Topband: Glorioso Lack of CW.

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 From the FT4GL blog:   
https://ft4gl-blogspot-com.translate.goog/p/equipement.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp
 "Marek knows CW at low speed because he is new to this mode and has no 
contest/DXped experience, so we decided unfortunately for CW enthusiasts that 
there would be no Morse."

Wes  N7WS

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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 That is true.  Just getting permission to go there is problematic.  See: 
https://www.dx-world.net/ft4gl-glorioso-island/
Despite chasing DX for 66 years, I was not on the air for the last, any only 
expedition in my memory, because I was busy trying to make a living.  So 
Glorioso is the last one I need for #1 HR.  I have yet to count any FT mode for 
DXCC and I would like to keep it that way, but at my age (82) there won't be 
another expedition in this lifetime.  So even an FT contact will be welcomed 
here.
From southern AZ even that is far from a given.  This isn't a great path, but 
it's not impossible.  What will make it so is QRM and with my current powerline 
noise, QRN.
On a related note in this discussion, I support NCDXF (as do two DX clubs I'm a 
member of), INDEXA and Clublog.  Additionally, I add personal support to, IMO, 
deserving expeditions.  I've already sent Marek a Benjamin and if I get to make 
an OQRS request there might be another one or two.

From all accounts it's still cheaper than playing golf.
Wes  N7WS


On Saturday, April 27, 2024 at 12:54:58 PM MST, Richard (Rick) Karlquist 
 wrote:  
 
 
I read somewhere that Glorioso is a military base and all operators have 
to be French military personnel.  Possibly, the limited pool of
potential operators didn't include CW operators of DXpedition caliber.
CW, unlike digital modes, actually requires skill, and considerable
skill for DXpedition operation.

73
Rick N6RK



On 4/26/2024 4:51 PM, Don Greenbaum wrote:

>> digital, or even voice, but only CW?? No, of course not; that's fair 
>> game, to me, since my only interest is CW, and who needs those other 
>

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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 I'll try this again, the first attempt never came through.

On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 04:12:51 PM MST, Wes Stewart  
wrote:  
 
  Mia Culpa.
Sorry, I misread your post to say nothing other than Digital.  I will be happy 
with SSB and/or RTTY.  FT4 and FT8 blah.
Wes


On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 04:07:11 PM MST, Wes Stewart  
wrote:  
 
  Where did you get this idea?  From the blog:
https://ft4gl-blogspot-com.translate.goog/p/band-plan.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Wes  N7WS


On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 03:06:07 PM MST, Steve Harrison 
 wrote:  
[snip]

BUT I do draw the line at contributing to a DXpedition, like the
present Glorioso one, that states outright they do NOT intend to operate
any CW. That just rubs me entirely the wrong way, not to mention the
fact that I will never be able to work and count them, regardless of how
INDEXA or the NCDXF feel about such mode restrictions, and is the reason
I cannot, and will not, fully support either of those organizations.
Would I feel the same way if they said, instead, that they will not
operate any digital, or even voice, but only CW?? No, of course not;
that's fair game, to me, since my only interest is CW, and who needs
those other modes??  8-D

Steve, K0XP


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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Mia Culpa.
Sorry, I misread your post to say nothing other than Digital.  I will be happy 
with SSB and/or RTTY.  FT4 and FT8 blah.
Wes


On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 04:07:11 PM MST, Wes Stewart  
wrote:  
 
  Where did you get this idea?  From the blog:
https://ft4gl-blogspot-com.translate.goog/p/band-plan.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Wes  N7WS


On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 03:06:07 PM MST, Steve Harrison 
 wrote:  
[snip]

BUT I do draw the line at contributing to a DXpedition, like the
present Glorioso one, that states outright they do NOT intend to operate
any CW. That just rubs me entirely the wrong way, not to mention the
fact that I will never be able to work and count them, regardless of how
INDEXA or the NCDXF feel about such mode restrictions, and is the reason
I cannot, and will not, fully support either of those organizations.
Would I feel the same way if they said, instead, that they will not
operate any digital, or even voice, but only CW?? No, of course not;
that's fair game, to me, since my only interest is CW, and who needs
those other modes??  8-D

Steve, K0XP


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

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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Okay, failure to communicate:-)

On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 04:18:34 PM MST, Steve Harrison 
 wrote:  
 
  On 4/26/2024 3:59 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
  
 
 You're preaching to the wrong choir.  Read what I wrote more carefully.
   
 
I wasn't preaching to you, Wes, but instead agreeing, and more, with what you 
said.
 
Steve, K0XP
   
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 You're preaching to the wrong choir.  Read what I wrote more carefully.

On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 03:06:07 PM MST, Steve Harrison 
 wrote:  
 
 On 4/26/2024 2:10 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
>  Stepping back onto the soapbox.
> Gilles writes: " Is the rules even is not good hamspirit for a simple click 
> to sent the batch of DX'pedition QSO to LOTW server 6 mouth after date.
>
> I think this sums up what I was commenting on before.  The members of 
> DXpeditons spend personal funds, foundations, corporate sponsors and 
> individual donors provide more funds, yet there can still be a shortfall.  
> The team endures hardships galore that I won't try to document to provide us 
> with new entities and excitement.  Their last chance of financial recovery is 
> via QSL requests and yet some say, "Why should I pay for a simple mouse 
> click?"

That's true; however, rember that you aren't simply paying for a "simple
mouse click"; you're also paying for:

a) all those hours you spent in the pileup with no pay forthcoming
except, assuming you shells out a few extra greenbacks, a pretty
fanchey-schmanchey postcard that's been run through a printer somewhere;

b) all the electrons that went up through your power cord, got speeded
up from 60 Hz (or DC from batteries or photons, in the case of
solar-powered guys like myself) into ham band energy;

c) all the hours of filament and cathode-depletion of your 6146s or
572Bs or 3CX800s or 8877s or 4CX1000s or even your LDMOSes or FETs;

d) And just how many thousands did you spend on putting up that huge
tower with the multi-kilobuck antler waving in the breeze at the top,
not to mention your multi-kilobuck fanchey-schmanchey radio??

All of that costs each of us some bread, even if we don't tabulate it on
an invoice.

And folks still bitch, moan and groan about shelling out a couple or a
few greenbacks for a confirmation...

Personally, I don't mind contributing a couple of Lincolns or maybe a
couple of Hamiltons or even a Jackson or two toward DXpeditions that are
going to get me closer to either 160 DXCC (obligatory Topband content
8-) or the Honor Roll.

BUT I do draw the line at contributing to a DXpedition, like the
present Glorioso one, that states outright they do NOT intend to operate
any CW. That just rubs me entirely the wrong way, not to mention the
fact that I will never be able to work and count them, regardless of how
INDEXA or the NCDXF feel about such mode restrictions, and is the reason
I cannot, and will not, fully support either of those organizations.
Would I feel the same way if they said, instead, that they will not
operate any digital, or even voice, but only CW?? No, of course not;
that's fair game, to me, since my only interest is CW, and who needs
those other modes??  8-D

Steve, K0XP


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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Where did you get this idea?  From the blog:
https://ft4gl-blogspot-com.translate.goog/p/band-plan.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Wes  N7WS


On Friday, April 26, 2024 at 03:06:07 PM MST, Steve Harrison 
 wrote:  
[snip]

BUT I do draw the line at contributing to a DXpedition, like the
present Glorioso one, that states outright they do NOT intend to operate
any CW. That just rubs me entirely the wrong way, not to mention the
fact that I will never be able to work and count them, regardless of how
INDEXA or the NCDXF feel about such mode restrictions, and is the reason
I cannot, and will not, fully support either of those organizations.
Would I feel the same way if they said, instead, that they will not
operate any digital, or even voice, but only CW?? No, of course not;
that's fair game, to me, since my only interest is CW, and who needs
those other modes??  8-D

Steve, K0XP


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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Stepping back onto the soapbox.
Gilles writes: " Is the rules even is not good hamspirit for a simple click to 
sent the batch of DX'pedition QSO to LOTW server 6 mouth after date.

I think this sums up what I was commenting on before.  The members of 
DXpeditons spend personal funds, foundations, corporate sponsors and individual 
donors provide more funds, yet there can still be a shortfall.  The team 
endures hardships galore that I won't try to document to provide us with new 
entities and excitement.  Their last chance of financial recovery is via QSL 
requests and yet some say, "Why should I pay for a simple mouse click?"
Wes  N7WS

On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 03:09:41 PM MST, gilles desansac F6IRA 
 wrote:  
 
 Depending team's... but we knew that for I2YSB trips you will ALWAYS pay 
for QSL. Nosense for me but they are not alone into DX'peditions to do 
the business. Is the rules even is not good hamspirit for a simple click 
to sent the batch of DX'pedition QSO to LOTW server 6 mouth after date. 
Finaly is your choice to fight the pileups or not I do not ! Seventy 
three(s)

Hopefully i'm always join teams with better QSL'ing feeling.

F6IRA

Le 22/04/2024 à 21:39, Bill Gillenwater a écrit :
> I am a little confused with the QSL options for the Chad/TT8 operation 
> that is in progress.
>
> Most (and I say MOST) operations have 3 or more options for getting 
> QSO confirmation.
>
> I'm filling "band-slots" for Chad and basically want a LOTW 
> confirmation (eventually).
>
> You can donate "up-front" or pay $$ via the OQRS process. OQRS says 
> LOTW included with card request.
>
> Now, if I do none of the above, will they eventually dump the logs to 
> LOTW? I usually see a comment in DXpediton postings that eventually 
> you get a LOTW confirmation. Can't find that anywhere on this one.
>
> Thanks 73 Bill K3SV
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector

Gilles DESANSAC F6IRA
55 Rue du stade 40410 Pissos
Courriel : f6...@live.fr
Tel : 06 27 58 22 46


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

Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Appears to me that if you want confirmation you pay up.  I wouldn't hold my 
breath waiting for free LoTW.  I've heard that a lot of expeditions don't like 
Clublog OQRS because they require that free QSLs via the bureau be issued. So 
the only way to get tightwad Europeans and Asians* to pay up is to require it 
for a QSL.
* See: "Who Pays for that New One?", QST, October 2018, pp 69-73.  Quote: "And, 
while only 4% of North American stations request a QSL via the bureau, European 
and Asian bureau requests average 14%, and those stations do not contribute to 
the funding flow."
Steps off soap box.
Wes  N7WS


On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 12:42:51 PM MST, Bill Gillenwater 
 wrote:  
 
 I am a little confused with the QSL options for the Chad/TT8 operation 
that is in progress.

