
  from stations already in the log. But still, I was called 51 times by
  stations who had already worked me. Since its always faster to just
  work the dupes than try to explain that theyre a dupe, you just work
  them and move on. At one stretch Sun morning, almost 50% of my CQ
  replies were dupes. So I switched to S

  As sigs thinned out, many were just above the noise, requiring agile
  fingers on the eight direction SAL30 RX antenna, switching from W to
  E, N to S, and directions in between. The 20 db F/B often made all
the
  difference.

  SS CYCLE: : With the bottom of the SS cycle now history, Ole Sol 

Re: Topband: CQ 160

[Jeff Blaine]

Not sure about the other KS stations.  But here in NW KS, if I don't 
spin the HiZ RX circle 8 around to point to SW, I just won't hear AZ 
unless the station calling is really strong or the prop is peaking or 
something - enough signal so it's detectable over the other callers, 
strong to the point that I will spin in that SW direction to catch em.


In the CQ 160, on a few hours of part time run with about 600 Qs total, 
I worked a bunch of WA (NW) and AZ (SW) stations - but the majority of 
callers are for the Midwest are in the NE/SE direction.  Suspect most 
guys in the Midwest with directional RX have the same issue - you got to 
point one direction and for unassisted guys running rate, that means 
look east.  Guys in assisted or working S to find state mults will 
seek out the lower population states off to the west because they are 
equally valuable.


I do point SW/NW from time to time but after working the few callers out 
that direction, point back eastward as that the bulk. I'm not much of a 
CW contester so I suppose that guys wiht better op skills, better 
wetwork between their ears, and better self-discipline may have a 
different read.


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


On 2/1/21 6:18 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

I worked 3 of those in the first 1/2 hour.
Only missed NE.

Rick N6RK

On 2/1/2021 12:22 PM, Wes wrote:
I noticed that too.  NE, KS, SD, ND all missing.  No one on or do we 
have a skip zone?


Wes  N7WS



On 2/1/2021 5:15 AM, Artek Manuals wrote:
Odd hole in the N. America prop� no ND, SD or VE5 all right together 
geographically...h??? 



_
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: Elevated radial number vs efficiency

[Jeff Blaine]

On N6LF web page you can find the QEX series on ground mounted radials.  
And there is a ton of discussion of this topic on the reflector as it 
seems to come up often (may be mixing it with the towertalk reflector).


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


On 1/1/21 11:28 PM, List Mail wrote:

Yes, the antenna modelling is helpful, but by no means definitive.

Several years ago I put up a top loaded vertical over a very limited 
buried radial field, 16 x 20 m. It worked, but nothing exciting. It 
was very hard work burying wire in very hard ground.


I then put up an elevated radial system, starting with a pair, tuning 
them like a dipole. Same with the second pair. After four, the tuning 
didn't seem at all sensitive. I ended up with 7 x 1/4 wave radials, 
plus a shorter one where the property boundary was too close.  The 
radials were about 2.5 m high, just high enough to not touch with my 
outstretched hand. That seemed to work quite ok, compared with a full 
wavelength doublet antenna up 20 m.


I then moved and set up the top loaded now trapped vertical over 
elevated 4 x 1/4 wave radials for 160 and 4 x 1/4 radials for 80 m. I 
quickly tired of repairing fallen radials where a horse had rubbed on 
a post or where I caught the wire on the tractor exhaust pipe! Again, 
it worked me a decent amount of DX. And I mean "DX" as nearly 
everything is a very long way from VK3.


Last year, I did the work of burying 60 x 33 m radials, clearing away 
the mess of overhead wires. Does that work any better than the 
elevated radials? I cannot know, as there was no means of comparative 
testing. But, it's a whole lot tidier with the wires under the ground 
than overhead.


My conclusion is that elevated radials do work quite decently, and 
they are probably a little less work than burying a decent radial 
field. Wires on the ground were never an option, with livestock in the 
paddock. My suggestion, and the references too, is to put the elevated 
radials up as high as practicable (higher than I had them). This 
allows easy access to vehicles to drive under them, without tearing 
something down.


The aim of the radials is to reduce the effect of ground return path 
losses, and even with 8 radials, I could drive under them, listening 
to Radio National on 621 kHz, and the signal would be significantly 
attenuated. All of the above observations were over fairly poor 
ground, decomposed granite, with granite rocks floating. There is 
water underlying, however.


73, Luke VK3HJ


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

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

Re: Topband: I need help proofing an Inverted L model I made please. 40’ x 143’, four 100’ radials, #14 wire.

[Jeff Blaine]

N6LF Rudy's web site and associated QEX series has empirical data to 
answer all of these questions regarding the number and length of on 
ground radials.


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


On 12/10/20 11:14 AM, Mark - N5OT wrote:
Yeah.  I don't claim to be a radial expert but I do claim to have a 
lot of experience working other stations on 160 meters.


My buddy W9RE told me on a DXpedition once that he built a dipole 
laying on the ground and it resonated on 160 when the wires were about 
80 feet long.


Ray, with respect (N6VR and I go back a LNG way), I think 80 feet 
is the "new quarter wave radial" on 160, and frankly the only thing I 
really think I understand about verticals is, the more wire on the 
ground, the better, but you can get to a point where adding more is 
not worth the effort, YMMV etc.


My story for the week is:  I put up yet another temporary 160 vertical 
for the ARRL 160 last weekend, and only managed 14 radials before it 
got so dark I thought I better be getting on the air.


I worked 970 QSOs that night, including 5 Europeans, and while I was 
out there on Saturday adding more radials, I got a text from K5ZD 
saying I was an alligator, that I was very loud the night before, but 
couldn't hear him calling me for 10 minutes as he needed Oklahoma.


So I stopped adding radials, I was up to 22 radials at 80' long, and 
moved on to listening antennas.


Worked maybe 10 Europeans and counted 10 JAs, so I know my signal was 
getting to those places.


That's really all I know about that.

The vertical is 50 feet tall and has two symmetrical top-load wires 
that bring the resonant frequency to 1.8 MHz.


73 - Mark N5OT

P.S. Got an email from a guy in South Dakota who worked 376 QSOs 
(including 4 other countries) using an inverted L that was 20 feet up 
and the rest horizontal, fed against 20 radials 25' long in his yard.  
I love stories like that.



On 12/10/2020 9:52 AM, Wes wrote:
IMHO, for that number, on-the-ground radials do not need to be 
anywhere near that long.  Personally, I subscribe to the 
same-length-as-the-vertical guideline.


My inverted-L is 55 feet of vertical tubing plus the horizontal 
wire.  My insulated, on the ground radials are 55.5 feet (9 radials 
out of a 500 ft roll of wire). By serendipity, measuring one radial 
against all of the rest with a VNWA it is resonant at 1.84 MHz.  To 
be fair, I still have fewer radials than planned (18 vs. 36) in which 
case, shorter is actually better according to Belrose and Severns 
(https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/files/antenna_ground_system_experiment_4.pdf).


Wes  N7WS


On 12/9/2020 7:00 PM, Raymond Benny wrote:
If your vertical is ground mounted you need alot [sic] more. I'd say 
atleast 36
radials, 135ft long. It will make a big difference in your signal 
and be

easier to match.

I have over 100 radials but probably an over kill, but I feel I have 
a good

signal on 160m.

Ray,
N6VR/ W7YA



_
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: OT - LG Dryer RFI

[Jeff Blaine]

I have a DLEX357OV front loading LG here.  About 3 years old? It's quit 
as far as I know although my antennas are about 250' from the house, and 
I put 3 big clamp-on type 31 ferrites at the cable exit from the dryer 
just as a token preventative.


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


On 11/21/20 1:52 PM, donro...@hiwaay.net wrote:

Amy other "RFI kit" experiences ?

I'm looking to replace a 5 ton R22 heat pump system.

Don W4DNR



Quoting Rick Kunath via Topband :

I also had 2 Trane air conditioning compressors and air handler/gas 
furnaces installed to replace failing older systems, all variable 
speed. I had contacted Trane about the RFI kits on both of the 
compressor units and both of the air handlers before I bought them. 
They installed these RFI kits for free and my installation company 
put those kits in at their shop before they came out and did the 
install. Also nice and quiet.


Rick Kunath, K9AO


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

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

Re: Topband: OT - Bonding Radials at Intersections

[Jeff Blaine]

Wow, that's amazing.

I suppose the risk of micro arcing then specifically with insulated 
radials has got to be closer to zero - at least until the insulation 
breakdown was sufficient to facilitate the arcing. If that's a 
reasonable guess, then maybe guys like me - who are from the start not 
going to cross connect - would have some benefit from the use of 
insulated wire in that it would side step this issue for the most part?


In any event, when I do get around to building my personal MW station - 
needed in anticipation of the zombie apocalypse - for THAT set of 
radials, I will definitely plan on doing the cross connect work!


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


On 11/7/20 12:39 AM, donov...@erols.com wrote:

Hi Jeff,


Micro arcing can be excited by just a few volts of RF. While micro arcing
probably is n't a fire risk, micro arcing radiates low level phase noise
on transmitted signals. This is can cause a serious interference
problem to nearby receivers such as neighboring hams or co-located
receivers such an in-band receiver in a contest station.


I personally experienced these problems with megawatt transmitters.
In one instance, a massive radial system for a one mile long of array of
HF phased verticals had to be completely replaced because it generated an
elevated noise floor that degraded the performance of the HF over the
horizon radar. In another case a poorly engineered, badly installed and
inadequately maintained radial system for a 500 kw VLF system caused
severe television interference to neighbors that forced premature site closure.


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "Jeff Blaine" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 5:43:25 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: OT - Bonding Radials at Intersections

I of course defer to Frank's expertise here. But after thinking about
this for a couple of hours, I'm trying to wrap my head around this arc
risk concept as well. It's interesting and I toss this comment out
because my two sets of 4sq don't have a single cross-bonded wire
anywhere - all the ground structure is ground mounted, with overlapping
wires literally all over the place. And despite that, the do seem to
work more or less OK, as far as I can tell.

I guess my thinking is list this... All those radial wires are laying
out on the ground. So they are at least connected at some point, at a
DC level, assuming your talking about something conventional like a 4SQ.

Of course, we are talking about AC here, so I will agree that maybe the
conditions could exist where - with just the right configuration between
the two radials - that some larger than expected voltage differential
may be present. Given how low Q a 4SQ is, how current is split between
multiple elements, my gut feeling is that the excitation voltages are
pretty mild even if you have your 1500W source right there at the 4SQ
input.

And on top of that, the wires are laying on the ground, right? The
radials are in more or less intimate contact with the ground, so I would
expect there to exist leakage resistance between adjacent conductors (if
they are bare). And if they are perfectly insulated, this being AC,
that means there is going to be some amount of cap coupling between
adjacent wires and to the ground. With all of that R spread out all
over the field, I would certainly think this conspires to work against
the probability that any two optimally aligned individual crossing
conductors would provide a condition sufficient to support an arc, and
that if so, it would survive long enough to cause a fire.

It's very very very dry here in the summer and again in the winter. So
fire risk is something we keep a real close eye on. Then again, out here
in the Midwest some of us do a lot of IL-advised things because they
seem to work and of course because laziness is a BIG part of the
calculation. ha ha. Maybe we have been taking a walk on the wild side
without realizing it. Hope not because I sure don't want to go try to
rectify this poor decision 3 years post installation! Say it ain't so!

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


On 11/6/20 10:59 PM, donov...@erols.com wrote:

Always beware of any communication that begins "with all due respect"

- Original Message -

From: "Wes" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 4:49:23 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: OT - Bonding Radials at Intersections

With all due respect, I must ask, how many megawatts are you guys running?

Wes N7WS


On 11/6/2020 3:26 PM, donov...@erols.com wrote:

Hi Carl,


If the insulation breaks down they will arc, potentially causing a fire


73
Frank
W3LPL

On 11/6/2020 4:27 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

On 11/6/2020 1:10 PM, Carl Clawson wrote:

Frank,

“Must” is a strong word. What goes wrong if you cross them?

73, Carl WS7L


Also, if insulated wires are used for radials that cross
over each other, is that to be treated differently th

Re: Topband: OT - Bonding Radials at Intersections

[Jeff Blaine]

I of course defer to Frank's expertise here.  But after thinking about 
this for a couple of hours, I'm trying to wrap my head around this arc 
risk concept as well.  It's interesting and I toss this comment out 
because my two sets of 4sq don't have a single cross-bonded wire 
anywhere - all the ground structure is ground mounted, with overlapping 
wires literally all over the place.  And despite that, the do seem to 
work more or less OK, as far as I can tell.


I guess my thinking is list this...  All those radial wires are laying 
out on the ground.  So they are at least connected at some point, at a 
DC level, assuming your talking about something conventional like a 4SQ.


Of course, we are talking about AC here, so I will agree that maybe the 
conditions could exist where - with just the right configuration between 
the two radials - that some larger than expected voltage differential 
may be present.  Given how low Q a 4SQ is, how current is split between 
multiple elements, my gut feeling is that the excitation voltages are 
pretty mild even if you have your 1500W source right there at the 4SQ 
input.