Most (and I say MOST) operations have 3 or more options for getting QSO 
confirmation.

I'm filling "band-slots" for Chad and basically want a LOTW confirmation 
(eventually).

You can donate "up-front" or pay $$ via the OQRS process. OQRS says LOTW 
included with card request.

Now, if I do none of the above, will they eventually dump the logs to 
LOTW? I usually see a comment in DXpediton postings that eventually you 
get a LOTW confirmation. Can't find that anywhere on this one.

Thanks 73 Bill K3SV


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

Re: Topband: HEBA antenna

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Indeed.  I think I'll apply for a patent on the Hocus-Pocus Antenna. This is 
the prior art: 
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/50/3f/f8/2b6215517b5e7a/US10644404.pdf
Wes  N7WS

On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 12:45:36 PM MST, Dave Cuthbert 
 wrote:  
 
 The HEBA appears to be the same animal as the CFA (Crossed Field Antenna)
patented by Dr. Kabbary and M.C. Hately in the late 1980s. As the HEBA
Model 103 Performance Analysis says, *" WWAS accomplished this feat of
engineering through the development of a two-element antenna that generates
the electric field and the magnetic field separately."* This is the idea of
the CFA where separately generated E and H fields combine in space to
overcome one or more limitations of conventional antennas.

I thought the CFA was debunked by the time the last one was sold by Dr.
Kabbary's Egyptian antenna company in 2003. Up to that time there were
several articles in AntenneX magazine about the antenna along with attempts
to build and test it. Dr. Kirk McDonald, a regular author for AntenneX,
goes into the math in his paper *“Crossed-Field” and “EH” Antennas
Including Radiation from the Feed Lines and Reflection from the Earth’s
Surface.*

My NEC models at the time for a CFA driven as a standard monopole against
the Kabbary-recommended 2-story, copper strapped building showed it
operating well enough as a standard monopole. The CFA on top of the
two-story building formed a center-loaded monopole. I can build that model
again and report back here if anyone is interested. I will compare them to
the HEBA performance analysis.

Sometime around 2002 an Australian ham/BC engineer worked with Dr. Kabbary
to tune up a CFA at an AM broadcast station in Australia. After Kabbary
give up and returned to Egypt the amateur retuned the antenna as a standard
monopole that exceeded the measured field strength of the CFA tuning. To me
and others the promise of the CFA for topband was a heady time which helped
propel me more deeply into antenna design and analysis. The CFA turned out
to be both a disappointment and a good lesson.

*Wikipedia CFA article*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed_field_antenna

* “Crossed-Field” and “EH” Antennas Including Radiation from the Feed Lines
and Reflection from the Earth’s Surface*, Kirk McDonald, Princeton
University
 http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/crossedfield.pdf

*HEBA Model 103 Performance Analysis*
https://www.thebdr.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/high-efficiency-broadband-plain-english.pdf

  Dave KH6AQ

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:01 AM Radio KH6O  wrote:

> I'd like to see a version of this for 160M:
>
>
> https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/headlines/wqvram-is-granted-cp-to-use-heba-antenna-at-night
>
> --
> 73,
> Jeff KH6O / 6
> _
> 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: Any Chinese stations with Big Sigs operating on 160?

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 The last one I confirmed was BG6SNJ  01-29-2022. But with the S9+20 powerline 
noise that the power company has confirmed but not fixed for months, who knows 
what I've been missing.

Wes  N7WS

On Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 10:28:34 AM MST,  wrote: 
 
 
 Just dabbled in the WPX contest looking for Asian stations on 10m, and
worked a phenominal ( for me) 13 of them! 

The big question is: Are there any being heard on Top Band these days?

    -From:
topband-requ...@contesting.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday April 2 2024 12:00:44PM
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 256, 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. Test (Jean-Paul Albert)

 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 08:42:21 +0200
 From: Jean-Paul Albert 
 To: topband 
 Subject: Topband: Test
 Message-ID: 
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 Do not answer, this is a simple test as the list is quiet.
 73?

 F6FYA depuis son iPhone

 --

 Subject: Digest Footer

 ___
 Topband mailing list
 Topband@contesting.com
 http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
 />

 --

 End of Topband Digest, Vol 256, Issue 1
 ***

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Yes, I know that but some might choose to operate that way, hence "robot."
RTFM and 73 in the same message.  A bit of irony.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:37:56 PM MST, Joe Subich, W4TV 
 wrote:  
 
 


On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:

> F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and 
> might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the 
> kitchen for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the
> contact.
If you do not want your computer responding to delayed queue entries
while you are in the kitchen getting a beer, simply clear the DX Call
box!  Just like you told the computer to call the station, you can
tell it not to reply when you're not there.

RTFM!

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/19/2024 4:51 PM, Wes Stewart via Topband wrote:
>  It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many 
>are.  Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in 
>attendance.  When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get 
>another beer and come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to the 
>Fox frequency and called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
> And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit.  If 
> others want to, that's between them and their ethics.  Why do I make the 
> contacts then? you may ask. Because one of my DX clubs has an internal 
> competition where certain expeditions are designated as targets for "band 
> slot Bingo", where we compete for the greatest number of slots worked.  You 
> can't win if you don't play.
> As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time.  Other modes, including 
> RTTY, are simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both 
> ends.  F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and 
> might actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen 
> for that beer and come back and see that "you" made the contact.
> Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set 
> filters to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, 
> country, etc. and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement 
> denial of this but I know it happens.
> WSJT will never replace RTTY.
> 
>      On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown 
> wrote:
>  



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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 

So that the operators can exclude them.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 03:21:05 PM MST, WW3S  
wrote:  
 
 The filters dont “exclude” callers, they do however sort them….either by 
signal strength, mileage ( based on grid square) , maybe continent…..

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

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 It is unreasonable to assume all FT8 QSOs are with robots, however, many are.  
Technically, some "I" (my computer) makes are made with me not in attendance.  
When I can disable transmit and walk out to the kitchen to get another beer and 
come back to see that my software has tuned my radio to the Fox frequency and 
called him to complete the QSO, I think that's a "robot."
And that is exactly why I do not submit WSJT contacts for DXCC credit.  If 
others want to, that's between them and their ethics.  Why do I make the 
contacts then? you may ask. Because one of my DX clubs has an internal 
competition where certain expeditions are designated as targets for "band slot 
Bingo", where we compete for the greatest number of slots worked.  You can't 
win if you don't play.
As to efficiency, I think FT8 wastes a lot of time.  Other modes, including 
RTTY, are simply faster, although they require more operator skill on both 
ends.  F/H is particularly bad in this regard.  You can call and call and might 
actually be in the queue but not know it until you go to the kitchen for that 
beer and come back and see that "you" made the contact.
Another particularly distasteful thing about FT8 is that the DX can set filters 
to exclude certain callers based on signal strength, distance, country, etc. 
and the callers never know it.  I know there will be vehement denial of this 
but I know it happens.
WSJT will never replace RTTY.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:56:59 PM MST, Jim Brown 
 wrote:  
 
 On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.

It is unreasonable to assume that all FT8 QSOs are with robots. I know 
some of the very experienced CW ops who run FT8 on expeditions. WSJT-X 
software makes the mode quite time-efficient for expeditions. It's a 
replacement for RTTY, not CW.  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 My CW totals are correct; FT8 are not.  I've only worked them once, yet they 
show two for each FT8 QSO.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:33:36 AM MST, Jeff via Topband 
 wrote:  
 
 
I worked CB0ZA last Thursday evening on 80 & 160 FT8 (only once).

Checked club log 5 min after qso and showed only 1 contact.
Checked again 30min later and showed 2 qsos.

This happened for both bands.

All my cw qsos showed only 1.

NE0DX

Jeff Reynolds

Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
> Try to check different call-signs on FT8 https://clublog.org/logsearch/CB0ZA
> 160, 80m their robot working very quickly :)
> Sam LY5W
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:47 PM Steve Harrison  wrote:
>
>> Interesting... my logcheck only shows the correct one CW QSO per band.
>>
>> Steve, K0XP
>>
>> On 2/19/2024 7:27 AM, Saulius Zalnerauskas wrote:
>>> Look's like this "Sherlock Holmes" not understand what CB0ZA Robot doing.
>>> I called them one time, when got RR73, but I am in their LOG 4 times.
>>> BandCWFT8
>>> 160 4
>>> 80 2
>>> 20 1
>>> 12 1
>>> 10 1Man, you sick, stop your comment's.
>>> Look to other:
>>> Callsign to check:
>>>
>>> BandCWFT8
>>> 160 2
>>> 80 2
>>> 10 1
>>>

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

Re: Topband: remotes

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 I guess I'm the only topband guy that hasn't commented on this yet, so here 
goes.
I've been doing this DX thing for over 65 years now.  Other than WAS on 
2-meters (never accomplished)  DXCC has been my sole focus; no zones, islands, 
counties, etc.  The holy grail, Top of the Honor Roll, has still eluded me.  I 
missed my one opportunity for FR/G due to life's obligations and I doubt I'll 
see another one in this lifetime.  I could have done what some fellow Honor 
Roll members have done and had a friend work them for me, but I'm a believer in 
"honor" part.