And on top of that, the wires are laying on the ground, right? The 
radials are in more or less intimate contact with the ground, so I would 
expect there to exist leakage resistance between adjacent conductors (if 
they are bare).  And if they are perfectly insulated, this being AC, 
that means there is going to be some amount of cap coupling between 
adjacent wires and to the ground. With all of that R spread out all 
over the field, I would certainly think this conspires to work against 
the probability that any two optimally aligned individual crossing 
conductors would provide a condition sufficient to support an arc, and 
that if so, it would survive long enough to cause a fire.


It's very very very dry here in the summer and again in the winter.  So 
fire risk is something we keep a real close eye on. Then again, out here 
in the Midwest some of us do a lot of IL-advised things because they 
seem to work and of course because laziness is a BIG part of the 
calculation.  ha ha.  Maybe we have been taking a walk on the wild side 
without realizing it.  Hope not because I sure don't want to go try to 
rectify this poor decision 3 years post installation!  Say it ain't so!


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


On 11/6/20 10:59 PM, donov...@erols.com wrote:

Always beware of any communication that begins "with all due respect"

- Original Message -

From: "Wes" 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 4:49:23 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: OT - Bonding Radials at Intersections

With all due respect, I must ask, how many megawatts are you guys running?

Wes N7WS


On 11/6/2020 3:26 PM, donov...@erols.com wrote:

Hi Carl,


If the insulation breaks down they will arc, potentially causing a fire


73
Frank
W3LPL

On 11/6/2020 4:27 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

On 11/6/2020 1:10 PM, Carl Clawson wrote:

Frank,

“Must” is a strong word. What goes wrong if you cross them?

73, Carl WS7L


Also, if insulated wires are used for radials that cross
over each other, is that to be treated differently than bare
metal wires that cross over each other and touch
so as to have electrical connectivity?

Does it matter if cross over radials are soldered at the
crossovers, so as to prevent parasitic "diodes".

For whatever weird reason, the price of insulated wire is
nearly always lower than the equivalent bare wire. And
Romex sells for less than the equivalent individual wires.

Rick N6RK
_
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: Shunt Fed Tower SWR Troubles

[Jeff Blaine]

Had the same issue as you Lloyd here - in a prior antenna matching net.  
On 160 it would start to drift after calling CQ a few times.  I did not 
flip to vac caps.  But instead ended up using lower valued, paralleled 
doorknobs, so that the current was shared among multiple paralleled caps 
and as a result the drift was much less from what I assume was a larger 
surface area to dissipate whatever heat there was.  Could have been a 
lousy initial cap as well.  Hard to say.


But if the op has fixed pads in there, this is definitely a place to look.

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


On 8/27/20 2:23 PM, Lloyd - N9LB wrote:

Hello Dale,

I had this same problem.
In my case I discovered that it was the "Doorknob" capacitors heating up and
changing value.
I had installed some fixed value doorknobs to "pad" the variable cap in the
matching circuit.
Changed to Vacuum Caps, no more problems.

73

Lloyd - N9LB


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces+lloydberg=tds@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Dale Drake
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:06 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Shunt Fed Tower SWR Troubles

Here's my problem. I'm experiencing SWR problems
with 160M shunt feed on my tower.  Using a gamma
match with HV air variable caps I am able adjust
the tap point to get a very nice SWR curve using
my AA-35 Zoom analyzer.  The problem I having is
that when transmitting the SWR goes up with power
and if I key-down for very long the SWR rises
rapidly and takes off.

My set up is 70ft Rohn 25 with about 22 feet of
mast above the top of the tower.  At the top of
the mast is a Diamond 2M/440 vertical.  At 15 feet
above the tower top is an XM-240 and 2 feet above
the tower top is a 4el SteppIR.  The elements of
the SteppIR are fully retracted.  All of the coax
and control lines are run from ground level inside
the tower up to the service loop. On the mast
above the tower the coax is tywrapped to the mast.
There are 60 ground radials with an average length
of 90ft.  The reflector of the XM-240 is insulated
from the boom and the driven element is fed
through a Comtek 1:1 balun. All of the coax
shields are grounded at the tower base.

I have an 80M gamma matched shunt on this tower
that plays FB with no weird SWR stuff going on.

I suspect that what is causing my 160M trouble is
that RF is coupling through the 40M coax, through
the balun and into the driven element. Somehow the
coupling changes with power, which I don't
understand.  I suspect that when I key-down and
the SWR takes off, the core in the balun is
getting hot and the magnetic properties are
shifting until it cools off and returns to normal.

My plan to try to correct this problem is to
connect the center of the XM-240 reflector to the
boom and to mount a box at the XM-240 feed point
with 2 vacuum relays that I will use to connect
the driven element to the boom when I'm on160.
This will be a considerable effort and expense so
I'm looking for the group's input as to the
soundness of my plan or if there may be other
approaches that would be less difficult to try
first.

Thanks,

Dale, AA1QD

_
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: BCB Filter - final selection

[Jeff Blaine]

I don't know about the price end of it.  But Jim's comment about the 
alignment is true.


I fiddled around with some designs and then K8ZOA managed to talk me 
into back into the land of sanity.  Jack cooked up a version of his 
filter which put one of the notches on the head of our local BC station 
(I think it was on 1670).   I was -60dBc there and -1 dBc at 1.80.  
Unbelievable.  Then again, Jack was the master.


Still you don't need to spend much time in front of a VNA to appreciate 
the labor that can go into tweaking of some of these filters.


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


On 4/17/20 7:01 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

On 4/17/2020 4:19 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

> $180 for a receiver filter?   That's absurd !

That depends on the design criteria. I don't know how it is in your 
part of the world, but folks here who design and build stuff like to 
get paid a living wage. A filter that passes 160M but strongly 
attenuates 1710 kHz (sidebands of 1700 kHz) is not a simple one. It 
requires a very good design and precision components, careful 
manufacturing, and precision alignment.


(By the way, if you now have stations broadcasting between 1.6 and 
1.7 MHz,

how does anyone pick them up?  I don't know any broadcast radios that go
above 1.6 !)


This is one of those frequency allocations that varies by region. In 
NA, the AM band, stations are assigned carrier frequencies from 540 to 
1700 kHz, and radios sold here are programmed for that coverage. This 
allocation has been in effect for several decades. By contrast, we 
have no LF broadcasting.


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

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

Re: Topband: RG-6 Delay cables

[Jeff Blaine]

Great job Lee

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


On 4/8/20 4:11 PM, Lee STRAHAN wrote:

Robin WA6CDR mentioned this to me in an earlier exchange this AM. It was not 
me. Should have mentioned that before. Sorry Robin, You the Man!
Lee   K7TJR

-Original Message-
From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 2:00 PM
To: Lee STRAHAN ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: RG-6 Delay cables



On 4/8/2020 1:28 PM, Lee STRAHAN wrote:


 Even if the copper center conductor expands, the way the cable connectors 
are made allows the copper to simply push in the connector  past the connection 
point maintaining its physical length.

Very astute.  You may have explained this paradox.
I didn't think of this type F effect.  Some type N connectors also work this 
way.

73
Rick N6RK

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

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L with elevated radials for topband

[Jeff Blaine]

When it comes to elevated radials, the amount of guys who have strong 
opinions on the subject are many - and unfortunately the amount of 
objective data behind those strong opinions is generally not existent.  
On the other hand, the N6LF work is one of the few well documented 
objective works available.


You won't go wrong drawing your radial design based on the N6LF graphs.  
As far as the performance and feedpoint question goes, build the best 
ground you can and then cook up the match network based on the measured 
values.


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


On 3/5/20 5:43 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:

comments in line

On 3/5/2020 10:02, Gabriel - EA6VQ via Topband wrote:
I have some doubts about installing and inverted L with elevated 
radials for

160m.  I have been searching in Google and find some contradictory
information, so I would appreciate very much if you can help me with 
your

own experience.

As noted by others, N6LF has a wealth of modeled and measured data on 
elevated radials.    antennasbyn6lf.com




The antenna would be supported by a 16 m (52.5 ft) high fiberglass pole
placed on top of a 3m (10 ft) high small tower with the horizontal 
part of
the L slopping down to a 5 m (16 ft) high mast about 23 m (75 ft) 
away.  Two
to four tuned elevated radials can be placed, although they will have 
to be

bent due to space restrictions.


By "tuned" do you mean resonant 130ft +/-?  Again N6LF has data for 2 
to 16 elevated radials, and with more they can be shorter.
Also see his paper in Antenna Compendium 8 re inductively loading for 
shorter radials.  I had only 2 75ft radials on a 52' mast.


Now the doubts:


What impedance can I expect at the feed point with this configuration?

Having the radials as high as possible will minimize ground losses and 
decease Z.  With 2x at 10ft plan on 25 to 30 ohms.


How to match it in order to feed it with a 50 ohm cable?  Some pages say
that no match is required, only a choke. Other pages say a hairpin is
necessary as the impedance can be too low. So other say that a tuner 
at the

base is required?    I am confused L


SWR losses on 160 are so low that a 2:1 doesn't cost many db's. Too 
keep your amplifier happier I use a 50::25 ohm transmission line 
transformer.  make it or buy it.


A good choke is a must.  Make the K9YC 4" #31 choke.



What performance for DX can be achieved by this antenna?  Is it 
really good
or do you have some better suggestion for a really small lot where no 
ground

radials are possible?

You won't do better with anything else.  More radials will improve it 
slightly.


Would it be worth to use a higher fiberglass pole, let's say 4 m (13 ft)
higher, in order to lengthen the vertical section of the L? Would the
difference be noticeable?



The taller the better but probably less than 1 db gain.



Anyone has real experience setting up this antenna with elevated 
radials?

Most information I can find on Internet is related to ground mounted
antennas.


Read all of what Rudy N6LF says, and you will be an expert.

Grant KZ1W





Thanks in advance!


73. Gabriel - EA6VQ


_
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

Topband: spark gap construction ideas for 160m tower

[Jeff Blaine]

I need to add a spark gap of some sort onto my full-size 160m 
insulated-base tower.  Looking for ideas.


Making the spark gap is simple.  What has me asking for ideas is the 
weather element - we have a lot of snow, ice, rain here and a spark gap 
needs to keep that stuff off.  But put a little cover over it, right?  
Well, yes but if the cover is not fully enclosed, then you have wasps 
and spiders making nests there.  If it's enclosed, then you have 
condensation and ants.


I like the idea of W8JI's two balls close to each other - the surface 
area is large so accumulated pitting won't change the spacing and thus 
the BDV much.  And the water will drain off away from the contact 
points.  But what does a guy make that out of if he does not have a set 
of brass balls in his junkbox.


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


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

Topband: Supplemental ground rod installation for existing 160m tower

[Jeff Blaine]

I have a full size vertical built from 25G running against about 80 1/4 
WL radials - #18 insulated wire sewn into the ground an inch or two 
below ground.  There is a single ground rod next to the base but no 
other ground rods on this tower.


We had a lot of lightning here last week and the tower took a hit which 
popped a wire off the matching net.  I am going to put a spark gap of 
some sort on that tower to help address that but it's got me wondering 
if I should also add in a set of ground rod.


The other towers on the site have extensive ground rod structures.  The 
nearest tower to the 160m, for example, has 27 rods mounted along 9 bus 
runs.


If rods are needed, does the existing ground radial screen offer me a 
discount on what is needed?    I'm assuming that the existing radial 
field would provide some level of ground coupling for lightning and to 
get an equivalent level compared to the other tower.  Meaning somewhat 
less than 27 rods - when combined with the existing 80 1/4WL radial 
field - would be functionally the same as the other tower has.


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


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L - newbie questions

[Jeff Blaine]

An inverted L without radials is a random length wire and the 
measurements are of no meaning until there is a ground system to make up 
the other half of the antenna.


But to Wes point, the 259 and big 160m antennas is a recipe for going 
nuts.  You don't even need a high powered BC station - even a low 
powered station a pretty far distance away can cause the 259 to give 
results in error.  A VNA or something like the Rig Expert are FAR more 
robust in this application.


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


On 8/21/19 12:04 AM, Wes wrote:

How many high-powered BC stations do you have around?

Wes  N7WS

On 8/21/2019 8:55 AM, N4ZR wrote:
I just put up an inverted L, with a vertical length of about 60 feet, 
and a total of 135 feet.  It is fed through 16 turns of RG-400 on a 
ferrite core at the base. There are, as yet, no radials.


Because I was impatient to see what was going on, I grounded the 
shield to a single copper-plated ground rod and connected my MFJ259B. 
I expected a high R value, and I got one - 112-122 ohms. But 
surprisingly (to me), lowest SWR was at 2.070 MHz, and X remained at 
zero over quite a wide range - all the way down to about 1.7 MHz.


Is this all to be expected?  I plan to put down at least minimum 
radials in the next few days, and would expect the R value to drop as 
I do so. Am I off-base?




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

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

Re: Topband: 160

[Jeff Blaine]

This makes complete sense to me.  You are right - FTx is a different 
beastie and compared with RTTY, the latter takes a ton more HUMAN work 
to bag the week ones.


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


On 8/2/19 7:06 PM, GEORGE WALLNER wrote:

Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down.
Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new 
category! FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills 
need for FT-x are different from those required for the traditional 
modes. A new award category would reflect that.