Topband is a relatively recent pursuit.  Looking for a challenge I decided to 
add another band to my DXCC collection.  I worked my first 80 countries or so 
with an inverted-Vee dipole, 15-meters high at the apex.  When no more were 
forthcoming, I built an Inverted-L and worked 60 more.
https://www.qrz.com/db/n7ws  describes my working conditions.  
I don't care how others pursue their goals, if RHR floats their boat, so be it, 
but I do think the score keeping should be honest.  Sadly, I don't believe it 
is. I would say that is a sign of the times, but experience shows that it is 
nothing new.
Wes  N7WS

  



On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 08:40:46 AM MST, VE6WZ_Steve 
 wrote:  
 
 > I wonder, is it also possible to compete with yourself in boxing? :-(

Baaa-h-h…..ok, I give Nick UY0ZG a knockout for that comment!

Very well said Nick.

And indeed reading the posts on this thread, it seems what most guys are doing, 
including myself, is choosing not to enter the ring at all anymore.
The “boxing ring” I refer to is the “official ARRL DXCC” ring.
Sure, my logging program keeps track my own results, but the ARRL DXCC results 
have become meaningless to me. (Not necessarily YOU who are reading this….you 
don’t need to agree with me)

Steve, ve6wz

> The original idea is to compete with yourself..
> 
> In this case, there is no need to summarize the results of the contests...
> 
> I wonder, is it also possible to compete with yourself in boxing? :-(
> 
> 
> ---
> Nick, UY0ZG
> http://www.topband.in.ua


_
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

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Not me.  My radials are all on the ground and they are all appropriately 
shortened.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 08:05:47 AM MST, Jeff Blaine 
 wrote:  
 
 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

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

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

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

Re: Topband: What is a valid CW contact

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 My sentiments exactly.
Wes  N7WS

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:10:16 AM MST, Ron Spencer via Topband 
 wrote:  
 
 I've never been DX (well, USVI but that's not rare nor hard to get to) so 
can't give a perspective from that viewpoint. 



My thinking is this: you either got my call 100% right, or you didn't. Same 
standard as in a contest. If you logged something other than my call, then I 
didn't have a valid Q with you.



With real time streaming and DXpedition logs uploaded either almost real time 
or within hours (when available) it is quite easy to tell if the Q was valid 
(i.e. am I in the log?). If not, well, try again.



These are my views and mine alone. Not suggesting anyone alter their views. And 
I'm writing this from the comfort of my home shack with a solid roof over my 
head, electricity on demand, bathroom down the hall, comfy bed and a nicely 
stocked refrigerator 



Ron

N4XD 



Sent using https://www.zoho.com/mail/
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Timor Leste post cqww report

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Serious weak-signal ops would be using CW, so who cares what the FT8 guys are 
doing? :-)

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 02:37:00 PM MST, Jim Brown 
 wrote:  
 
 On 11/28/2023 5:05 AM, Dietmar Kasper wrote:
> A resolution at the July ARRL Board of Directors meeting pointed to
> “growing concern over fully automated contacts being made and claimed”
> for contest and DXCC credit. The rules now require that each claimed
> contact include contemporaneous direct initiation by the operator on
> both sides of the contact. Initiation of a contact may be either local
> or remote.

They might want to start enforcing this with several of their midwest 
SCMs who have been running nearly fulltime BOTs on 6M FT8 for well over 
a year. They have been complained about to the League by serious 
weak-signal 6M ops.

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

Re: Topband: Timor Leste report #7

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 Dietmar,
I thought my morning (13:00-14:00 Z) was the best so far.  I've been plagued 
with powerline noise from two sources, known to the power company, but still 
unrepaired.
On several other mornings I have known you were there but knew it was pointless 
to call, given your power and antenna advantage over me.  This morning I could 
hear your CQs so I called.  We completed a QSO at 13:24 Z, 24 minutes before my 
SR.
A few minutes later you were Q5 with my headphones laying on the desk.
Ten minutes after our QSO I worked H44WA on FT8 on the first sequence.
So I guess it depends on from what direction you are looking.  Thank you for 
the QSO, I now have you on 160 and all HF bands on CW, and 25 slots total.
Wes  N7WS



On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 02:36:04 PM MST, Dietmar Kasper 
 wrote:  
 
 GM topbanders
Last night I thought it was the most worst night of the DXped but this night 
topped it.
Made only about 30 CW QSOs and OE2VEL worked a few in FT8 but mostly stations 
we already
had worked in CW.
Actually the night started good with two times VE7 and W6 just after sunset, 
sorry was
few minutes late to work KP4AA because dinner came too late. Worked N4WW with 
good
signal but later signals dropped down.
I see it when VE6WZ skimmer signal strength falls below 10dB it is pretty hard 
to hear
anybody here in the tropic noise.
Complete night we had terrible QRN from nearby thunderstorm causing s9 crashes 
all the
time. There was almost no sunrise peak so all the callers remained in the noise.
It only can become better. Still some time to continue
73 Dietmar DL3DXX
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: TX7L On 160m?

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 A search shows spots yesterday on FT8.  I personally haven't heard them on 
160. Got them on 21 other slots, including an unbelievable 59+ signal on 
10-meter FM.
I have not heard anything from 7O.

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 05:02:53 PM MST, Steve Harrison 
 wrote:  
 
 Has TX7L even been on 160m so far?? Haven't seen any sign of them. 
They're so strong on 80/40 that they should be easy to hear on 160m. I 
had to work them again yesterday on 40m because they mistakenly credited 
me with a 40m phone QSO; I haven't worked HF phone DX since the early 
'80s, if then.

In comparison, neither of the 7Os have been any louder than an imagined 
whisper for me on any band; I think I'll have to wait until I get some 
aluminum in the sky before I'll be able to work one of those, or even an 
HV, let alone an HV/A (or, for that matter, maybe even a XZ).

TNX,

Steve K0XP

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

Re: Topband: 4W8X - top band

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 I was copying you Q4-Q5 and calling yesterday near my sunrise (~13:50Z)  
Unfortunately, all of Japan seemed to be calling too.  I could see their pileup 
on my bandscope.
But I had to do a family errand and had to QRT at that good time.  This morning 
(my time) I had no copy.
Your excellent operators have been very good about halting the JA runs and 
listening for NA on the HF bands.  Please consider it on160.  I will continue 
to look for you near my SR and will call up 1 - 2.

73, Wes  N7WS

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 08:33:49 AM MST, Emir Memic 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi topbanders

4W8X is running full on 160m
TX antenna is titanex with 50 radials very close to see which sems to 
performing very well

All bev are up, unfortunately they have some noise on them ... searching for 
the source in moment.

DL3DXX who is doing mostly 160m CW is aware that he had good signal and some RX 
issues, NA Bev (S6-7 noise level)
In moment they have as well many callers from JA´s and now twith JA bev he 
think they can be worked much faster.
There will be later easier to work other week signals

Also condx every they are different, he saidstill trying to figure some 
patterns.

They will be there every night trying to focus on NA and EU also SA as much as 
possible!

Also of he calls 3UP or Dwn feel free to call a bit of freq he is permanently 
tunning around.
Calling zero beat doesn´t help much

73s
De E77DX
Braco


--
Emir Memic
EMS Solutions
Koehlergasse 12/3
1180 Vienna
Austria
+4369919227041
ATU53588808

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

Topband: E51D tonight

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

George,
I think I was the first through on FT8  I had previously decommissioned the 160 
Inverted L for the season after working you on CW, but decided to fill out my 
Bingo card with an FT8 QSO.  (Not my favorite mode, but we have a friendly "who 
works the most slots" club competition so it's necessary).  So I braved the 
cholla cactus patch this afternoon to get the loading wire back in service.
I could still use you on 40 and 60 FT8, but that's probably not in the cards. 
It's been fun.  Thanks,
Wes  N7WS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: E51D on 160 Tonight

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 George,
I feel your pain.
I'm 1/8 mile from the street and power line, which has recently developed 
enough noise to wipe out an AM broadcast station while I'm driving down the 
street.  The power company RFI guy has yet been unable to find the source since 
it's so widespread.
Yesterday, it became somewhat intermittent and during quiet periods I could 
hear you.  I called at 1154Z  and was pretty sure we completed but the noise 
popped up just at the end, so I wasn't positive.  Fortunately, it appeared that 
enough JAs were keeping you on so I waited until my sunrise when you peaked up 
and managed to work you again at 1242Z.  This time I had no question.  I see by 
your log, we did work twice.  Thanks!
Wes  N7WS

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 04:15:45 AM MST, GEORGE WALLNER 
 wrote:  
 
 G'day Top Banders,
I got on TB at 1100 Z. Noise from a tropical system north of us (we are -9 
degrees, south of the Equator) was causing extreme QRN. I could barely copy 
S9+ stations. Normally TS noise comes in crashes separated by seconds. This 
time the crashes were virtually continuous. QSY-d to 80, where the noise was 
less, but still troublesome. I know that many wanted me to work TB, but it 
was impossible tonight. Will be back tomorrow at 1100 Z, hoping for better 
CONDX.

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

Re: Topband: E51D and OHQP

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 I worked my first 80 countries on 160 using an inverted-vee dipole, apex at 45 
feet, ends down around 6-10 feet.  TX power = 500W, dipole used for both TX and 
RX.
I think this qualifies a NVIS.
Wes  N7WS

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 03:28:29 PM MST, Mike Waters 
 wrote:  
 
 Contrary to what you hear repeated on the bands year after year, what Jim
said is *exactly* right! :-)

I'll add that NVIS is rarely —if ever— useful for working DX on 160m.

73 Mike
W0BTU
https://web.archive.org/web/20190827040547/http://w0btu.com/

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 1:40 PM Jim Brown  wrote:

> ... the optimum height for an NVIS antenna is a quarter-wave.
> Higher reduces upward radiation, lower increases ground loss. This study
> was peer reviewed.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: E51D

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

 I got up at 1100Z (4 AM local) this morning and heard nothing but powerline 
noise and saw spots saying @1030Z QSY to 40.  Worked them on 40 but need them 
on 160.  Maybe tonight around their SS (0500) or tomorrow closer to my SR 
(1230Z)??