I would go further, but I don't think too far:
FT-x could be crucial to HAM radio's future. On a recent mini 
DXpedition I asked a young and recently licensed HAM to operate FT-8. 
He said, sure, give me a minute. He brought his laptop (not the one 
that was part of the FT-8 station) and proceeded to operate FT-8, 
while using his laptop to watch a movie and was looking at Facebook, 
and he was in chats with friends (and HAM-s) on his phone. I was 
somewhat peeved, until I came to realize that this is how the new 
generation lives: multi-threading using their electronic devices. 
Unlike us, most of them are not willing to put on the head-phones and 
concentrate on weak CW signals for hours, to the exclusion of 
everything else. They don't live like that and they will not enjoy a 
hobby like that. It is not my place to judge whether this is good or 
bad. It is what it is. But to attract this new "multi-activity 
generation" to HAM radio (an entire generation, not just the odd kid), 
the hobby must offer a mode that is compatible with how they live. 
FT-8 is perfect for that: it can be operated remotely from a 
smart-phone via an app, while riding a bus or train and doing other 
things... And, yes, it can be automated.
There will be nothing wrong with a young HAM working 100 countries in 
a month while not even at his station. Good for him! Just don't mix 
his achievement with mine. (Is RTTY really a digital mode? It seems to 
be very analog these days.)

73,
George,
AA7JV





On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:05:23 -0500
 Cecil  wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Cecil  wrote:

This is nonsense


That is only possible if someone has modified the software and is 
cheating the system...which I might add could be done with computers 
and creative software writing to any of the digital modes including 
CW


That is cheating and not grounds for disallowance from total DXCC 
participation for all users.


Certainly I can do that for one QSO if I need to run to the bathroom 
or grab a quick cup of coffee etcbut if you believe for a second 
that the FT8 software is designed to crank it up, walk away for a 
couple hours and come back later to tally up your take as you 
describe you are showing your lack of knowledge of WSJT’s design.


Am I suggesting that some are not doing that...no...not for a 
minute.  Would I suggest that all DXers are running no more than the 
legal limit when chasing a new one or no more than 200 watts on 30 
meters, or not using a remote station element to gain an unfair 
advantage to add a new one...nope.

But it is happening...

Should we shut down the entire awards system because the possibility 
exists that someone will cheat...I think not.


I for one think you should rethink your article before submission 
Alan...


Respectfully

Cecil
K5DL
On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger  
wrote:


. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, 
and come back after some other activity and see how many new 
countries and QSOs that the computer made, 


_
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: RFI on TB

[Jeff Blaine]

Around here, lightning arrestors on these power cables are the prime 
candidate.  I have exactly the same issue here and every couple years 
have to go track down one that has started making racket over the summer 
storm season.  The noise is in-band and you can't filter it generally 
speaking.  The good news is if your experience is similar to mine, the 
power company will be able to fix your noise maker and the difference is 
almost literally night and day.


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


On 7/22/19 7:33 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 7/22/2019 3:59 PM, 57jndenn...@comcast.net wrote:


I am uncertain this will cure problem, My TB and yagi coax shields are
showing a noise signature on his analyzer.

This was a shock as both coax cables have commercial bead type choke 
baluns.



Jim K7EG


I'm not shocked.
Bead type choke baluns are rarely effective on 160 meters.
Refer to K9YC's handbook (or read his prolific posts to this
reflector) to learn how to make effective chokes using large
toroids as opposed to beads.

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



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

Re: Topband: Voltage at top of vertical and scaling?

[Jeff Blaine]

I used a W1W relay at the top of mine for years without incident.

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

On 4/16/19 7:22 PM, Jim Miller wrote:

Thanks all for your help on this. It sounds like my 15Kv relay at 53ft on
the 68ft vertical is safe. It's never hot switched and provides connection
to a 160 "tail" to give me my inverted L there. Best I can do on my limited
size, no tree property.

73

jim ab3cv

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 7:52 PM HP  wrote:


Just for grins - did a EZNEC free space - perfect ground - with  80 m
vertical of #12 wire resonant at 3.55 mhz
then put another #12 quarter wave resonant wire at right angles to the top
thru 1 megohm -1500 watts in to the vert
(says its 36.42 + j 0 at source ) says there is 3042 volts at angle -92.56
deg across the 1 meg resistor .

If go to 10 megs it says 3051 at -93.6 deg and base goes to 36.23 +J 0.02

at 10K  its says 1245 v at -29.7 deg and base goes to 41.62 + J 8.2

FWIW and grins --

Hank K7HP

- On Apr 16, 2019, at 6:38 AM, Jim Miller  wrote:

Is there any data on what the voltage might be at the top of a full size
80m vertical at 1500w input?

Is there some zener like ionization at the top that limits the voltage?

If so is there a way to estimate the voltage at lower points along the
vertical? I assume the scaling wouldn't be linear since starting at the
bottom on 36 ohms (sorta) and going to "infinity" at the top would preclude
that.

Thanks

jim ab3cv
_
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: Voltage at top of vertical and scaling?

[Jeff Blaine]

Is this an intellectual exercise or Jim do you want to do something at 
the top of this vert - like hang a vac relay there to engage some 160m 
top hat cap loading wires?


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

On 4/16/19 6:52 PM, HP wrote:

Just for grins - did a EZNEC free space - perfect ground - with 80 m vertical 
of #12 wire resonant at 3.55 mhz
then put another #12 quarter wave resonant wire at right angles to the top thru 
1 megohm -1500 watts in to the vert
(says its 36.42 + j 0 at source ) says there is 3042 volts at angle -92.56 deg 
across the 1 meg resistor .

If go to 10 megs it says 3051 at -93.6 deg and base goes to 36.23 +J 0.02

at 10K its says 1245 v at -29.7 deg and base goes to 41.62 + J 8.2

FWIW and grins --

Hank K7HP

- On Apr 16, 2019, at 6:38 AM, Jim Miller  wrote:

| Is there any data on what the voltage might be at the top of a full size
| 80m vertical at 1500w input?

| Is there some zener like ionization at the top that limits the voltage?

| If so is there a way to estimate the voltage at lower points along the
| vertical? I assume the scaling wouldn't be linear since starting at the
| bottom on 36 ohms (sorta) and going to "infinity" at the top would preclude
| that.

| Thanks

| jim ab3cv
| _
| 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: V84SAA SR report 15 Feb - ANd final schedules of operation

[Jeff Blaine]

Brad what bearing were you pointing too?

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

On 15-Feb-19 3:41 PM, Brad Denison wrote:

I'll have to second VE9AA - signals in to southern NH on the 8 element
array and beverage were phenomenal.  At one point I was questioning whether
or not I was listening to a pirate. Midway between 2208z and 2239z I needed
to turn down my AF gain.  I was not sure whether to laugh or cry, however,
as propagation was definitely seeming one sided.  No QSO but great fun
nevertheless on TB.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FZqEZQRTe3Bz0nNTMQZN11ro55p92l4X

Brad, W1NT
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: 4 SQ To The Ground

[Jeff Blaine]

Got tired of the maintenance.   It was about 3-5' and was a pain in the 
neck for mowing.  Plus keeping tension on the lines etc was a hassle.


With a 4sq, you pay in the end.  If it's elevated radials, then you pay 
over time.   If it's in-ground, you pay up front with the radial field 
install but then there is minimal maintenance over time.  But either 
way, you pay to play.


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

On 04-Feb-19 9:01 AM, Joe wrote:

Hi Jeff,

You say,,

"I put down 5/8" CATV when I moved the 40m 4sq back down to the ground -"

It sounds like you had an elevated 4 sq, that you went back to the ground.

Can I ask why you went back to the ground?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com


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

Re: Topband: When is coax 'contaminated' beyond use?

[Jeff Blaine]

The last version of my elevated 40m 4-square (~2016-7?) was built with 
belden stuff that had the black coating all along the length.  I buffed 
it up and used crimp connectors.  Worked great.


My reasoning was that while the contamination was going to affect some 
of the cross connects of the braid and thus bump the cable inductance, 
1) it was 40m - not UHF, 2) not every contact point of every strand 
would be turned insulative in the worst case, 3) even the contaminated 
parts were probably not really that insulative and 4) it was a lot 
better quality coax than the really miserable, really pathetic, really 
terrible RG11-ish stuff I was replacing.


I put down 5/8" CATV when I moved the 40m 4sq back down to the ground - 
but a guy has got to use what he has in hand.  And my guess is that for 
the dump power port on a 4SQ, the contamination is just about the last 
thing on the list to worry about.  After all, in the nominal case a 4SQ 
puts little power through the dump resistor so the quality of the line 
is a minimal impact.  And if you are dumping a bunch of power into it, 
you are probably working far from the sweet spot of the array anyway so 
the general performance is getting whacked by being far from the design 
frequency anyway so why worry.


If it were me, I would run it on the dump port and put that fancy LMR in 
some application that would matter.


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

On 03-Feb-19 11:54 PM, terry burge wrote:

Hi Bob,

The issue I'm faced with is I have 168' to the base of my tower. The Comtek 
4-square box is another 64' up the tower. To get to the wattmeter just outside 
my shack window is perhaps 15-20 more feet. All told, perhaps 252'. In the 
process of getting the wattmeter where I could read it while checking the dump 
power I had to use my expensive LMR-400 for part of this. Now I've cut that 
down to just one 110' piece but I've got other things to do with the good coax. 
So I found an unused chunk of 9913 and just installed one of my 'new' screw 
down PL-259 connectors on it. It ohms out fine and I figure once installed my 
dump power reading should be pretty close to the same as they were. If there is 
a big drop I'll know the 9913 is 'unusable' but that is simpler than moving the 
wattmeter from place to place to see how the loss changes.

I've already recoved one of my two 110' pieces of LMR-400 by buying 125' of 
RG8X from my favorite ebay source (sage maidens) but it turned out to not quite 
be long enough. Hence, the need for another piece of coax. (gee, don't I get 
long winded in my explanations).
But I'm wanting to get back the other 110' LMR-400 which is waisted in this 
application. So I'm going to try this. I've always wondered just how bad the 
9913 really was looking 'black' as it does.

Since having this contaminated 9913/9913 Flex problem I've not bought another 
piece of it. But old coax should be good for something...maybe.

Terry
KI7M


On February 3, 2019 at 9:29 PM "Chortek, Robert L." 
 wrote:


Hi Terry,

It seems to me that it ought to be fine to use the coax.   The fact the coax 
has more loss than non-contaminated coax shouldn’t matter, since the whole 
point is to dump the wattage as part of the 4 Sq. System.  Using lower loss 
Coax would only mean more power would get to the dummy load where it would all 
be dissipated anyway.  Total loss should be the same.  To my way of thinking it 
should not matter UNLESS the contamination is such that coax acts as an open 
circuit.

Others may disagree, but it seems logical to me.  OTOH, if it were me, and I 
was only using a very short length, I would spend a couple of extra bucks and 
use good quality components throughout my system.

73,

Bob AA6VB

Sent from my iPhone


On Feb 3, 2019, at 7:55 PM, terry burge  wrote:

Hi Folks,


A few years back some 9913 I was using apparently got water in the coax. I say 
this because of fluctuating SWR issues and I noted the shield when cut into was 
almost 'black'. So for my minor purpose of using spare coax for my dump power 
on an 80 meter 4-square can some of this coax be used? When I scrap the shield 
after exposing it with a knife will reveal the shinny copper again so is that 
sufficient to use some for reading dump power on my wattmeter at the shack? 
Seems if I try and get readings like what I had with the LMR-400 then it could 
be used. Coax is so expensive these days I want to use my valuable LMR-400 
elsewhere if possible. And having a convenient way of reading dump power is of 
course important too.


Terry

KI7M

_
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: FT8 vs other modes - my numbers

[Jeff Blaine]

Tim, My take on the popularity is explained this way.  FT8 has an SNR 
advantage over CW of around 5 dB, PSK31 - about 10 dB and SSB of more 
than 15 dB.  So for a given set of link conditions, FT8 result in a Q in 
the log more often than the other modes.


Add in the poor prop conditions and lousy antenna situations and you 
have a handy way to up the odds of a DX contact for the average Joe 
Ham.  And the average Joe Ham on FT8 (my guess) is more likely a SSB op 
where the compare is more impressive than the CW-VS FT8 meaning that 
coming from SSB, FT8 gives a pretty big relative improvement in working 
the weak ones.


I think FT8 is like any other mode - it's got it's areas of merit and 
it's areas of difficulty.  FT8 brings a nice low SNR capability, the 
occupied BW is tiny and the software minimizes required operator skill.  
On the other hand, the conversation contents and pace is 100% scripted.  
Like classic modes RTTY, AM, SSB & CW, FT8 has it's place.  FT8 is a 
great knife to bring to a knife fight.  But it's not the be all, end all 
of modes. [Pactor 4 is, of course.  ha ha.]


See you in the RTTY WPX next weekend.

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

On 03-Feb-19 9:05 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Mike, you are buying into a myth that both supporters and detractors of FT8
perpetuate. The myth that FT8 is superior for DX'ing, to other modes.

2018 was my "year of FT8". I participated in several on-air WSJT new
feature tests including DXpedition mode testing. I spent the vast majority
of my on-air hours, outside of contests, on FT8. I CQ'd a lot on FT8 and
also chased DX on FT8.