Wes  N7WS

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 08:27:25 AM MST, daleaa...@gmail.com 
 wrote:  
 
 They were decent copy on 160 here in NH around sunrise today, even though my
QRN was difficult.  As the sun came up the QRN faded much faster than their
signal and copy became easier.  Still very readable ½ hour after my SR.

 

 

Dale, AA1QD

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

Topband: Testing new email

[Wes Stewart via Topband]

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Wes Stewart]

I could give other advice but the best that I could offer is to check out 
Rudy's, N6LF, site: https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/  Regrettably, this isn't all 
that he's published so further searching might be in order.  QEX published a 
series in 2009-2010 of his stuff.


In my "Antennas" document folder on my hard drive I have a "Severns" subfolder 
with practically everything he's written saved.  This is a gold mine, only the 
gold is free.


In particular for your needs see LF-MF antenna notes.

Wes  N7WS

On 12/28/2018 4:35 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR


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

Re: Topband: EK8ZT on Topband FT8

[Wes Stewart]

[sigh]

On 12/28/2018 10:33 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:

even cooking dinner at the same time!



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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to 
the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.


That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could be 
totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and frankly I 
haven't kept up.


Wes  N7WS



On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from Array 
Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I 
love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  I can switch the 
antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm often surprised to find 
that the DX is coming from a direction different from what I would expect.  
Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is pointed 
in the right direction, and I really would not have had any copy if I couldn't 
point in that direction.


The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and higher.  
The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I recall right, the 
SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 meters.  
Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.


These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, the 
SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the same 
direction.


Regards,
Art Delibert, KB3FJO




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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

Jeff, et.al.

1)  Yes, I am on 1.7 acres (2 AC - easements).  Some guys would love this much 
land, to farmers it's just enough room for the barn.  Regardless, considering I 
also have a house, a tower and a vertical antenna to share it with, I don't have 
room for Beverages, at least not an effective ones that point in desired 
directions. The latter can be akin to those guys who say, a 3/2 wavelength 
dipole has gain over a dipole, but never consider whether that gain is in a 
useful direction.


2)  Adding to my self-imposed challenges, I run, relatively speaking QRP, 500W, 
with the whole station running on one 120 V 20A service.  Pragmatically, heroic 
efforts to hear another level or two lower signals might be fruitless, although 
clearly, I'm not adverse to challenges, which is why I'm on the band.


3)  I'm in southern Arizona, not Maine or the Florida peninsula, propagation is 
different (read more difficult) here.


4)  I have researched, studied and modeled  many many other receive antennas, 
passive and active.  I doubt that there are any that I haven't looked at, at 
least casually. We have very poor ground here.  IMHO, ground-dependent antennas 
are a no-go.  Ones that require a bunch of radials are especially unattractive. 
I have enough to do to get a decent radial field under the TX antenna. (See my 
QRZ page) Any of these left to consideration have very broad (~100 deg) patterns 
that get their benefits by rejecting signals from the rear.  As stated at the 
outset, that isn't my big issue.  Although your experience seems to differ, I 
don't believe one of these beaming to England (30 deg) is going to do much to 
attenuate signals from NY (50 deg), for example.


Regards,

Wes  N7WS

5)  On 12/26/2018 3:31 PM, Jeff Woods wrote:

Wes,

A sure sign that your RX antennas are good enough is when DX stations that are 
Q5 copy repeatedly CQ in your face.


What Mike's saying is true; trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear 
that is a TX vertical is a losing game. Waller Flags, K9AYs, EWEs, etc. are 
all cheap and can easily be constructed to fit a 1.7 acre lot.  A short 
beverage may even feasible in that space, depending on the layout.


When you speak of "QRM from the east," are you talking about being unable to 
overpower it on TX so the DX can hear you (my problem here), or are you 
speaking of RX QRM?  On RX at your QTH, it doesn't appear that the proverbial 
East Coast Wall should affect you much.  The azimuth to Europe from Tucson is 
~30 degrees.  That GC path runs across the upper Midwest and Ontario.   Even a 
mediocre K9AY will provide adequate attenuation to signals from the US east coast.


My NW RX antenna is centered at 42 degrees.  Here in Iowa, it hears much 
better to Europe than to Boston or New York. Indeed, it's nearly useless in 
the ARRL 160 contest because of that pattern unless I'm in Province hunting mode.


-Jeff (W0ODS)




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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

I just drove down to the local convenience store and bought some Powerball 
tickets.  If I win, there's a nice 80 acre parcel across the street from me that 
I would buy.  Until then, I'm stuck on a 1.7 acre plot with no room for beverages.


Wes  N7WS

On 12/22/2018 1:20 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Hi Wes,

Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't hearing 
the weak ones that called you. ;-) See

http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com 


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

Although licensed for 60 years I'm a relative newby on topband.  (I did work VE7 
in 1959 but that's another story).  I decided to semi-seriously take up the band 
to acquire my 9th DXCC band award.


As I've described before, pardon the redundancy, I worked my first 70 entities 
using an inverted-vee dipole with the apex at about 45 feet and the ends down 
around six feet.  Of course conventional wisdom says that this couldn't possibly 
work for anything but local contacts.  A year ago, I replaced the dipole with an 
inverted-L, 55 feet vertical, the rest horizontal, over a skimpy radial field of 
about (so far) 20 insulated radials each 55 feet long laying on the desert 
dirt.  I both transmit and receive on this antenna, as I did the dipole before 
it.  I've since worked 40+ stations, completing DXCC plus a few.


Perhaps I'm blessed with a relatively quiet location, although unlike some I'm 
not miles from civilization, but not in a subdivision either.  I have made zero 
effort to silence noise sources in my house, but do work with the local co-op 
power utility to silence obvious noise sources. (Their sleuth is a ham)   
Although I'm considering an RX-only antenna, and it might be eyeopening, I'm not 
yet convinced of that.  Anything I would use on RX would probably have a broad 
peak and get its noise rejection from the rear.


Examining where most of the unworked DX is from here (EU, ME and central AS) the 
paths are mostly over the (noisy) continental land mass of NA (and the polar 
region) at my SS or early evening.  The null of any RX antenna pointing at these 
areas would be looking at the sunlit Pacific Ocean.  At my SR, the converse 
would be true.


So all things considered, using only 500W (10dB too few according to one of my 
friends), I already hear as well as I'm heard.  My bigger obstacle is QRM from 
the east. Nevertheless, I'm willing to try an RX antenna, if I can be convinced 
it will be of benefit, so I'm open to suggestions.


Wes   N7WS




On 12/19/2018 7:13 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

If your inverted L is any good at all it will suck as a receiving
antenna.  This is one of the key things to accept about medium wave
but many casual 160 m. operators can't wrap their heads around it.   A
flame throwing tx antenna will probably have a completely unacceptable
noise level on receive.  Tx/rx reciprocity works on HF but not as well
on medum wave.   Separate rx antenna(s) are mandatory.A
significant irritant on 160 are the operators with poor antennas that
hear great, therefore they expect to be heard equally well, and can't
be made to believe they are piss weak when they transmit.

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



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

Re: Topband: choke/bleeder resistor on RXvertical?

[Wes Stewart]

Noise is signal spread over a large bandwidth,  We tune our receivers to a 
frequency to copy signals in a relatively narrow bandwidth.  Nevertheless, there 
is some of that noise in that same bandwidth.  How does placing a resistor or 
choke to ground reduce the noise while not reducing the signal at the same time?


Wes  N7WS


On 12/19/2018 11:19 AM, Jamie WW3S wrote:

Since verticals are know to be "noisy" on receive, and a fix is a rf choke or 
bleeder resistor to ground, anyone try that on short verticals used for receive only to 
quiet some noise?
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Re: Topband: Band Report

[Wes Stewart]

I heard TZ4AM last night here in AZ on my one and only antenna, my 55' 
inverted-L.  I didn't call, since I've worked him before.


Wes  N7WS.

On 12/17/2018 3:33 PM, Gary Smith wrote:

Last night around 0500Z or thereabouts,
TZ4AM was coming into Connecticut at an
easy 15 over 9 on the HI-Z Circle 8. I
haven't heard any signal from that part of
the world that strong in some years. He
was working EU & Russia, didn't return to
me but truly amazing signals. Maybe
tonight if the conditions are duplicated.

73,

Gary
KA1J



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

Re: Topband: Boring Report - N6TR

[Wes Stewart]

I heard you in Tucson with a good signal (559) this morning 1 hour after my 
sunrise.

Wes  N7WS

On 12/17/2018 12:07 PM, Tree wrote:

Last night was a pretty decent evening with good propagation into most
parts of Europe.  Managed a QSO with F5IN - first time in many years.

This morning - RA4LW checked in with a good signal - but no other Europeans
were worked.  I have worked at least one European about half of the
mornings during the past 10 days.

Was listening to Ross, 9M2AX who was CQing for awhile.  His signal was
pretty much just a faint whisper about 10 minutes before sunrise - but his
signal peaked up to 559 just a few minutes before sunrise.  It peaked for
maybe a few minutes and then disappeared.  I haven't heard this distinct of
a peak since I worked Oli, W6NV, at ZD7.  Seems like this peak happens more
with signals that come from non-polar paths from a great distance.  The
first time I really noticed it was from ZS4TX back in the 90's.

The band is in great shape!!

Tree N6TR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Re: Topband: Effect of Radial Field on Antenna Impedance

[Wes Stewart]

I'm not surprised and the results seem reasonable.

Wes  N7WS

On 12/8/2018 2:07 PM, MICHAEL ST ANGELO wrote:

Now that the leaves are off the trees and the cold weather has returned it's 
time to do antenna work.