You ask: " Productive in what way?  To work new ones? ". I specifically
checked by 2018 log statistics for new band slots. I worked 4 new band
slots on 160M in 2018 - zero on FT8. I worked 13 new ones on 80M in 2018 -
none on FT8. I worked 5 new ones on 40M in 2018 - none on FT8. And so on.

You also ask: "How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not or
could not work on any other mode." My answer: I worked 4 ATNO's in 2018.
None did I need FT8 to confirm.

Now, I did work 13 of DXpeditions in 2018 for new digital mode DXCC credit
in 2018. If I look at these stats, 8 of them I worked on RTTY, and 5 I
worked on FT8. But the ones I worked on FT8 completely neglected RTTY -
they never did any RTTY at all or made only a handful of RTTY Q's. I'm sure
I could've completed a RTTY QSO with any of those 5 if they had made an
effort on RTTY.

No matter how I slice it or dice it, FT8 is not a superior mode. Both the
detractors and supporters of FT8 are suffering from the myth that FT8 makes
DX'ing easier. It does not. I tried hard to max out FT8 using any
quantitative measure in 2018 - just look at the number of hours I invested
- and FT8 came up short in every single measure, including the
hard-DX-oriented measures you propose.

Tim N3QE


On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 2:28 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:


FT8 was not created to be a rate mode.  It is a weak signal mode.  For
those of us a long way from the East Coast and salt it allows us to work
stations that we probably had very little shot of working without FT8.

Productive in what way?  To work new ones?  Check!DXing is not
necessarily about rate, I thought that is what contests were for.

How many countries did you work on FT8 that you did not  or could not
work on any other mode.  That would be my definition of productive.

Productive to me is working new ones with the least amount of time
expended.

W0MU

On 2/1/2019 9:12 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

There are some untrue things being assumed here, as if they are

advantages

to FT8 that make FT8 be a more productive mode for DX'ing.

In fact FT8 is the least productive of all modes I used in 2018. And I

was

on FT8 a lot in 2018. I tried hard to be productive in FT8 - measured in
Q's per hour, or DXCC , or any other quantitative measure. And FT8 was

far

and away the least productive mode for me.

You will note I am no stranger to digital modes - I am often in top 3 of

CQ

WW RTTY in USA SO HP(A). So please take for granted that I am competent

at

digital modes and my poor FT8 results are not because I'm a poor digital
mode operator.

In below calculations I use "half hour off time" calculations, in
calculating on time for each mode. "Half hour off time" calculations are
super commonly done in contests.

In 2018 I was on CW for 481 hours. I made 32610 QSO's for a rate of 68

per

hour and worked 185 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on SSB for 107 hours. I made 7344 QSO's for a rate of 69

per

hour and worked 104 DXCC.

In 2018 I was on RTTY for 250 hours. I made 13319 QSO's for a rate of 53
per hour and worked 117 DXCC's.

In 2018 I was on FT8 for 376 hours. I made 6460 QSO's for a rate of 17

per

hour and worked 110 DXCC's.

BY ANY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, FT8 was my least productive mode by far.

I DO NOT HAVE A SUPERSTATION. In fact I just have a single wire antenna.
But I have worked hard on developing my 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

[Jeff Blaine]

Disconnect the other antenna.  Let it float.

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

On 23-Jan-19 6:02 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

Okay, after many requests, on and off list, I disconnected the 43' T 160m
antenna at its feed point and for good measure I disconnected the coax
feedline from the system too.

It made a pretty substantial difference in the measurements. The 1.5 SWR
range is now only about 35 kHz wide but the 2.0 SWR range is still 100 kHz
which is probably still too wide.

Freq  SWR  RX Z
1800 1.9 31.8  -18.6 36.8
1810 1.7 32.5  -14.1 35.4
1820 1.6 33.3  -9.6  34.7
1830 1.5 33.9  -5.3  34.3
1840 1.45 34.6  -0.7  34.6
1850 1.43 35.5  3.9  35.7
1860 1.47 36.1  9.0  37.2
1870 1.6 37.0  13.9  39.5
1880 1.7 37.8  18.9  42.3
1890 1.8 38.8  24.0  45.6
1900 2 39.9  29.5  49.6
1910 2.2 41.1  34.5  53.7
1920 2.4 42.6  40.5  58.8
1940 2.8 44.7  51.4  68.1
1960 3.4 47.6  63.0  78.9

I'll test it on the air tonight (using FT-8 and the RBN) with the 43'
antenna disconnected. Perhaps it will be better? The numbers look better,
right?

Should I ground the 43' antenna instead of leaving it floating?

Thanks guys.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

[Jeff Blaine]

I worked 160m for a few years when living in a townhome.  The antenna 
was a trap loaded attic mounted dipole that ran through holes in the 
ceiling and down the walls to the ground.  Had a lot of 160m contest fun 
with that.  Worked all the devices in the house as well until I was able 
to get enough pounds of ferrite on everything electronic.


So having some kind of outdoor antenna with some kind of ground by 
comparison, you will do just fine.  Don't worry about how you rack up to 
the ideal.  Just do the best you can and get on the air!


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

On 23-Jan-19 3:21 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
Todd, don’t get discouraged and don’t let lot size fool youI'm in 
a subdivision, 80x180 ft lot, with a 50ft tower, hygain hytower for 
75/80m (also works as a second radio antenna), and 2L 40m phased 
array...my inv l is suspended off the top of the towerI never 
modeled it, I just know it works.DXCC on 160 with low 
power.now that I added an amp, I'm up to 140+ worked.the 
secret on 160 is receiving, which really hampers me.forgot the 
modeling for a minute, did you try the reverse beacon thing I 
mentioned a few days ago.that will tell you if you are getting out 
or not.btw, my L is 135 ft (at least it was when it started, I 
lost a few feet due to some weather related issues)..about 50 ft 
vertical, then the rest  mostly horizontal to a tall tree in the 
woods


-Original Message- From: Todd Goins
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 4:09 PM
To: topband@contesting.com ; 
676a8e87-aec6-9ead-1297-0bdb1f0a7...@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

Both Merv and Guy are correct here. Perhaps this antenna doesn't ever
have a chance at being any good due to the suburban area and lot size
that I'm constrained by.

Within a 250ft radius (huge!) there is as follows: 80m dipole, 40m
dipole, 30m dipole, 20m dipole, 15m dipole, 20m yagi, and the original
43' tall T antenna for 160m and its radial system. Also, the house is
easily within 250ft.  Most certainly the radial systems, although not
physically connected to each other, are let's say "mingling".

So perhaps this tall wire was doomed from the outset? I was so
encouraged that the 43' T worked so well for what it was and the small
amount of effort it took to get converted to 160m that maybe a taller
version would be substantially better. That's how this saga started.
Maybe the real answer after time/effort/money expended and all of your
advise is that it isn't going to get any better in my environment?

At this point the best path forward may be to just remove the tall
wire and reroute all of the new radials (over 2000ft) to the original
43' T's radial plate and with any luck make it play better as a
result?

Todd - NR7RR



Way back some where around the original posting did he not say he had
2 160 antennas up and they are close to each other?  a short vertical 
and
this antenna?   If so what is the short vertical doing,  is it 
floating or

grounded or hooked to the ground system yet,  what is its status?
Would make all the difference in the world if the short 160 vertical is
any where around yet.

73 Merv K9FD


* Have to pay attention to everything he is reporting. He added a 
feedpoint

*>* choke per K9YC at the same time. Which may, depending on the physical
*>* connections at his feedpoint, have removed the feedline shield as an
*>* alternate “radial” in parallel with the increasing but still not 
full size

*>* radial system.
*>>* That indicates that his ground characteristics could be well into 
the
*>* “poor” end of the range where ground radial deficiencies are 
multiplied and

*>* emphasized.
*>>* His SWR bandwidth narrowed slightly. Leaving a strong possibility 
that

*>* there was an improvement in desired radiated pattern.
*>>* There remains the question of every conductor in a 250 foot radius,
*>* including a tower? There remains the question of large dielectric 
masses

*>* close by.
*>>* 73, Guy K2AV
*

--
_
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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

[Jeff Blaine]

Todd, get on the contest and rock and roll.  I don't know of anyone on 
160m who has not given their antennas an iterative workout over time.  
Bet you will do just fine.  RX is the tougher nut anyway.  Good luck


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

On 21-Jan-19 7:47 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
did you try transmitting with it, and see if any skimmers pick you up? 
just try sending test de urcall and check the RBN network, see how you 
are getting out


-Original Message- From: Todd Goins
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 8:45 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

Hello,

Per many people's recommendations I added 800ft of radials today. That 
is 8

x 100ft each.  It made a difference on the analyzer which I'll summarize
below. It was dark when I finished but here are a few data points. I 
think

it is better. The wide SWR curve still bothers me but the resistance is
coming up.

This is also using the new K9YC cookbook choke with 18 turns of RG400
around a 2.4" type 31 toroid.

The values are Freq, SWR, R, X, Z

1810  1.43  42.0  -14.5  44.5
1820  1.31  43.2  -10.7  44.5
1830  1.21  44.1  -6.7   44.7
1840  1.13  45.0  -2.5   45.1
1850  1.10  45.9  1.7   45.9
1860  1.14  47.0  5.7  47.3
1870  1.23  48.0  10.1  49.1
1880  1.34  49.1  14.7  51.2

Any thoughts?  The 160 CW contest is only 4 days away, I don't have a lot
more time to make changes but I could run a "few" more radials...

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
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

Re: Topband: VP6D

[Jeff Blaine]

He was easy to work on 160m.  Excellent OP.

But I've worked him now twice on 80m but the Q has not showed up either 
time.  Not sure if there is an 80m log problem, an eager SLIM or just a 
couple of busted calls despite clear copy of my call both times on the 
reply.  If it's a slim, they were definitely south of my QTH in KS based 
on the 8-circle bearing.


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

On 25-Oct-18 4:39 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:

Went looking for them after finishing the 0300Z CWT on 160m. He was
down the band some from where the CWT mob had been. I had seen
somewhere that they were working up 2. Called him once up about 2 and
worked him about 0410Z. Listened for a while. He was working a mix of
EU and USA.

Clearly a fine operator and seemed to be hearing very well on 160.

You can work this guy. Go get him.

By the way, during the last 15 minutes of the CWT, on 160, found
myself being QRM'd by a UW6, who wasn't hearing or calling me, who was
louder than some of the midwest USA stations, who at the time were
bedeviled by long deep QSB. I had to QSY to get away from him so I
could hear weak stations calling me.

This is going to be a very interesting 160m season.

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



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

Re: Topband: antenna analyzers

[Jeff Blaine]

At this location, the VNWA is a bit squirly near the BC band but with a 
single L/C notch added at the device input (within the cal plane), it 
works fine.


The AA-55 Zoom I have is immune and is the my go-to instrument for field 
work.  Recommended.


MFJ-259 is too easily disturbed and is not reliable with any antenna of 
larger physical size.


5KW BC station about 5 miles east of here.

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

On 12-Oct-18 3:35 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
I can vouch for the AA-55 Zoom, although it is not without flaws. I 
live 5.9 miles from a 50KW BC station on 1550 kHz.  On my 160-meter 
inverted-L they are 70 dB over S9 on a calibrated K3, that's 70 dB 
above -73 dBm or -3dBm. As long as I don't sweep through that 
frequency, the analyzer is unfazed.  As an aside, I have yet to find a 
low cost SDR that will stand up to this.  I had to return a RSP2 Pro 
that even with BC band filtering folded up like a cheap suitcase.


My N2PK VNA works fine as does the DG8SAQ VNWA.  I just last night 
finished building a DG5MK designed FA-VA5, which I suspect will do 
okay.  It will run using the VNWA software too.  Good thing, since so 
far, the standalone interface is wanting, but that could be my 
failing.  (It's really tough to run an instrument this powerful with 
just three push buttons)


Note that all of these are vector analyzers.

Wes  N7WS

On 10/12/2018 12:20 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 10/12/2018 12:02 PM, AC0RL via Topband wrote:

I have found that antenna analyzers can get screwed up on long 
antennas if
there are nearby transmitters; AM stations or any other transmitter 
that can
swamp out the input to the analyzer. I live 1/4 mile from a 1kw am 
station
and I cannot use any brand of analyzer on the HF bands. I must use a 
SWR

bridge and a transmitter.

Jerry Kahn
AC0RL


Don't lose hope!

I live 6 miles from a 50 kW BCB station.  Most analyzers are useless.
Then I bought the Rig Expert AA-55 zoom.  All I can say is:  it works
flawlessly at this QTH on a 90 foot top loaded vertical.  Also, the
AA-55 can be protected with a BCB reject filter, which can then be
calibrated out.  If you play that card, I'm sure you will be OK even
at your high QRM QTH.

You can also use an N8LP digital wattmeter which reads out impedance,
not just SWR.  Larry tells me that you have to locate the device's
coupler at the antenna (not in the shack) and the cables between
the coupler and main box cannot exceed 20 feet.  With those caveats,
this is a bulletproof way to make R + jX measurements.

A poor man's retro solution is to build a noise bridge for 160 meters.
AFAIK, no commercially made bridge works on topband.  You can take
a published design for the higher bands and just extrapolate it to
160, by replacing the variable capacitor with a triple 365 pF broadcast
receiver unit.  You might have to increase the amount of ferrite
in the bridge transformer.