I have an inverted L between two trees with 34 radials on the ground. Four 
radials are 135 feet long, the rest 70 feed long. I choose these lengths 
because they fit my yard. During the summer I keep the radials in the wooded 
area of my property in an arc of about 210 degrees. Once the leaves are off the 
trees I spread the radials into a full 360 degrees.
I normally measure the feed impedance with my N2PK VNA with requires lugging a 
laptop along with me. I built a  FA-VA5 Antenna Analyzer. While cumbersome to 
used standalone it is battery powered and quite handy.
My Inverted L is longer than a quarter wavelength on 160. I also use it on 80 
meters and don't have to worry about matching a high impedance.
I wanted to see what effect changing the radial field diameter. I measured at 
the resonant frequency, 160 and 80 meters. Here are my results:

210 degree radial field:
Freq(MHz)  RsXs
1.62 21.2  -1.7 (close to resonance)
1.8  30.7  +112
2.0  46.5  +237
3.5 111.0  -654
4.0  65.6  -346

360 degree radial field, relocated 7 radials.
Freq(MHz)  RsXs
1.62 16.7  -5.6 (close to resonance)
1.8  23.6  +107
2.0  36.4  +233
3.5 124.0  -661
4.0  59.7  -351

I wanted to move more radials but unfortunately they are stuck under a frozen 
leaf cover. I'll get to these when it warms up.

I was surprised that moving just a few radial made such a difference.

Mike N2MS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Re: Topband: Observations on a base-loaded 70 ft vertical

[Wes Stewart]

If I understand correctly, your base loading is insufficient to bring the 
vertical down to resonance, It then appears capacitive and that capacitance in 
concert with the shunt inductance form an L-network match.


I use this trick on my Inverted-L, but the top loading wire is shortened to get 
the capacitive reactance at the feed where the shunt inductor is connected.  On 
Yagi antennas this is sometimes called a hairpin match.


The efficiency of the "radiator" is unaffected by the presence or absence of the 
base loading/matching network.  There is no magic you can do with the matching 
that will change this other than moving the loading up the the radiator.


As to the relative loss between and air-wound inductor and the toroid, this is 
entirely a function of Q.  I happen to be using a toroid since mine is in the 
open and in the rare event of operating in the rain, the toroid would win over 
air-wound :-)


Wes  N7WS



On 12/2/2018 2:18 PM, Jim Garland wrote:

Hi All,

I have a 70ft 80m self-supporting vertical, which I've baseloaded to bring
it down to 160m. The antenna is about 800 ft. from my shack, fed with buried
hardline. The vertical has sixty 120 ft radials fanning out over the desert
floor.

  


When I built the baseloaded inductor I didn't have any suitable AirDux coil
stock on hand, so I experimented using a toroid. I wrapped two 2.25 inch
diameter T-43 cores together with fiberglass tape, and wound the wrapped
core with thin RG316 coax. RG316 is thin, flexible, high-temperature coax,
with a silver-plated shield, about 0.1 in in diameter. I shorted the inner
conductor to the shield, so I was just using the coax as flexible, high
temperature wire. I use a shunt coil of about 2 uH (23 ohms reactance at 1.8
MHz) made of plated copper tubing between the toroid and ground, reasoning
that the RF current at this low Z end of the toroid will be pretty large.

  


I didn't know how well the toroid would work in this application, but the
assembly came to resonance very smoothly and seems to work well to 2000W. I
use a DPDT vacuum relay to switch in the 160m toroid from my shack. As shown
in the photos, (links below) the assembly is very compact. I mounted it in
an inexpensive (about $22) NEMA waterproof enclosure.) To give a sense of
the scale, one photo shows the toroid and shunt coil breadboarded on a piece
of plastic and resting on a sheet of teflon at the base of the vertical (to
keep it from arcing to the grounded radials.)

  


http://www.w8zr.net/160amplifier/images/160m%20toroid%20assembly.jpg

  


http://www.w8zr.net/160amplifier/images/160m  breadboard test.jpg
  

  


Here are some observations about this hookup. As expected, the toroid and
wire get pretty hot at QRO power levels, although I didn't try to measure
the temperature. (It takes two people to do this: one to key up the
transmitter and a second to hold the IR thermometer.) However, intially the
toroid rested on an acrylic (plexiglass) post, but the post got hot enough
to soften and deform. I swapped the plexiglass for a ceramic post with no
further problems. There's no evidence of core saturation, and the SWR is
unchanged over the full power range. There's no visible effect of heating on
the wires either, all of which use teflon insulation. I don't know how much
power I'm wasting in heating the toroid, but I'd guess it be about 100-200W
at full power, or roughly ten percent of total power. I don't know how that
power loss would compare to using an air-wound coil. I can argue it both
ways: an air wound coil wouldn't have any core losses, but the resistive
loss in the wire would be several times greater than that in the toroid.

  


In this sort of hookup, one has to be very careful about high voltage
insulation. With my first toroid, I spaced the turns out around the core,
and at about 500W the bottom of the winding flashed over to the top of the
winding, even though the wire had teflon insulation. Now the winding uses
only about 2/3 of the available core space, and I have an extra length
(probably unneeded) of teflon sleeving over each end of the winding.

  


The little coil wound of stranded 12 AWG white wire (with orange stripe)
visible in the photo at the HV end of the toroid provides about 0.6 uH of
inductance. Its purpose is to fine tune the inductance, since the toroid
doesn't lend itself to fine adjustments. For this vertical, the shunt coil
is about 2uH and the toroid is about 23uH. On 80m, the native 2:1 bandwidth
on 80m is about 400 kHz (1.3 SWR minimum at 3550 kHz), while on 160m it is
only about 35 kHz, with a minimum 1.15 SWR at 1815 kHz.

  


There are only four connections to the NEMA enclosure: RF input, Output to
the vertical, Ground, and +26V (approx) to power the vacuum relay. The
arrangement is exceptionally convenient and compact, and can be connected to
the vertical in five minutes. I use a 24V wall wart to power the relay, 

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters - Station Location and Boundary

[Wes Stewart]

Let's just institute the rules for WAS for DXCC.

Wes  N7WS

On 11/23/2018 10:44 AM, Dan Edward Dba East edwards wrote:

  gotta chip in my $0.02 on this, for what little it may be worth..
i have access to some remote rural property, here in texas, and in 
oklahoma..but k5rk and w7rh pointed out 'its not legal for dxcc if an Rx only 
site'but RHR is ok ( ? )
the league's requirement that my transmit antenna be there also greatly 
increases the cost / time / complexity commitment compared to an Rx only site; 
i COULD continue to Tx from my home qth, and listen from someplace quieter, 
with more favorable local terrain..IF it was 'legal' for DXCC..
how about 'same call area' or adjacent states / provinces instead of 500m ?
presently, still struggling with man made noise in Hunter's Creek, longview, 
texas...a very long ways from any salt water...VERY lucky to land zone 17 
recently, #38, on demon-cheater mode ( FT-8 )... atter 10 years on 160m, when i 
started from scratch.
happy holidays, y'all, and good luck!
73, W5XZ, dan
 On Thursday, November 22, 2018, 8:05:50 AM CST, Bill Cromwell 
 wrote:
  
  Hi Joe,


I would have never assumed that you have acreage whether 5 acres or
something the size of the King Ranch. All of those electrical belches
are difficult to escape. Moving your receiver out into the swamp,
forest, desert, craggy mountaintop or anywhere besides your desktop can
help. Using DSP can help and maybe even more than physical isolation.
Remote receivers can have both. Have you tried DSP?

The software packages come with spectrum displays - much like
panadapters - and I have been able to pick out Morse signals between the
points of some digital crap resembling the Burger King's crown. Without
the DSP there was no way to even hear that CW signal or know it existed.
It's not 1956 any more. We have to do whatever we have to do to pull
those signals out. Where I live my worst handicap is my 100 foot lot
followed by the automotive body shop and it's welders about 250 feet
from my back door. DSP is able to pull some signals out even when the
welder is in use! In spite of my undersize antennas. 160 DXCC? It ain't
going to happen here. I shouldn't even be on 160 meters, But I keep trying.

73,

Bill  KU8H

On 11/22/18 7:38 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

On 2018-11-22 2:08 AM, kol...@rcn.com wrote:

And this is easy to say when you have 5 acres in a semi-rural area, hi
hi.

With no antennas.  I have not been seriously active on low bands in the
20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence
of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations.  However,
even semi-rural areas have significant problems with noise from poorly
maintained power lines, neighbor's plasma TVs, etc.

Multiple remote receiver/"pick your remote station" is the scourge of
DXCC in general as it completely removes both station building and
operating skills from the equation and replaces them with the check
book.  One might as well replace amateur radio with "hamsphere" or
IRL.

73,

      ... Joe, W4TV

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



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

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[Wes Stewart]

One of our SADXA members just wrote a paper about the possibility of daytime 
40-meter DX during mid-December.


But on this subject I would like to know who made the ONE 160-meter SSB QSO with 
VP6D.


Wes  N7WS

On 11/20/2018 11:57 AM, Clive GM3POI wrote:

JC I think you have to be careful about saying this daytime or that qso
could not have happened. "It entirely depends where the station is located."
An example, I have a QSL with three QSOS between me and a JD1 station all
within about 15 mins of each other, on different dates and centred on midday
here on 40m.  Stations in Northerly location will have a high degree of
probability for midwinter daytime DX contacts. They will at other parts of
the cycle, have a similar type of opening to the Pacific either side of mid
night on the higher HF bands.
I agree the OK stuff stinks and considering the previous qsl printing that
went on, you cannot believe any of the data for certain.
73 Clive GM3POI



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

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Wes Stewart]

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


Wes

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


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


73
Bruce-k1fz


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

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Wes Stewart]

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


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


Wes  N7WS

On 11/18/2018 8:55 AM, F Z_Bruce wrote:

That sounds about right. As you put a good ground system under it, that value 
will come down, and the efficiency will come up.

Many add extra antenna wire that pushes the current up the wire, this also 
raises the impedance, hopefully to near 50 ohms with the right length.
A capacitor (variable, then fixed) in series at the feed point can cancel the 
added inductance.

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


On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:41:36 -0500, WW3S wrote:

What should the Z be for a 1/4 wave inv l, with the radials attached to a 
radial plate? Mine seems to be 60 ohms or so

Sent from my iPad
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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



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

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Wes Stewart]

That is not great.  It implies excessive ground loss.

On 11/18/2018 9:41 AM, jayb1...@optonline.net wrote:

Theoretical impedance for a perfect 1/4 wave ground plane is 37 ohms. 60
ohms is great; 1.2:1 VSWR – leave it alone, you will never notice any
difference if you try to improve it. It will change with rain, snow, etc
anyhow..73 Jay ny2ny
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?

[Wes Stewart]

To the first order, the feedpoint Z (at resonance) will depend on the height of 
the vertical portion, which affects the radiation resistance. and the resistive 
loss of the ground connection which appears in series with it.  A full height 
(1/4 wavelength) vertical over perfect (zero ohm) ground will be about 35 ohm.  
A shortened vertical, toploaded (the "L" portion) will be lower than this, again 
over perfect ground. Sixty ohm seems way too high and since you have a 
respectable, but not outstanding radial system, suggests to me measurement 
error. How are you measuring this?


My inverted L, 55 feet vertical, the rest horizontal measures ~24 ohm at 
resonance, with a very marginal (work in progress) radial field of twenty, 55' 
long insulated radials on the ground.  I've used three different instruments, 
all vector analyzers, to confirm this.  (DG8SQQ, FA-VA5 and AA-55)   I have a 
50KW BC station on 1550 kHz that measures -3 dBm on this antenna.  Only a vector 
analyzer, used with care, will handle this.


Wes  N7WS

On 11/18/2018 9:48 AM, Jamie WW3S wrote:

well, I THOUGHT I had a good ground.16 radials I think, 1/4 long.so I 
thought I'd see around 30-35 ohms impedance.not sure what to think 
now.I was going to get either a balun and unun at the feed point, was going 
be someone else's statement that there inv l was around 22 ohms, glad I 
measured mine before I ordered one

- Original Message -

From: "F Z_Bruce" 
To: w...@zoominternet.net, "Topband" 
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:55:47 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: Impedance of inv l?


That sounds about right. As you put a good ground system under it, that value 
will come down, and the efficiency will come up.

Many add extra antenna wire that pushes the current up the wire, this also 
raises the impedance, hopefully to near 50 ohms with the right length.
A capacitor (variable, then fixed) in series at the feed point can cancel the 
added inductance.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:41:36 -0500, WW3S wrote:

What should the Z be for a 1/4 wave inv l, with the radials attached to a 
radial plate? Mine seems to be 60 ohms or so

Sent from my iPad
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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



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

Re: Topband: ARRL DXCC - 160 Meters

[Wes Stewart]

I can carry one card to an approved 160 field checker and get it approved.  He 
has no idea what my total are.


Wes  N7WS

On 11/17/2018 7:32 AM, uy0zg wrote:


Joe !

To the checker was declared all 339. No doubt !

Nick, UY0ZG


Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 16:22:

The checker does not know the total.  That number is only in the
DXCC records at ARRL.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-17 9:09 AM, uy0zg wrote:



How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ?

Nick, UY0ZG


Joe Subich, W4TV писал 2018-11-17 15:47:

On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:>

Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...?


The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC
records (not LotW).

OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with
fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly field checker (or
overworked ARRL staff person at a hamfest).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-17 3:46 AM, uy0zg wrote:


Who makes this list - amateur radio, topbander or robot ...?



http://www.arrl.org/system/dxcc/view/DXCC-160M-20181117-A4.pdf#page=1=a%20%20uto,-12,848 
Nick, UY0ZG



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



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

Re: Topband: Zone 18 is very active

[Wes Stewart]

I worked him near my SR this morning, although he had a tough time hearing me.

Wes  N7WS

On 11/3/2018 10:42 AM, Ed Stallman wrote:
From an exchange E-mail with  R0SR Igor writes . " On Top Band today I have 15 
QSOs with

NA :-) From Lrkutsk CQ Zone 18 "

Times are good on the TB , keep an ear to the North

73 Ed N5DG 


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

Re: Topband: Loss Question

[Wes Stewart]

Whoa.   I said no such thing. The AC6LA calculator is definitely not simplified 
and/or inaccurate.


Wes  N7WS


On 10/25/2018 11:07 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:


Hi Bob,


As Wes points out, the AC6LA calculator is overly simplified and not
very accurate. Despite that, the answer to your question remains the same:


The additional loss caused by a 50 ohm coaxial cable feeding a 36
ohm load is insignificant at 1.8 MHz.


73
Frank
W3LPL

- Original Message -

From: "Robert L. Chortek" 
To: donov...@starpower.net
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 6:00:48 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Loss Question



That's a GREAT calculator Frank. Thanks again!




From: Topband  on behalf of donov...@starpower.net 

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 10:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Loss Question


This is an alternative calculator:


www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm


For 200 feet of RG-213 terminated in a 36 ohm load,
the additional cable loss at 1.8 MHz is only 0.026 dB .


73
Frank
W3LPL




- Original Message -




On 10/25/2018 10:24 AM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote:

Does anyone know how much power would be lost if a resonant antenna with an 
Impedance of say, e.g. 36 Ohms is fed with 50 Ohm coax? Is there a good source 
where I could look up this kind of information?


Thanks!


Bob/AA6VB
_
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



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

Re: Topband: Loss Question

[Wes Stewart]

Here's a bit more from Dan, AC6LA, about this:

https://ac6la.com/swrloss.html

Wes  N7Ws

On 10/25/2018 10:49 AM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote:

Hi Mike,


That just goes so show you how little I know!  I assumed, apparently 
incorrectly, that there was some loss IN ADDITION to the transmission line loss 
(which I know how to calculate).  In other words, I thought that if my 
transmitter was connected directly to the antenna there would be some mismatch 
loss and that as soon as I added coax, then ADDITIONAL transmission line loss 
would be added and the TOTAL loss would be the sum of the two components.  I 
infer from the responses that the loss is only the transmission line loss 
(aside from whatever efficiency losses are in the system due to the type of 
loading, resistance between connections, conductor loss, ground loss, etc., 
etc.).


Thanks for your reply!


73, es DX,


Bob/AA6VB



From: Mike Waters 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 10:43 AM
To: Chortek, Robert L.
Cc: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Loss Question

It is impossible to answer you without knowing the length and type of coax. :-)

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
WØBTU's Radio Communication Technical Articles and File 
...
www.w0btu.com
Amateur radio technical information by Mike Waters, W0BTU




On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 12:24 PM Chortek, Robert L. 
mailto:robert.chor...@berliner.com>> wrote:
Does anyone know how much power would be lost if a resonant antenna with an 
Impedance of say, e.g.  36 Ohms is fed  with 50 Ohm coax?  Is there a good 
source where I could look up this kind of information?


Thanks!
Bob/AA6VB

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



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

Re: Topband: Loss Question

[Wes Stewart]

https://ac6la.com/tldetails1.html


On 10/25/2018 10:24 AM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote:

Does anyone know how much power would be lost if a resonant antenna with an 
Impedance of say, e.g.  36 Ohms is fed  with 50 Ohm coax?  Is there a good 
source where I could look up this kind of information?


Thanks!


Bob/AA6VB
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



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

Re: Topband: VP6D

[Wes Stewart]

Pity they didn't stay on until our SR in AZ.  But that's not atypical.

Wes  N7WS

On 10/22/2018 10:55 AM, David Olean wrote:
I am not an expert on DX peditions, coming late to HF and 160 meters in my 
life, but I could not get over the operator at VP6D this morning on 1.826.  
Whoever it was, he was flying and getting the call correct the first time 
every time.  I was amazed at how well they were doing racking up the Qs.  
There was plenty of QSB here in Maine with the signal going from S 0.2 to 
about S6  on the S meter. At minimum, they were barely copyable.  At best, 
they were loud. I used my Europe beverage and found that it was a tad better 
than my SW beverage. I am not sure what was going on there. The Europe wires 
is a pair of 1150 ft bevs, and the SW wire is shorter at about 800 ft. After 
making a contact, I experimented with diversity on the K3 and had the SW wire 
in my right ear and the 45 degree wire in my left ear.  Copy was better with 
diversity, but I think I need to check my beverage terminations!! Maybe it was 
an arrival angle situation that favored the longer wire's pattern.  I learn 
something every day.


Dave K1WHS


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



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

Re: Topband: Why no NA 160m Activity?

[Wes Stewart]

The USA is a big country; four time zones.  Sunset on the east coast is three + 
hours before our sunset here in AZ.  By the time we have full darkness (~0100Z) 
you guys across the pond are all asleep.  If you are up and on, we have three 
time zones of QRM and several more hops to deal with.


Similarly, DX to the west often gives up before our sunrise when we get signal 
enhancement and a reduction of QRN from the east.


Wes  N7WS

ps. Don't want to talk about FT8


On 10/17/2018 10:07 AM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

I know you guys in North America have a lot of Lightning & Static problems
in the summer . . . but surely that's all gone now?

If so, why is there so little activity on CW from NA on Top Band?

Every night there's usually a load of us Europeans on from your Sunset time,
calling CQ DX.

The band is clearly open, from the RBN signal reports . . . but I'll often
come on for at least an hour, and lucky if I have 3 or 4 QSOs !  And even
then, it tends to be none of the big signals.

What makes it even more frustrating is that there's usually LOADS of people
posting FT8 contacts on the 160m DX Cluster . . . but very few proper CW
Stations !

Roger G3YRO

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



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

Re: Topband: antenna analyzers

[Wes Stewart]

I can now verify that the FA-VA5 does just fine on my 160 meter inverted-L.

As an aside, we've had some rain here in Tucson lately and I've observed a 
decrease in the feedpoint Z of about 5 ohm due to increased ground 
conductivity.  Welcome, but I know it's temporary.


Wes  N7WS



On 10/12/2018 1:35 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


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

Re: Topband: trying to tune up 80 meter 4-Square

[Wes Stewart]

Joe is correct.