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: 160 sloper readings

[Jeff Blaine]

Unless you have no BC stations for 200 miles distant, making 
measurements with an MFJ259 on 160m is going to give you unreliable 
readings.  The overload threshold on that band is extreemly low.


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

On 18-Aug-18 6:10 PM, Gary Smith wrote:

Folks,

I'm starting to get ready for the upcoming
winter frolics on 160. The 160 antenna is
a sloper and I have somewhere around 50 or
so 130' radials pretty much buried under
6-7 years of leaves. When I went to the
remote coax switch & checked the readings
on the sloper with 10' of coax, I found
some readings with the old MFJ-259B that
concerns me.

I thought I'd cut the Sloper at 129' long
for best SWR at 1.825 but I'm now reading
the lowest SWR at 1.737 MHz and the
impedance read 85. Going back to the shack
I read the antenna (with 360' of 7/8 50
ohm commscope now in-between), and the
resistance drops to 55 but the SWR still
reads lowest around 1.737

It appears I need to shorten my antenna,
I'll have to work out the proper length
again but my concern is why at the feed
point would I see 85 for the resistance at
resonance.

Suggestions on what might I give a look to
when I go back out tomorrow?

Thanks & 73,

Gary
KA1J

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



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

Re: Topband: cutting coax stubs for 80 meter 4-square

[Jeff Blaine]

The MFJ259 is a fine box but when you get to 80m with anything near a BC 
it's going to be problems.  In fact I discovered the hard way that even 
up on 20m the box can read funky if your antenna is big enough or high 
enough.  I have a Rig Expert now as well and really love that thing - 
plus it's apparently immune to the local BC stations.  Not quite as 
capable as a VNA but has OSL cal, runs forever on battery and does stuff 
like stub tuning as you are trying here.  Don't think I have used the 
'259 since i bought the RE last fall.


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

On 10-Jun-18 8:59 PM, k...@voyager.net wrote:

Hi All,

I was discussing this thread with a microwave engineer on 75 meters this
morning and he reminded me that I had AM RF in my RX antennas at my
previous QTH.  So much that I used Hi-Pass filters on my beverages and
pennants.

Terry,  Do you have an AM radio station near by that could be messing with
your instruments?

Just a thought.  GL,

de George,  K8GG




Hi guys and gals,


Well, to make a long story short my Rig Experts AA-170 has quite working.
Looks normal but a 56 ohm resistor at the end of the 75 ohm coax reads
infinite. On the MFJ-259b it reads 56 ohms. Check SWR and the MFJ reads
7.499.2 Mhz 1.1:1 SWR R=56/57 ohms X=0. Coax is 55' 4 3/8" long when I got
very near 7500 KHz. With the shorted coax the MFJ-259b read 7.484.2 to
7.523 Mhz, 20.2 SWR, R=2 ohms, X=0. Seems like the velocity factor is
considerably higher than what was stated to me by DX Eng.. The velocity
factor is some where around 0.84401... as best I can figure it. So I guess
that makes it 0.84 VF FWIW.


Anyway, I have it figured that 55' 4 3/8" will do the trick for my 80
meter 4-Square at 3.750 Mhz.

But why my RE analyzer went out today I don't have any idea. Back to the
MFJ!


Terry

KI7M



On June 9, 2018 at 6:59 PM terry burge wrote:


 Good point Wes. I will see if I can find a decent value of resistor.
My Rig Experts AA-170 was purchased because I did not trust the
readings my MFJ-259b was giving me while working on my hytower.
Pretty penny for these antenna analyzers. But I will bet if it won't
do the stub frequency checks it won't do the velocity factor and
more. Did work pretty good for checking SWR and feedpoint impedance
on antennas like the hytower. Really liked it until this.


 Terry

 KI7M

 > > On June 9, 2018 at 5:11 PM Wes Stewart wrote:


 Since he said the coax was 75-ohm, a 75-ohm termination would

be better.


 On 6/9/2018 5:07 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
 > > As a sanity check, terminate the coax with a 50 ohm

resistor and verify

 > > > that you have good coax. Flat line at 1:1 SWR, etc.

 Rick N6RK

 On 6/9/2018 4:57 PM, terry burge wrote:
 > > > I don't know what is wrong here but I keep getting

in this situation where my

 > > > > typing starts running back over my writing.

I will try again to reply.


 Joel,

 I have tried all that the manual says without

success. All I see is the

 horizontal solid and dashed lines of R and X. No

indication of a resonance

 point anywhere from 1880 KHz up to 10,500 KHz. Go

figure? At least my

 mfj-259b is working old as it may be. Rig Experts

is going to get a nasty

 note I think. Disappointing, huh?


 Terry

 KI7M
 > > > > On June 9, 2018 at 2:54 PM Joel Harrison

wrote:

 > > > > > Hi Terry,

 I replaced the 1/4 lines on my 80 meter 4

square this past fall and used

 my AA-170 to set the length with no problem.

 Just select "all" for the mode and set the

freq you're aiming for and then

 trim the line until X equals zero with the

far end open. Should work fine.

 I always calculate the length x VF then add

a few feet to start.

 73 Joel W5ZN > > Hi guys and gals,
 >
 >
 > > > > > I have got DX Engineering 75 ohm

foam coax to make the

 > > > > > > stubs/feeders for

 my Comtek 80 meter 4-Square and am

finding some difficulty.

 Neither my
 MFJ-259B nor my Rig Experts AA-170

seem to indicate a 1/2 WL at

 7500 KHz
 or a 1/4 WL at 3750 KHz? Or any

frequency up or down from there.

 Seems to
 me the last time I did this a few

years ago I didn't have a problem

 getting a 1/2 WL dip indicating a

resonance location. But now I

 just don't
 get any indication of a resonance.


 

Re: Topband: 80/160?

[Jeff Blaine]

Vac relay works great.  Ran one just like that for several years.

Be sure to use serious bypass/choke at the relay and then at the base 
for common mode on the line as the pickup will be huge.


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

On 18-Apr-18 8:21 AM, Jim Miller wrote:

Rather than use a trap at the top of an 80m vertical to transition to a 160
inverted L has anyone tried a vacuum relay or even two in series at 1500w
to handle the highvoltage when on 80m?

Tnx

Jim AB3CV
_
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?"

[Jeff Blaine]

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

Re: Topband: Kostas' point

[Jeff Blaine]

Another fellow pressed me on this.   What I should have said - that 
perhaps is more clear - goes like this.


1. Worry about your own operation --> because you can control it.

2. No point to worry about the other guy --> because you almost 
certainly have no control over it.


3. Point #2 does not in any way detract from what your personal views 
are.  Point #2 is NOT saying anything about the "rightness" of any ham 
operation practice.


If the guy asked me "can i use my web sdr to hear you better?" - Sure, 
I'm going to say "let's do it the old school way."  But they don't 
ask...  And I would be willing to bet they don't advertise either.  I'm 
just going to log the QSO and move on to the next contact.  Point #2 is 
is simply a reflection of my personal belief that time wasted worrying 
about things for which I have no ability to significantly influence is 
wasted time - and the clock is ticking for all of us.


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

On 18-Jan-18 7:46 PM, Dave Heil wrote:
So this is sort of like Olympic doping or other amateur endeavors 
where they keep score?


Dave Heil K8MN


On 18-Jan-18 05:38, Jeff Blaine wrote:
There is no real point of worrying about what the other guy is 
using.  We only can control our personal operation, and really have 
to leave the other end of the Q to manage theirs.


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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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


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

Re: Topband: Kostas' point

[Jeff Blaine]

There is no real point of worrying about what the other guy is using.  
We only can control our personal operation, and really have to leave the 
other end of the Q to manage theirs.


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

On 18-Jan-18 1:24 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
They are so cheap that people would buy their own and have friends 
around the world set them up.  It is probably being done now.  There 
is no way to stop the cheating.   They are individual awards.  Some 
will cheat and most will do it right.  I could work a lot more DX if I 
had a remote receiver in W1 land on 160.   With remote operations 
being acceptable across a vast distance like the USA does it really 
matter?


We have had the DX clusters for years and we still have no 
registration system and still get people cheating on them and posting 
with fake calls etc.


Best of luck making cheaters adhere to more rules.

W0MU


On 1/17/2018 12:32 PM, John Randall via Topband wrote:
Yes, this is part of the issue we all face with the vaidation of 
QSO's and its not going to go away either. As more and more people 
realize whats happening, they are going to question their qso's. At 
the moment there is perhaps only one way to test the qso, and that is 
to see if other stations from the same area  are also coming in a 
approx the same level as the station you worked. Even this may not be 
fool proof for those who chase "the paper trail". Cooperation is 
going to be needed from all SDR party's to try and sort it all out. A 
possible solution if to use an identification system on the 
designated sdr websites, which will prove a qso via that particular 
method. But this too takes two to tango and people working together, 
otherwise the award system may collapse into a meaningless pile on 
the floor.
As newer technology appears, things may get even worse for those 
concerned.Talking about this may bring it into the open via various 
magazines and amateur radio society's.Watch this space...hi

73John - M0ELS
_
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: sdrWEB not going in my log

[Jeff Blaine]

Hi gary,

I thought that was the rule.  But I've not dug into it because I don't 
use the remotes.  So just now I looked and you are 100% right.  Here's 
what the ARRL web page says from Section 1...


*9.  Station Location and Boundary:*

*a)*All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be 
located within the same DXCC entity.
*b)*All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a 
specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
*c)*QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are 
allowed to be used for DXCC credit.


Thanks for setting me straight!

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

On 16-Jan-18 10:30 PM, StellarCAT wrote:

Jeff wrote:
“There is no way to supervise this behavior globally.  .- 
even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast USA remote 
receiver point perfectly acceptable. ...I really can't 
complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within their 
set of choices.  “
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com  This is the second post I’ve seen that states this ... did I miss 
something in the rules for DXCC? It seems like it does NOT allow for a remote 
receiver! It ONLY allows for a remote STATION, see rule 9b. It says, I thought, 
that BOTH RX and TX antennas must be within 500M of each other ... so one that 
chooses to receive on the right coast when they’re on the left (or vice versa) 
ISN’T complying with the rules. I recently heard a station that is often high 
on the CL leaderboard – calling the 6O group in the middle of the day on 40 
meters when it was being spotted only by W6’s. This guy is on the EAST coast 
(LP) ... weird propagation?  personally I would not count such a contact – and 
would like to see the agreed to if not required use of something like a /s in 
the call for SDR RX. This would only apply to those that are using remote RX– 
which would then allow stations to decide on what to do with it. But again 
unless I misread it, and if so my apologies, it doesn’t allow for remote RX for 
DXCC!   Gary K9RX
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: sdrWEB not going in my log

[Jeff Blaine]

There is no way to supervise this behavior globally.  It's ultimately up 
to each op to decide on what falls under ethical conduct.  And opinions 
vary as to what is proper and what's not, even among peoples of a single 
country with similar cultural view.


I personally don't use receivers or antennas that are not located at my 
QTH - even though ARRL DXCC regulations make the use of an east-coast 
USA remote receiver point perfectly acceptable. However that's my choice 
and of course, compared to someone using that sort of arrangement is 
going to have a few more guys in the log that I may never hear which is 
part of the price I pay for the choice I have made.  However if another 
guy wants to take advantage of the rules allowing for a US-based remote 
receiver that is much closer to the other station, I really can't 
complaint because it's allowed explicitly by the rules and it's within 
their set of choices.  The example Peter lists of the webSDR pair is 
certainly possible in the modern world but that kind of QSO is not going 
to go into my log because I've decided that is not my personal sort of 
ham radio QSO.


Each of us has an obligation is to manage our own personal behavior 
within the scope of the official rules - what the rest of the ham world 
does is up to them.  In the end, each ham who looks at a prized QSL from 
a rare one, or who looks at the DXCC plaque on the wall with a count 
higher than their local competition, will know well what decisions they 
have made to get there.  And if they can live with the choices they have 
made, then I'm happy for them.


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

On 16-Jan-18 4:09 PM, Peter Sundberg wrote:

So..

- Station A in North America is calling CQ on 1827.0 and is heard by 
Station B in Europe via a webSDR located 50 km away from Station A in 
North America.


- Station B in Europe is calling Station A - who is listening via a 
webSDR in Europe located 50 km away from Station B


- Both stations exchange 599+ reports and greetings for a fine QSO.

Wow, their signal made it 50 km via the airwaves at both ends and was 
then "carried" across the world via the Internet.


What a wonderful Top Band QSO, carried out "the modern way", embracing 
new technology.


OMG.

73
Peter SM2CEW



At 06:44 2018-01-16, terry burge wrote:
Well I guess I had to find out what all the fuss was about so I went 
on line and tried some of these European webSDR's. Just worked OK2RZ 
and YT1AA. Also heard I5ZSS. Using the SDR it's like shooting fish in 
the barrel. At least when you plug into the right SDR over there. 
They are not going in my log but I did find out it is easy to do. And 
I believe it would get so easy the fascination with working the world 
would be gone for me. It works but the most of what I got out of it 
was how strong the Europeans were 'over there' and how poor my 
reception was here in Oregon. Like nil!