On 10/12/2018 5:45 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

On 2018-10-12 7:10 PM, MrToby wrote:

You dont have to lower them but you need to short them to ground to
make them electrically invisible

No, with 1/4 wave elements you must *open* the feed point - disconnect
any feedlines and remove any components across the feedpoint - to make
them invisible.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-10-12 7:10 PM, MrToby wrote:

You dont have to lower them but you need to short them to ground to make
them electrically invisible

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 6:07 PM Dick Green WC1M  wrote:


Interesting. This is not how I tuned my 40m 4-square, albeit with tubular
elements not slopers.

Anyway, my understanding is that you disconnect all four elements from the
control box and measure at the feedpoint, not through the phasing lines. I
did it that way and had no trouble tuning the elements. I did, however,
tune them to a frequency that was something like 5% below the target
resonant frequency. I can't remember the exact frequencies now, but I think
I wanted the array resonant at 7.025 MHz, so I tuned them to about 6.700
MHz. Might have been a little higher than that.

I've not heard that you must lower the other elements to do the tuning.
Certainly a pain with nesting tubular elements.

73, Dick WC1M




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



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

Re: Topband: antenna analyzers

[Wes Stewart]

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

Re: Topband: FW: [cwops] Topband season looking good

[Wes Stewart]

One problem for us on (or near) the west coast is too many DX stations to the 
west QRT before our sunrise.  I rely on the SR enhancement and, probably more 
important, the diminished QRN from the east as the continental land mass becomes 
sunlit.   Of course, to the east it's pretty much hopeless most of the time, if 
it isn't QRN even when I can copy EU or AF it's QRM from the east coast that 
keeps QSOs from happening..


So far this season, it's just been UA0ZC (booming signal) a couple of days ago, 
HL5IVL (also good sig) yesterday and 5W0GC who was still building when I worked 
him through lots of static crashes this morning.


Had an 80-meter terminator path to TO6 a couple of days ago when he quit.

Wes  N7WS


On 10/5/2018 8:29 AM, Raymond Benny wrote:

Oh I wish, but not for the West Coast.

Been listening intently on 160m for the TO6, 9X0 and 3V8 to be audioable,
but nothing. I need them all. Both TO6 and 9X0T were workable on 80m.

Earily Oct is too soon for us, maybe there is hope for the 3V8...

Will keep listening.

Ray,
N6VR

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018, 6:44 AM  wrote:


Hi topband lovers

The good days of 160m propagation is back!  T88UW signal was real 569 10
minutes after my SR. Ichiro is running 100W and a sloper antenna not so
high. Robert DU7ET also with good signal this morning. All lovely cw
signals.

DX season on 160m is open and very promising.

73's
JC
N4IS



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

Re: Topband: 160m antenna help

[Wes Stewart]

Paul,

It would be nice to have a few more data points.  The two you supplied when 
mapped onto the Smith Chart don't give much evidence of a resonant point and the 
second one doesn't make sense.  With these limited data I suggest that your 
loading wire is too long. I would try shortening it to bring X down to zero.  
Alternatively, a series capacitor of 2800 pf would give you resonance at 1.825 
with SWR= 1.5.  By serendipity the SWR at 1.882 is also 1.5, but on the opposite 
(wrong) side of the Smith Chart


None of this improves the ground loss situation.

Bottom line, I suspect your data is flawed, which seems to be an epidemic with 
the numbers being posted lately from RigExpert equipment.  This is curious as I 
have an AA-55 which, except for tacking on one bogus data point in exported 
files, agrees closely with data taken on the same inverted L with my DG8SAQ 
VNWA. It also overlays modeled data quite nicely.


Wes  N7WS

On 9/21/2018 1:06 PM, Paul Mclaren wrote:

Looking for the advice of the experienced hams for what if anything I
should do to make my 160m inverted L more efficient.   Being realistic I am
limited as I have a postage stamp garden so can't really lay more radials
or change much beyond the inverted L.  I guess the question is would some
sort of match at the base help?

Antenna is inverted L with 18m vertical section

Radials are approx 40 x 10m lengths and a layer of copper mesh out to about
5 metres from the base as well.

Using my RigExpert AA30 analyser the readings are:

Usual TX frequency:

Freq 1825khz:SWR: 2.6, R33ohm, X 31ohm, Z 44ohm, L: 2700nH


Lowest SWR is:

Freq 1882kHz:   SWR 1.7, R72.5ohm, X20.5ohm, Z77ohm, L: 1900nH

I'll be honest and confess I don't fully understand how to best optimise
the antenna and what "good" looks like particularly on the low bands.

Help please and thanks in advance.

Regards

Paul MM0ZBH

The antenna works but no
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Toploaded vertical - SWR

[Wes Stewart]

I suspect your data.  For a 0.1 lambda vertical, the radiation resistance will 
be quite low particularly with sloping loading wires and with your radial system 
the ground loss will be high.  Additionally, I think the top loading is 
insufficient to achieve resonance.  Yet you seem to have it.  Your feedpoint Z 
is 15 ohm which seems too low, yet your SWR curve is too broad.  Something just 
looks funny to me, but I've been wrong before.


Wes  N7WS

On 9/18/2018 1:44 PM, Ashraf Chaabane wrote:

Hi all,

I just finished setting up my vertical antenna for 160 in 3V8SF location. It 
is 17m (55 ft) long with 2 top loading wires 12m each (40ft), angle to 
vertical about 40 deg. I added 8 radials, 20m each (65ft).
With no shunt matching, the SWR at antenna base is 3.2 and at radio side is 
2.8. Is there any way I can improve the SWR further?


Photos of the antenna along with SWR curve can be found here: 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_3FsWZI3zdi56zz0LOiKNOmfgiWeN6yG?usp=sharing


73 Ash 3V8SS/KF5EYY
www.kf5eyy.info
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: W7YRV Roy's Increadable Antenna Farm

[Wes Stewart]

For more about Roy, our DX club website has additional photos of his antenna 
farm, as well as some other members' projects.


See: http://sadxa.org/memberprojects.html

Wes  N7WS

On 9/16/2018 1:40 AM, S57AD wrote:

Thank you, Terry! Incredible antenna farm indeed! Enjoyed reading the story
and watching pics!

73, Mirko, S57AD



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

Re: Topband: Air Wound Coil

[Wes Stewart]

I agree with Rick.  The advantage to the edge-wound inductor is the better heat 
dissipation; needed because the Q is lower :-)


Wes  N7WS

On 8/30/2018 5:44 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 8/30/2018 3:44 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:


You can also get the edge-wound (flat) 1/4 inch by 1/16 inch coil that they
use in the ATR-30 rotary coil tuner. That's a killer piece of copper.



Actually no.  Edge wound is inferior in terms of Q to round wire.
It only makes sense for a rotary coil, where it needs to be edge
wound for mechanical reasons.  On a flat strip, the current
crowds to the two edges for the same reasons that cause skin
effect, thereby wasting most of the copper.  Round wires are
immune from this because they have no edges.

73
Rick N6RK
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: OT - US Hams, WWV closure

[Wes Stewart]

Bingo.  Just like "government shutdowns" where they close Grand Canyon or 
Yellowstone NPs. Maximize the pain for the general public so we scream.


N7WS

On 8/24/2018 5:21 AM, Brian Pease wrote:
It seems to me that this may be similar to the time when the Government 
threatened to cut the VHF weather broadcasts or when schools threaten to cut 
popular arts or sports programs.  I could be wrong, but they may simply be 
trying to gain sympathy for a larger budget.

Brian, W1IR, VT

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

Re: Topband: R: Copying IV3PRK in WA-State CN98

[Wes Stewart]

My aren't we testy.  We each operate with our own ethics. You want to work DXCC 
on your phone it's your business.  I'll stick to mine.


N7WS

On 8/22/2018 1:52 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Do you turn off your phone, email and every other communication method when 
playing radio?  JTAlert texting is just one of many ways people can contact 
you.  He didn't need your RRR either.  RR or rr73 or 73 does not make a 
contact.  The exchange of some data is all that is needed.  DXCC does not 
require that you confirm reports.  You could have just ignored the message and 
continued on.


To each their own but I sure see more people trying not to play radio these 
days.

W0MU


On 8/22/2018 2:19 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
Not quite true.  I was a very early users of FT8, my first experience with 
any of the JT modes. Someone said that JTAlert was a must have so I installed 
it, not really knowing why.


I was attempting a QSO with a west African station and could tell that I was 
being QRMed after the first exchange and while I was sending reports.  I 
figured to just keep sending and wait it out. I use two computer monitors and 
it turned out that when JTAlert popped up once, it was split over the two 
screens, so the message didn't register with me.  The second time it 
appeared, I got enough to know that he was sending me a text message 
indicating that he had my report and just needed my RRR.  I did not send him 
anything further and uninstalled the program.


Wes  N7WS


On 8/22/2018 8:23 AM, Pierluigi Mansutti wrote:

Yes, it is for REAL! nothing remote on this side.
I really enjoy FT8 because all QSO's are real.If your antennas and your 
radio hears the DX then the computer decodes it. No way to call a spot or to 
make an internet QSO through a chat line.


_
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: R: Copying IV3PRK in WA-State CN98

[Wes Stewart]

Not quite true.  I was a very early users of FT8, my first experience with any 
of the JT modes. Someone said that JTAlert was a must have so I installed it, 
not really knowing why.


I was attempting a QSO with a west African station and could tell that I was 
being QRMed after the first exchange and while I was sending reports.  I figured 
to just keep sending and wait it out. I use two computer monitors and it turned 
out that when JTAlert popped up once, it was split over the two screens, so the 
message didn't register with me.  The second time it appeared, I got enough to 
know that he was sending me a text message indicating that he had my report and 
just needed my RRR.  I did not send him anything further and uninstalled the 
program.


Wes  N7WS


On 8/22/2018 8:23 AM, Pierluigi Mansutti wrote:

Yes, it is for REAL! nothing remote on this side.
I really enjoy FT8 because all QSO's are real.If your antennas and your radio 
hears the DX then the computer decodes it. No way to call a spot or to make an 
internet QSO through a chat line.