So much for that. But before you think there are only a few of those 
webSDR's, take another think on that. There apparently are dozens, 
maybe hundreds. Don't think they will care what a few of us old Ham 
Radio geeks think.



Terry

KI7M

_
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: AA-55Zoom Review

[Jeff Blaine]

Question regarding the OSL cal function on the unit.

Let's say you do an OSL cal with a length of coax attached just as you 
would with a generic VNA.  For how long is that specific OSL CAL applied?


I mean, does it persist until it's deleted, or until you change 
frequency away from the range covered by the original OSL CAL?  Or until 
it is powered off?  Or what?


Thanks!

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

On 12/12/2017 5:41 PM, Dennis W0JX via Topband wrote:

All:
I have been working on installing a tower detuning circuit on my 80 foot shunt 
fed tower. Of course I found had that the MFJ 259B to be totally inadequate for 
adjusting the detuning circuit because of nearby BC RF on 1520 Khz. Results did 
improve with the insertion of a 1510 Khz trap built for me by KD9SV but results 
were still inconsistent.

I finally decided to buy a Rig Expert but had trouble deciding between the 
AA-55 and the AA-230. The AA-230 covers 2 meters but that is not of great 
interest to me. Another nice feature is the TDR graph function. However, I 
discovered that the AA-55Zoom also has a TDR function but it does require a 
connection to a laptop to use it effectively.

The deciding factor for me was the AA-55 performance on 160 meters. I found a 
review by W9AC who said that the AA-55Zoom is basically bullet-proof on 160 
meters.

I ordered my AA-55 from DX Engineering and had it delivered in one day. I am thrilled 
with the performance. I find that the most useful screen is the one called "All 
Parameters" which shows all important factors. This is extremely useful for putting 
the antenna or circuit right where you want it. There is also a set of cable tools which 
make it very easy to cut quarter-wave or half-wave stubs.

One thing - make sure that you use the "battery saver" function or the 
batteries won't last more than 4 hours.

73, Dennis W0JX
Milan, OH
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: 8 circle: DXE vs Hi-Z

[Jeff Blaine]

Their meaning with respect to gain as unimportant is due to the fact that 
the RX antenna is all about SNR maximization.  A low noise preamp can fix 
overall signal weakness, if your rig's preamps are insufficient.


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

-Original Message- 
From: David Raymond

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:00 AM
To: Don Moman VE6JY ; Topband@Contesting. Com
Subject: Re: Topband: 8 circle: DXE vs Hi-Z

My experience is similar to Don's outlined below.  Both gain and noise
figure are important in very low noise environments.  In my own case, I have
a noise floor from my TX array in the high -120s or -130s assuming a quiet
atmosphere.  A high RDF performance RX array often brings virtually no
improvement.  In my case, since the RX arrays lack gain, they often don't
have the horsepower (gain) to reach down and hear the super low level
signals picked up by the TX array.  Switching from the TX antenna to the
high RDF receive array not only fails to make the signal jump out of the
noise (what noise?) but fails to hear the signal at all.  In these
circumstance both gain and noise figure become very important factors.

73. . .Dave, W0FLS

- Original Message - 
From: Don Moman VE6JY ve6j...@gmail.com

To: Topband@Contesting. Com topband@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 8 circle: DXE vs Hi-Z



Well I disagree that gain isn't important.  Maybe you topbanders in the
better areas of propagation can afford to throw away many db to get a
better rdf, but that sure isn't the case up here in mid-northern VE6 land.
I have numerous receive antennas including many beverages and Wellbrook
loops (large area) and the Hi-Z 4-8PRO 8 element circle.  They all work
more or less as expected on the easy stuff and show reasonable
directivity but when I need help for the weaker dx, there just isn't any
signal there to work with.  The beverages do the best of the bunch, they
aren't anything special - typically in the 700-1100 foot range.  With the
many vertical structures I have there is no doubt their patterns are
somewhat affected but they seem to work fine for Eu and JA bcb dx vs the
loops and the 8 verticals. Not that this has been a good year for much of
anything on the low bands in this area.

The HI-Z was erected quite aways from anything else which involved
bushwhacking and clearing the entire circle, trenching almost 1200 feet of
feedline etc so there was a lot of  sweat work done on that project.  But
on 160 and 80 where I have the tx antennas to use as a comparison, the
specialized rx stuff just doesn't hear the weaker stuff.  And it's not 
that

I have a pristine can hear a pin drop low noise qth, esp on 160 - plenty
of flare stack ingitors plus the usual powerline and smps junk.  It's
especially frustrating to hear all the glowing success stories of these rx
arrays and how they make the dx just jump out of the noise and into your
log...


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


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

Re: Topband: TX relays

[Jeff Blaine]

There is some data on this page:

http://www.w0qe.com/Technical_Topics/small_signal_relays_at_rf.html

I have used the RTD140xx series Schrack/Tyco for years in primarily RTTY 
contesting duty at the KW power level - all without fail.  But I have not 
conducted BDV testing on those relays.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Jim Brown

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:38 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: TX relays

On Thu,10/9/2014 6:46 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
Because there are many things that go into relay selection that do not 
show on a data sheet, I always dissect and test relays.


Thanks for an excellent exposition of the issues. Now how about the
other half of the question -- part numbers for relays that meet the
need? This reflector (and the spirit of ham radio) is about SHARING
information.

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


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

Re: Topband: Hi-Z Antennas Two Element Array Systems 2-LV2-5

[Jeff Blaine]

The Hi-Z buffers have a feedpoint Z around 50K ohms.  So a single 4' ground 
rod provides an adequate round system.  No radials needed.


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

-Original Message- 
From: James Rodenkirch

Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:20 PM
To: Top Band Contesting
Subject: Topband: Hi-Z Antennas Two Element Array Systems 2-LV2-5

Do the two verticals require any type of radial system or can a simple 
array of 4 to 6 20' radials do the job??

72, Jim R. K9JWV
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 


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

Re: Topband: Hi-Z Antennas Two Element Array Systems 2-LV2-5

[Jeff Blaine]

It takes some mental gymnastics to wrap your head around a hi-z feedpoint where 
the radial system is almost negligible vs. a low-z feedpoint (like a typical 30 
ohm range transmit vertical) which is strongly dependent on the radial system.  
I have the hi-z pro4-8 circle array and never thought at gut-level those short 
verticals and 4’ ground rods would work as advertised - but the performance is 
really fantastic.  I guess that’s the march of technology moving the art 
forward.

In addition to 80/160 (intended application) I have found the array very useful 
on 30 and 17m as well.  I have a vertical dipole on 30 for transmit so the 
residual directivity of the circle is a benefit there.  And on 17 it’s as good 
or better than my 3-element monobander.  I suspect the 17m improvement comes 
from the relatively closer location of that beam (near the house) compared to 
the circle (800’ away from anything).

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



From: James Rodenkirch 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:55 PM
To: Jeff Blaine ; Top Band Contesting 
Subject: RE: Topband: Hi-Z Antennas Two Element Array Systems 2-LV2-5


Tnx, Jeff


 From: j...@ac0c.com
 To: rodenkirch_...@msn.com; topband@contesting.com
 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:00 -0600
 Subject: Re: Topband: Hi-Z Antennas Two Element Array Systems 2-LV2-5
 
 The Hi-Z buffers have a feedpoint Z around 50K ohms. So a single 4' ground 
 rod provides an adequate round system. No radials needed.
 
 73/jeff/ac0c
 www.ac0c.com
 alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: James Rodenkirch
 Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:20 PM
 To: Top Band Contesting
 Subject: Topband: Hi-Z Antennas Two Element Array Systems 2-LV2-5
 
 Do the two verticals require any type of radial system or can a simple 
 array of 4 to 6 20' radials do the job??
 72, Jim R. K9JWV
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
 
 _
 Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Steady Carrier on 80 CW

[Jeff Blaine]

S9 in KS @ 2:20 UTC
S/SE on HiZ pro 4-8

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

-Original Message- 
From: Rick Stealey

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:12 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Steady Carrier on 80 CW

Everyone is measuring the 3501.6 signal only, right?
The other ones, if they exist are in the noise for me, central NJ.

I heard the 3501.6 from 10 am till I had to QRT at 3 pm, S3 on a dipole.
It is S8 now,  So maybe I have it 24 hrs a day.

I took my loop outside to my porch and got a bearing on it but not a sharp 
one (multipath?).
And damnit, I can't find my compass right now to give you the number, 
although it probably doesn't help anyway, me being in NJ.  I probably don't 
have enough signal for the loop to hear it during the day.


Rick  K2XT

_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Topband: Dual band shunt-feeding tower on 160/80

[Jeff Blaine]

A buddy of mine has a 100’ 25G tower and wants to run it on both 160/80.  I’m 
thinking a par of shunts will work for that?

If you have done this, I would be interested in your comments on the general 
implementation.  

Thanks!

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

_
Topband Reflector

Topband: elevated 4-square

[Jeff Blaine]

What affect is there of vertical *resistance* variations are the common 
4-square boxes?

N6LF’s QEX article shows quantitatively the performance hit associated with 
using non-resonant elevated radials.  Which is interesting because non-resonant 
radial lengths reduce the sensitivity of individual elevated radial variations 
from ideal.  However, by altering the relative lengths of the vertical/radial, 
the feedpoint R moves around.

I ran a simple test case pair in EZNEC.  First was the resonant radial case 
(length is the same as the vertical radiator).  Second was shortened radials 
(about 10%) with the vertical lengthened to restore the same X=0 frequency.  
The feedpoint R moves from 32 ohms in the symmetric case to about 40 ohms in 
the short-radials case.

The R has got to translate into a drive impedance shift - but I am wondering 
what the expected impact to the array should be?  

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

_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Blame it on global warming

[Jeff Blaine]

Well said, Bill.

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


-Original Message- 
From: cqtestk...@aol.com 
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:03 AM 
To: topband@contesting.com 
Subject: Re: Topband: Blame it on global warming 


Please

If I want a discussion on global warming, I'll sign on to the Huff  Post.  
This site is for topband info.


Bill K4XS/KH7XS


_
Topband Reflector
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Height of antenna and takoff angle - Titan II site571-5

[Jeff Blaine]

Right, the discone is sort of the LPDA of the vertical world.

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

-Original Message- 
From: Charlie Cunningham

Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:34 AM
To: 'Rick Stealey' ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Height of antenna and takoff angle - Titan II 
site571-5


I expect that the main advantage of a discone antenna is bandwidth.

Charlie, K4OTV

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Stealey
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:22 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Height of antenna and takoff angle - Titan II site
571-5



No matter how impressive that discone antenna looks, it still is just a
vertical, right?
Nothing magical about the signal it radiates.
I mean, you're not going to have DX falling all over you telling you you're
the loudest signal on the band.

Rick  K2XT

_
Topband Reflector

_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160M Rhombics

[Jeff Blaine]

Tom,

Why?  The same reason guys put up quads.  They LOOK very cool!  Imagine 
standing on one end of the rhombic and saying well, you can't see the end 
of the antenna without the binoculars - but it's out that-way somewhere.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Tom W8JI

Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 12:27 PM
To: Shoppa, Tim
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160M Rhombics


Anybody on this list have a Rhombic for 160M?

W1AW used to use one for bulletins and code practice on 160M but I think 
it came down years ago (1989?)


I seem to recall pics in CQ of a big California desert DX'er who had what 
was essentially a radial array of rhombics for maybe 160M or 80M.





I can't imagine why anyone would have one today.  Here is an analaysis of
Rhomics.

http://www.w8ji.com/rhombic_antennas.htm

73 Tom

_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160M Rhombics

[Jeff Blaine]

I did not say it was *only* for looks.  It also happens to look amazing.

If you are at the ham club and you said hea I just hung up a 160m 
rhombic - the next comment guys would say is wow, I would love to see 
that.


Big stuff always has a certain sizzle to an observer - no matter what the 
actual performance results are.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Mike Waters

Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 12:41 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: 160M Rhombics

If we want an antenna just for looks, might as well make it all out of a
non-conductor such as plastic rope. :-)

Seriously, Tom is right. Take time to study his rhombic page. However, as
one wise man once told me, Time spent doing something you enjoy is not
wasted time. Putting up a rhombic might also be a good learning
experience. But you better make sure that you aim it right where you need
it.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Blaine j...@ac0c.com wrote:


Why?  The same reason guys put up quads.  They LOOK very cool!  Imagine
standing on one end of the rhombic and saying well, you can't see the end
of the antenna without the binoculars - but it's out that-way somewhere.


_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: trimming elevated radials

[Jeff Blaine]

Thanks Dan, very excellent stuff (as you always do!!!).

Your observation of the large shift in currents with small changes in length 
is exactly the problem I am concerned with.  And the N6LF data shows the 
problems with asymetrical radials.


So my question was how to make uniform the currents without having to 
simultaneously measure and iteratively trim for uniformity.  I have gear to 
measure 6 radials at one time - but that brute-force method seems less than 
elegant.


There have been quite a few comments back on this and while there are some 
articles published on this (beyond the N6LF QEX stuff from last year), but 
they seem to not be well known; KE7BT and K5UI.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Dan Maguire

Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 2:40 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: trimming elevated radials

Jeff Blaine wrote:


What is the preferred method of
tuning elevated radials for uniformity?
[snip] ...
There are two methods that I thought of.  Measuring the
current at the base of the vertical/radial union and
trimming lengths iteratively trying to get a uniform current
reading on all elements.
[snip] ...


Lacking a good answer to Jeff's question about the preferred method of 
insuring uniformity in elevated radials I decided to look at the problem 
from the other direction.  That is, intentionally make the radials 
non-uniform and then see what the difference in current magnitude/phase 
would be at the innermost point of each radial.


I started with EZNEC sample model ELEVRAD2.ez.  This model was developed by 
W7EL to demonstrate the correct way to model radials close to ground, so the 
first thing I did was raise the entire model by 120 inches.  With a 1 amp 
source the current distribution as shown by EZNEC is:

http://ac6la.com/adhoc/AsymRadials1.png

Looking at the same data charted a different way confirms the expected 
symmetry.  The yellow info boxes show the Wire number (W), Segment number 
(S), current magnitude, and current phase for selected segments as marked 
with the green dots:

http://ac6la.com/adhoc/AsymRadials2.png

Note that in the second chart the shape of the curve does *not* match the 
physical position of the segments.  That's because in this particular model 
the segments do not have a uniform length.  However, the magnitude/phase 
results are as expected; 1 amp at the source (Wire 1 Segment 2 [W1 S2]) and 
0.25 amps at the inner end of each radial (such as Wire 9 Segment 1 [W9 
S1]).


Next I modified the model to make the length of the two adjacent radials 
along the +X and +Y axes be 95% of the original length (1482 vs 1560 for 
the radials along the -X and -Y axes).  As expected the radiation pattern is 
now a bit skewed.  Here's the azimuth pattern at 24 deg elevation angle:

http://ac6la.com/adhoc/AsymRadials3.png

And here's the rectangular plot of the pattern instead of the polar plot:
http://ac6la.com/adhoc/AsymRadials4.png

The really interesting result is how much the current on the radials has 
changed given just a 5% difference in length.  Wire 9 Segment 1 [W9 S1] is 
the inner end of one of the shortened radials, W 27 S 1 is the inner end 
of one of the original length radials:

http://ac6la.com/adhoc/AsymRadials5.png

Jeff has some pretty fancy magnitude and phase measuring equipment developed 
in cooperation with Greg Ordy, W8WWV.  Given the substantial changes in the 
current at the inner ends of the radials with just a 5% difference in 
lengths it seems reasonable that he could detect much smaller differences in 
non-uniformity of the radials.  Of course, the part about trimming 
lengths iteratively might be more challenging.  :)


Blatant plug:  Most of the charts shown above were created with the AutoEZ 
program.  See http://ac6la.com/autoez.html for more information.


Dan, AC6LA
http://ac6la.com/
All good topband ops know fine whiskey is a daylight beverage.
_
Topband Reflector 


All good topband ops know fine whiskey is a daylight beverage.
_
Topband Reflector

Topband: trimming elevated radials

[Jeff Blaine]

What is the preferred method of tuning elevated radials for uniformity?

I realize you can measure the lengths, try to get uniform heights, etc so that 
you match the model as close as possible.  However, it seems that this is good 
only to the first approximation.

There are two methods that I thought of.  Measuring the current at the base of 
the vertical/radial union and trimming lengths iteratively trying to get a 
uniform current reading on all elements.  

The second one was to disconnect all the radials.  And then connect them 
one-by-one, trimming for the same resonance point for the single 
radial+vertical as a pair.  


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

All good topband ops know fine whiskey is a daylight beverage.
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Antenna terminations

[Jeff Blaine]

Depends on the method used to provide the conductivity.  If it's carbon 
black filled, the shrinking is goin g to push the molecules of the carbon 
black closer together and that results in a net decrease in volume 
resistivity.  It may not matter however, as carbon filled stuff is going to 
be in the K-ohms range in the lowest case.  Other fillers may have lower 
values.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Bruce

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:43 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Antenna terminations


Anyone else found a lowering of resistance after heat shrinking terminations
after cool down?

73
Bruce-K1FZ



You may have some of that somewhat conductive heat shrink tubing.  Good idea
to check the glue for conductivity before use.




www.qsl.net/k1fz/beveragenotes.html



_
Topband Reflector



_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Low Band DXing??

[Jeff Blaine]

Some of the applications on the CD have 16-bit wrappers - meaning they won't 
run under Win7x64.  If you have Win7x32, it is fine.  So it depends on which 
flavor of Win7 you have.


The alternative for x64 is to use the XP-MODE virtual machine capability 
built into the pro versions of Win7.  That emulates the XP mode with the 
ability to run the applications.


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

-Original Message- 
From: k2...@juno.com

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:20 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Low Band DXing??

Hello All,

I would like to buy the latest edition
on ON4UN's Low Band DXing with the CD ROM.

On the ARRL book store it says that the CD ROM
is only for Window's XP 
I am using Window's 7...

Any one know if it will work with Window's 7  ???

Many Thanks in advance.

73,
Ted  K2QMF

Gaviscon#174; Official Site
Gaviscon#174; Relieves Heartburn Fast! See Products, Heartburn Info  More
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/513cf936809f779360147st03vuc
_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Elevated Radials

[Jeff Blaine]

As Brad suggests, the article by N6LF in QEX debunks a ton of traditional 
lore.  Especially regarding height above ground and length.


That article seems THE place to start for anyone considering an elevated 
vertical build now.


It should be noted that the QEX article is all about a single vertical.  The 
extension from a single vertical to arrays where fields of overlapping or 
joined elevated radials would be encountered has not been made with the same 
level of experimental confirmation.  And the usual references like ON4UN's 
book are a bit non-specific by comparison as well.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Brad Rehm

Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 11:38 AM
To: Eddy Swynar
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Elevated Radials

Eddy,

If you haven't already, you might want to take a look at Rudy Severns'
site (http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/).  A bit of reading will answer
some or most of your questions.  It's been a few years since I studied
his material--the 160m inverted-L I build then embodied many of his
findings and suggestions.  As I remember, he found very little
difference in the performance of radials an inch off of the ground and
radials 10 feet in the air.

As for the appropriate number, you can use two if you won't mind
having a less than circular pattern.  The problem with having two,
four, or even eight is that it's more difficult to distribute current
among them.  I use four radials elevated ten feet above ground.  I've
never measured current in each of them, but I have noticed that the
antenna does better in some directions than others.

As for the optimum height...  I've built elevated radial antennas with
the radials 15 feet above ground.  My minimun height would be 10 feet,
which is high enough to avoid garroting my XYL when she mows the field
with our tractor.  The one inch height that Rudy mentions resolves a
technical issue, but it's impractical from the point of view of the
guy who has to maintain them.

I don't connect the ground rod to the base of the antenna, because I
understand that an earth ground at this point would affect the pattern
and make it change behavior seasonally.  The antenna's fed with a
2.23:1 balun, which provides a near 1:1 match to 50 Ohm coax and a DC
connection from the vertical element to the coax shield.  The ground
rod wire comes up the post on which it's mounted and extends to within
1/16th of an inch of the 4-gauge wire ring to which the radials are
connected.  The coax is connected to the antenna switch about 200 ft
away and attached to the ground system there.  (The entire run of coax
is buried in PVC conduit.)

Just a few thoughts

Brad
KV5V

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca wrote:

Hi Guys,

Forgive me, please, if I'm re-hashing a bit of the ...same-old, same-old 
here, but I am really curious as to any real world experiences that 
might be out there in the matter of elevated radials, vs. those that are 
simply laid atop the ground...


My arthritic knees here are making the chore of rolling,  unrolling, my 
seasonal 24-radials-per-L-element radials (I have THREE of them here!) 
just that, i.e. a VERY painful chore...and barring the possibility of 
there being a new bionic knee replacement(s) in my future, pray tell me:


(A) Is it true that a couple of elevated radials are just as effective as 
the optimum amount of buried ones...?


(B) What is the ideal number of elevated radials that one should use...?

(C) How many elevated radials are just enough...?

(D) How high should these radials be...?

(E) Would it be a requirement that I raise the feedpoints of my L's to 
the same height as the elevated radials, or can I simply leave the bases 
where they are now (at ground level)  simply slant the radials upward 
with no effect upon performance...?


(F) Is it OK to bend the elevated radials to fit property allotments...?

(G) What is the desirable length of an elevated radial...?

(H) Should any existing connections to real earth at the base of the L's 
(i.e. a ground pipe) be completed severed with a system of elevated 
radials...?


This morning I happened to work a NJ station with elevated radials that 
almost pegged the S-meter on my 751A---the short distance between us 
notwithstanding, obviously something was working very well for him there!


Thanks in advance  my vy

~73!~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ


_
Topband Reflector

_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: W3NQN BCB Filter

[Jeff Blaine]

I have the same issues here.  And the similar observation - filtering before 
the preamp of some kind is needed.


Regarding Steve's solution below, an alternative is available from K8ZOA 
Jack Smith.  9th order elliptical with pricing is about half the Array 
offering.


http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/z10023a_elliptic_high_pass_filter.htm

It's about -40 db at 1700 with a roll off starting just below 1800.

Order options include 50 or 75 ohm, SMA, F-type or UHF, and some case 
varieties.


I have no horse in Jack's race.  He's a first class RF enginner, builds 
great stuff - and I'm a very satisfied customer hence the mention.


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

-Original Message- 
From: wb6r...@mac.com

Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Top Band List List
Subject: Topband: W3NQN BCB Filter

This topic has been covered before on this list. I believe that my recent 
experience is also worth reporting.


After over a decade of operating on 160m, I'd never experienced any 
significant problems with BC carriers other than very weak carriers on 1810, 
1820, 1830, 1840 kHz etc. The greater Los Angeles area is not at a loss for 
high power BC stations. Several weeks ago a very loud and wide signal 
appeared for the first time on 1840 kHz in addition to others every 10 kHz. 
These spurs were a bit weaker after sunset but still loud and wide. Any 
legitimate 160m signal within about 3 kHz of these spurs could not be 
copied. The spurs' modulation matched that of a broadcast station six miles 
from my location. With the assistance of a local broadcast signal compliance 
expert, signal strength measurements were made using professional grade 
equipment close to the BC station's transmitting towers as well as at my 
station. The spurious signals were just out of regulatory specifications and 
the modulation was mushy. The station's engineer was contacted. He 
advertised that he would perform some s

tandard maintenance. To date, nothing has changed.

All of the possible combinations of equipment at my station were tried in an 
attempt to isolate and diagnose the problem. The result was that the spurs 
appeared only with an external preamp in the path with a full size receiving 
flag. This was observed with not just a single preamp but with a second 
preamp of an entirely different design.


I inserted a W3NQN Receive Only BCB filter between the flag and each of the 
two preamps, one at a time. The result in both cases was that the spurs were 
reduced to very weak carriers daytime and to a just perceptible level when 
the BC station switched to nighttime power (10 kW to 490 watts). Something 
has likely changed in the BC's station signal, causing the preamps to become 
overloaded resulting in IMD problems.


http://www.arraysolutions.com/Products/BCB%20RF%20Filters.htm

This filter has an extremely sharp cut-off below 1700 kHz. I understand that 
precision tolerance components are hand selected for custom assembly of each 
filter to guarantee the specified response. W3NQN has started to label his 
products Design, Assembly and Testing by W3NQN.


These filters have a well deserved reputation. The BCB is superb.

73 - Steve WB6RSE


_
Topband Reflector 


_
Topband Reflector

Topband: rx array proximity to barbed wire fence

[Jeff Blaine]

I am considering installing one of these hi-z or DXE buffered-type receiving 
4-square arrays for 160/80.  The best place on the property is on the north 
west corner - in a location about 400’ from the transmit vertical.  It’s got a 
clear shot NE to EU and is about 600’ from the nearest house.

However, that NW property corner location has old barbed wire fences that runs 
along the property line in the corner.   

I am curious if anyone has experience with this kind of array near barbed wire 
fencing.

Thanks!

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

___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Re: Topband: rx array proximity to barbed wire fence

[Jeff Blaine]

Tom,

Having fought (and lost) a battle of harmonics from an environmental 
unintended mixer at the last QTH, I really can feel trouble with that 
blasted fence.  The good news is that the transmit antenna is about 100' + 
from the fence, and the other antennas are several hundred feet further back 
yet.


Trying to track down a thing serving as a mixer out in the open where you 
can get too it is a challenge I'm not fretting too much - IF it becomes 
trouble.


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

-Original Message- 
From: Tom W8JI

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Joel Harrison ; Jeff Blaine
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: rx array proximity to barbed wire fence

While one might claim some theoretical
interaction I have not documented any or identified any performance
degradation as a result.

I see Big Gun Mike, W5UC, has a lot of experience with RX arrays close to
fences has responded as well.

The rusty twisted-joint barbed wire fences by my RX antennas were a problem
when I transmitted, but only when I tried to duplex. They were 2000 -3000
feet long and ran right past the TX antennas in a straight line, so I bet
they had a whopping signal level. They generated noise like crazy while I
transmitted.

I think the real problem is all fences and all installations are different.

If the fence has rusty joints and reradiates strong BC station mixing
products, it will be an issue.

If the fence is near power lines and reradiates noise, it can be a problem.

If the fence reradiates propagated signals with significant intensity
compared to over-the-air signals (pretty unlikely), it could be a problem.

It really depends more on the fence and local layout of things than anything
else, so the only way to really know is to just try it.


73 Tom

___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com 


___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Topband: elevated radial symetry and layout

[Jeff Blaine]

I’m cooking up my first 4-square using a set of elevated radials.

Is there a consensus on what the optimal way of laying out the radial pattern 
is?

If the radials are spread out on the 0/90/180/270 points, we have overlap 
between each of the radial center points (the 180 degree radial on the top 
vertical overlaps with the 0 degree radial on the bottom, for example).

In the ON4UN book, a good diagram of the bonded and trimmed variety is shown 
for the ground mounted.  But for elevated, he suggests alternating the radials 
on each vertical with a 45 degree rotation.  Unfortunately his drawing is only 
for 2 verticals.  If you expand his layout, all of the vertical radials are 
clear except for the pair which bisect the diagonal centerline and thus 
overlap.  In addition, the center is where the control box is going to have to 
be as well - so that puts the radials with their attendant significant currents 
in close proximity to the phasing lines and box.

In Rudy’s QEX he goes into the reduced sensitivity to symmetry associated of 
using 8-12 elevated radials per vertical.  But for the more simple 4 per 
vertical case, I am looking for what the proper routing method should be to 
optimize the symmetry of the 4 square.

Thanks!

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

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

Re: Topband: elevated radial symetry and layout

[Jeff Blaine]

Gentlemen, thanks for the offline comments.

And yes, I do understand and agree that more radials leads to less 
individual radial dependence.  NL's QEX articles show that in the graphs 
which is very interesting.  And also that a ground mounted screen is less 
sensitive yet.


The current install is a temporary setup just to carry through this contest 
season and into next year when I can get the tree work done to clear the 
final resting place.  So 4 is the magic number.  And the question is how to 
lay out those few to get the best overall symmetrical pattern among the 4 
verticals in the array.


Sorry for the confusion.

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

-Original Message- 
From: David Novoa, W4DN

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:16 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: elevated radial symetry and layout

Fellows, I think that's an interesting question.
Please reply to Jeff's inquiry on the reflector, so all of us who are
interested in the subject can benefit from your advice.
TU es 73,
Dave, W4DN (Ex-KP4AM)


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


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

Re: Topband: 2Wire, Inc. 3800HGV-B Gateway. RFI --Problem fixed for now..

[Jeff Blaine]

The fundamental problem with this 2wire box (and the uVerse system and 
similar types) is that it uses the entire low HF spectrum for transmission.

The system is - by design - a receiver across the 160, 80 and 40m ham bands.

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

-Original Message- 
From: ZR
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Frank Davis ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband:2Wire, Inc. 3800HGV-B Gateway. RFI --Problem fixed for 
now..

Im running 250' of shielded CAT5 from house to equipment trailer where the
router resides and then another 120' up the tower to the 5.8GHz link.

Its bundled with the hardline feedlines, rotor and relay control cables and
there has never been a RFI problem there or with the earlier 2.4GHz link.and
there are no ferrites involved. There are also several UHF repeaters on the
tower as well as 160, 80, 40, and 6M all at 1200W.

Maybe Ive just been lucky.

Carl


- Original Message - 
From: Frank Davis fda...@nfld.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: 2Wire, Inc. 3800HGV-B Gateway. RFI --Problem fixed for
now..


 In reply to Jim:

 The CAT5 cable used with the 3800 modem is the one that came in the box
 with it.  The cable is very small diameter and very flexible...the modular
 plugs on it are smaller then the other plugs I have here on what i call
 regular CAT5 cable. The regular CAT5 modular plugs will not plug unto the
 jack on the modem.
 When that small flexible cable was wound on  the two stacked toroids that
 I used It was twisted in a couple of  places so maybe that contributed to
 the FEC events being seen by the telco test equipment.  The cable appears
 to be very cheap and a minimal attempt by the manufacturer to provide a
 cable for general use ...certainly not robust.

 The toroids are not on this line now and all seems to be working fine.
 The iMAc download speed testing within the BellAliant network is 6.6 mbps.
 The full capacity of the line is supporting 4 IPTV set-top boxes two of
 which are HD.

 Fibre Op coming within a few months to my area!

 Frank VO1HP

 The BellAliant technician told me that placing the ferrites on the CAT5
 feeding the modem caused  a significant number ( hundreds of '000's on a
 continual basis.) of FEC (forward error correction) events to begin
 happening
 on my line.

 That does not make sense unless the CAT5 was mechanically distorted by
 the winding.  That would disturb the impedance at bit, but a LOT of
 errors doesn't make sense to me. The ferrites form a common mode choke,
 which the differential circuit should not see.

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


 -
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4788 - Release Date: 02/04/12


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

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

Re: Topband: T vert feed

[Jeff Blaine]

Would not each one remain 100 ohms?

If the analysis is correct, they are in parallel and that does not add 
linearly based on the individual wire values as would a series connection.

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

-Original Message- 
From: Charles Moizeau
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:37 PM
To: royan...@ncn.net ; Topband
Subject: Re: Topband: T vert feed


Nope.

With 100 Ohms per radial and 60 of them all the same and in parallel with 
each other, one gets 1.6 Ohms; close enough.

73,

Charles, W2SH

 From: royan...@ncn.net
 To: topband@contesting.com
 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:15:10 -0600
 Subject: Re: Topband: T vert feed

 'Twas stated:

 Feedline coax shield 1.7 ohms.

 The single 1.7 ohms lowers the voltage and even in this case of what
 appears to be an excellent ground radials system, the coax will carry HALF
 the counterpoise current and waste most of that power, besides being a
 link...(etc.)


 Whaaat???

 Where did that 1.7 ohm figure come fromspace?

 The size (gauge) of radial wires has very little effect on their
 effectiveness as radials, according everything I've ever read. Also,
 effective resistance to ground, due to such intimate coupling to earth 
 when
 radials are at the surface or buried, evens out their equivalent 
 resistances
 and reactances, rendering them un-tuned. Not comparable to elevated
 radials at all. Voltage and current nodes on surface or  buried radials 
 are
 smoothed and averaged out rendering them un-problematic.

 If no balun, including a choke-type, is used at the feedpoint of a 
 vertical
 then the coax braid simply counts as another radial, averaged in with the
 many. Ferrites at the shack end can attenuate any residual RF on the braid
 if it is troublesome there (unlikely).

 73,   Roy   K6XKIowa









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

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

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

Re: Topband: BAD OT:Phase noise *** RE: digital on 1838 +/-

[Jeff Blaine]

Phase noise is generated by the rig's LO and exists as a more broad band low 
level signal.  Issue is more significant with modern day DDS than with older 
analog-type VFO sources.  Guys who operate field day can relate...

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

-Original Message- 
From: MIKE DURKIN
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:08 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: BAD OT:Phase noise *** RE: digital on 1838 +/-

Don't you mean IMD from the radio/amp driven past ALC?

CW is a binary signal and no one complains of its phase noise .

Mike KC7NOA

 From: n...@comcast.net
 To: wa3...@comcast.net; topband@contesting.com
 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:59:09 -0500
 Subject: Re: Topband: digital on 1838 +/-



 -Original Message-
 From: topband-boun...@contesting.com 
 [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of wa3...@comcast.net
 Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 10:47 PM
 To: topband@contesting.com
 Subject: Re: Topband: digital on 1838 +/-


 Jim

 Consider this however, CW and digital modes like JT65 typically share 
 the CW portion of the bands.

 That is not the case on weak signal bands, and in special 6m, digital 
 modes are above 50.250 MHz, there is a clear reason for that, digital is 
 not a narrow mode, there are phase noises that  can trash the band.


 Regards
 Jose Carlos
 N4IS


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

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

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

Re: Topband: BAD OT:Phase noise *** RE: digital on 1838 +/-

[Jeff Blaine]

Greg,

Yes, that's correct.  Thanks for the fix.  Been a long week.

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

-Original Message- 
From: Greg - ZL3IX
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 1:29 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: BAD OT:Phase noise *** RE: digital on 1838 +/-

Jeff, I suspect that you mean modern day synthesisers rather than
specifically DDS.  Actually, the DDS itself has quite low phase noise,
better than -130 dBc/Hz with Analog Devices chips,  especially if the
internal multiplying PLL is not used in the reference path.

73, Greg. ZL3IX

On 2011-12-31 06:30 p.m., Jeff Blaine wrote:
 Phase noise is generated by the rig's LO and exists as a more broad band 
 low
 level signal.  Issue is more significant with modern day DDS than with 
 older
 analog-type VFO sources.  Guys who operate field day can relate...

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

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

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

Re: Topband: Counterpoise very interresting

[Jeff Blaine]

Cebik was one of the antenna greats.  Co author of the ARRL antenna handbook 
for some time.  And a lot of his work is preserved with 
free access (you need to create a login though) on the cebik.com web site.

If you are serious about antennas, this is a great site.

73, Jeff ACØC
www.ac0c.com

-Original Message- 
From: Julius Fazekas
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:45 AM
To: W2PM
Cc: Mike(W5UC) ; Guy Olinger K2AV ; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Counterpoise very interresting

L. B. Cebik, W4RNL ~ 1939 - 2008 ~ SK as of April 2008

Julius Fazekas
N2WN


Tennessee Contest Group
http://k4tcg.org/
http://groups.google.com/group/tcg1?hl=en


Tennessee QSO Party
http://www.tnqp.org/


Elecraft K2 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
Elecraft K3/100 #



From: W2PM w...@aol.com
To: Julius Fazekas phriend...@yahoo.com
Cc: Mike(W5UC) w...@suddenlink.net; Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net; 
topband@contesting.com topband@contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: Counterpoise very interresting

Who is LB??

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:33, Julius Fazekas phriend...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I attended a presentation LB gave to the ETDXA shortly before hi untimely 
 death. I found him engaging and informative. He was well 
 thought of in East Tennessee.


 I have to say that when I became active again in 2003, I found his website 
 invaluable as a antenna resource. Some of the language 
 was repetitive, but the antennas built based on the articles were quite 
 effective. My 40m half square immediately comes to mind. 
 Verticals without Vertigo is still a favorite of mine.

 He did do antenna building/testing, but usually wire antennas and he enjoyed 
 PVC builds. Think it was more space limitations than 
 health issues. He was a great advocate of modelling. That, of course, is 
 still contentious to some schools of thought.

 As to gruff replies, ambiguous writings, dubious analysis, and such, I know 
 I've been guilty of that and experienced it from 
 others. With some, we managed to get over the hump and find common ground, 
 with others it hasn't happened yet.


 I, for one, am thankful that folks like LB, Rudy, Jim, Tom and others share 
 and post useful information. They have helped me more 
 than hindered...

 Happy Thanksgiving to all and see you on the Top Band this weekend in CQ WW 
 DX!

 73,
 Julius



 Julius Fazekas
 N2WN


 Tennessee Contest Group
 http://k4tcg.org/
 http://groups.google.com/group/tcg1?hl=en


 Tennessee QSO Party
 http://www.tnqp.org/


 Elecraft K2 #4455
 Elecraft K3/100 #366
 Elecraft K3/100 #


 
 From: Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net
 To: Mike(W5UC) w...@suddenlink.net
 Cc: topband@contesting.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:20 PM
 Subject: Re: Topband: Counterpoise very interresting

 I found LB to be a little enigmatic. But so what?

 His forte' was modelling.  He had all the professional licenses and
 did commercial modeling for some number of customers, including a lot
 of unheralded primary work for the well-regarded Force 12 antennas. He
 did not do a lot of on-field verification himself, which would explain
 why some fairly suspect material remains.  I'm fairly sure he did not
 have the health for the hard outdoor work that validation requires,
 though he never complained.  But all in all, I'm certainly better off
 for him than without him.  RIP, and let detractors look to their own
 assumptions closets.  I'm completely sure LB has far fewer detractors
 than I do.  I have a series of posts with him about the Wouff Houng
 which I treasure.

 73, Guy.

 On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Mike(W5UC) w...@suddenlink.net wrote:
 On 11/22/2011 9:29 AM, DAVID CUTHBERT wrote:
 L.B. was a professor of Philosophy and not a degreed engineer.

 Dave WX7G
 On Nov 22, 2011 8:08 AM, ZRz...@jeremy.mv.com  wrote:

 I got into it with L. B. several years ago.  He published something((I
 don't remember what) that was quite ambiguous, and I dropped him an
 e-mail asking him to be more specific.  He replied by accusing me of
 being demanding.   I found another source to reference in solving my
 problem and moved on.

 73,
 Mike, W5UC
 ___
 UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

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

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

Re: Topband: slow speed contester

[Jeff Blaine]

Brian,

Look higher up in the bands (more true on the higher HF bands) - generally the 
speeds are lower there.

73, Jeff ACØC
www.ac0c.com

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Clark
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:27 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: slow speed contester

Brian

There are also opportunities the next three weeks to hone cw skills:

CQ WW this weekend

ARRL 160 2-4 December.

ARRL 10 meter 9-11 December

The best way to learn is through application of your skills.

Good luck and have fun!

Craig K1QX


  Hi Folks:

  I'm a slow CW op (less than 10 WPM). Would it be worth my time to
participate, or will my slow speed slow down other stations and while I add
to the QRM?

  73

  Brian, KD6NRP


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

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