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

Re: Topband: WD8DSB & LU5OM 160 meter year long test complete

[Wes Stewart]

I often saw your spots, but the hours were just awful for me in AZ.  Too late to 
stay up late, too early to get up early.


I am reminded of some skeds that W7UBI (SK) and I ran on another part of the 
spectrum, 2-meters, on meteor scatter in 1978-1979 For over a year we did a 
half-hour skeds each Saturday and Sunday morning.  Over about a 900 mile path we 
made valid QSOs about 30% of the time on CW.


Still hope to QSO Manuel someday.

Wes  N7WS

On 8/2/2018 10:11 AM, Don Kirk wrote:

For those of you that have been getting up early each morning to listen for
LU5OM, just wanted to let you know that we have reached the end of our year
long test.  Manuel (LU5OM) and I (WD8DSB) are pretty worn out getting up
almost every morning (0845 UTC) for one year.  Manuel will still continue
to be very active on 160 meters as he closes in on his DXCC, but our
official schedule has ceased.

As previously reported, our test turned out to be very interesting in that
I was able to copy Manuel at least 95% of the days that I listened
(including my summer months with lots of lightning crashes), with copy
meaning I could copy his call sign and hear him say he was calling CQ.  Our
path is almost a true North/South path (actually 160 degrees) at a distance
of 4700 miles.  For the majority of our test Manuel used a top loaded
vertical (currently 64 foot tall) and 500 watts. My RX situation is a small
pennant (51.6% of full size) using one W7IUV preamp, an old Kenwood TS-180s
with 500 Hz filter and a 200 Hz hi-per-mite active audio filter.

As I said before, this (95% success rate) is something I would have never
thought possible when we started our year long test.

Just FYI and 73,
Don wd8dsb (and Manuel LU5OM)
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: KH1 QSL's on LOTW

[Wes Stewart]

Despite several emails to clear up the fact that I donated but wasn't on the 
donor list, I was assured that I was and would be getting early LoTW 
confirmation.  Didn't happen.


Although I have enough paper cards to have 100 confirmed I've been waiting for 
some time for #100 via LoTW.  This one would be it. Oh, well.


Wes  N7WS

On 7/16/2018 7:18 AM, Bill Gillenwater wrote:

For those who donated to the KH1 effort, the QSL's hit LOTW.

73 Bill K3SV
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Radial plate

[Wes Stewart]

Tony,

I'm using a DX Engineering plate on my 160 inverted-L.  In my case, I also have 
the HD tiltover fixture mounted on a 3" diameter pipe cast in concrete.  I mount 
the plate a bit over 1" above the concrete surface so there is room to install 
the bolts around the edge of the plate from below.


As to running a ground wire up from the plate, understand that this will be part 
of the antenna.  If the coax is parallel to this I imagine some coupling that 
might defeat the choke.


Wes  N7WS


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

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

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

  


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

73,

N2TK, Tony

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



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

Re: Topband: Baker Island DXpedition condx

[Wes Stewart]

According to the latest Clublog DX Report, 20-meters is still the money band; 
34% of all reported contacts made during the last 7 days were on 20.  Of those, 
41% were DX contacts.  Second was 40-meters.  Thirty meters was actually fourth, 
behind 6-meters.


Wes  N7WS


On 6/15/2018 11:02 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:

I have no doubt they will be successful on the lowbands with what should 
hopefully be an ambient free RF zone- Despite the short windows, and my guess 
30M will be their best band, if you want to call that a lowband. I do- The 
greyline characteristics in crap conditions are well proven.   I only say this 
because I am comparing my experience on Lord Howe in April of 1998 VK9LZ one 
man DX’pedition. Condx sucked- With K=8, A up to 70+, and SF never broke 70.  I 
worked 30M across every greyline I had during my darkness- 40 was ok, 80 was 
poor, and I didn’t have a topband antenna. I only had daytime propagation on 17 
and 20 meters North to JA, and a number of PAC islands, except one day 17M 
opened briefly to stateside.  30M was over 50% of my 2,432 QSO’s made in a week 
operating around 18-20 hours a day/night in a hut. Used a Cushcraft AP8A and no 
amp.  I am always surprised what 30m can do and I hope we see some fast rates 
on CW excluding the FT8 mess. Won’t be an ATNO for me, but will be interesting 
to see the topband results- It will certainly contribute to the better 
understanding TopBand propagation. I get FT-8, I really do- but just another 
means of taking away time from the pure essence of CW from 160M.



73  Paul  N0AH





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

Re: Topband: Baker Island DXpedition on 160

[Wes Stewart]

I have Baker on some bands so this isn't a must have for me, although a 160 QSO 
would be nice.  If it was, however, at my age (pushing 77) waiting a few years 
might not be an option.


I wish SV/A would be deleted, it is after all just Greece, and for some French 
ops to activate FR/G.  You have a better chance of working Baker than my wishes 
coming true.


Wes  N7WS


On 6/13/2018 9:55 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

I respectfully suggest the Baker Is. dxpedition be postponed for a few
years until band condx improve.  It makes no sense to me to mount this
costly undertaking to a limited access location when propagation is in
the toilet.   If USFWS is managing access, they've lately shown that
they'll only approve trips to islands under their custodianship every
10 years or so.  If this is the case with Baker Is., then this trip
will make another one in a few years impossible.

Another point I'd like to make is that a later trip might afford a
chance to renegotiate what I consider a ridiculous antenna limit,
which seems to be based on a ridiculous antenna design, namely the "43
foot all-band vertical."Such a height with top loading might work
okay on 80 meters but on 160 its efficiency will be poor.

73

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



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

Re: Topband: Baker Island DXpedition on 160

[Wes Stewart]

Often times the only signals on the band. :-)

On 6/13/2018 11:46 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 6/13/2018 11:35 AM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote:
A short top loaded vertical over an excellent ground will put out a fabulous 
signal on 160!




Proof:  fishing buoys get out like gangbusters.

Rick N6RK
_
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

[Wes Stewart]

Maybe my "Zoom" model is different from yours but I opened up my AA-55 Zoom and 
found the connector to be rather securely mounted.  So much so that I 
reconsidered my idea of replacing the SO239 with a type N.  Not that it isn't 
doable, just that it was more trouble than I wanted to bother with at the time.


Wes  N7WS


 On 6/11/2018 7:29 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:


My AA-55 is a different model than yours, but the instructions
have curious warning about not putting too much force on the
UHF connector.  I am thinking that RE realizes they have a
weak mechanical mounting, relying on solder.  I think I will
revise my advice:

1.  Always use a DC block
2.  Carefully attach a short flexible coax jumper and leave
in place.  Calibrate it out.  Then connect the DUT to the
end of the jumper.  No mechanical stress on the UHF.

Rick N6RK
_
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

[Wes Stewart]

Rick is correct.  There is room in my AA-55 Zoom for a blocking cap.  However, I 
only connect it to DC grounded antennas.  My 160-meter inverted-L has a 20Kohm, 
10W wirewound resistor connecting the vertical to ground on the antenna side of 
the coax connector as a static bleed.  Without it, I could be the ground path.  
During thunderstorm season, the antenna is folded over and the coax disconnected.


Wes  N7WS


 On 6/11/2018 2:07 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 6/11/2018 9:50 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:

##  Is there room inside those  rig experts units to install a .01 uf disc 
ceramic  cap ??
A  50-100  volt  cap would be smaller diameter than a 1 kv cap.   There is  
your  DC


On my 160 meter vertical I have been able to pull 1/2 inch long
arcs to ground on a perfectly clear day.  That would of course
blow up nearly any capacitor.  Instead, you need an inductor to
ground.

Similarly, "touching the leads together" before connecting the
analyzer is poor advice for obvious reasons such as the fact
that the antenna will charge back up to high voltages in less than
a second.

## On a similar note,  re the MFJ-259B. Can  a HP filter be used, to kill  AM 
broadcast

junk...or  will the HP filter  screw things up too much ?

Jim  VE7RF



An HP filter would royally screw up an network analyzer including
the 259, unless you calibrate it out, which the 259 is incapable
of.  Even on a good VNA, it is tricky to accurately calibrate
out a 9 element elliptic filter.  That is why the answer is
to get the AA-55 and be done with it.

Rick N6RK
_
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

[Wes Stewart]

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.


 DX Engineering said they had got some 75 ohm foam coax that 
instead of
 0.84 VF was more like 0.80 down to 0.76 VF. But checking all the 
way down

 to 6000 KHz on 40 meters or 2500 KHz on 80 meters fails.


 My test is to use either antenna analyzer with a PL-259 installed 
at one
 end and an open or a short at the other. I started with 57'7" of 
coax.
 Tried both with the coax in a roll and strung out. What am I doing 
wrong?



 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



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



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

Re: Topband: Biodegradable staples

[Wes Stewart]

I want to see a barefoot child running around my cactus patch.  And what, pray 
tell, is a lawnmower?


Wes  N7WS

qrz.com/db/n7ws

On 6/7/2018 1:29 PM, Rick Stealey wrote:

You should never use steel staples in the ground.  Think for a minute.  They 
are sharp, rusty objects that stay a long time.  Imagine a barefoot child 
playing in the area (after you are SK possibly).  Imagine a lawn mower grabs a 
piece of radial wire and jerks it out of the ground with wire staples attached.

All you need to do is buy or make wooden dowels, drill a hole and string them 
along the radial and pound down in.  Only need to be 4 inches long.  Simple, 
cheap, safe.




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

Re: Topband: 3B7A

[Wes Stewart]

The problem will be getting him to hear you.  I was calling in a pile on 20 SSB 
yesterday when he announced that they had another station coming up at 18130.  I 
doubt that anyone else heard that, considering the out of control mob.   I tuned 
up there and he was calling CQ at a solid S7 on my K3S.  He announced he was 
listening up 5.  As soon as he did I started calling, and calling and 
calling...  He answered no one for what seemed a long time until he was spotted 
and then he answer a few guys, obviously hearing them with considerable difficulty.


Boggles my mind that they went on a major expedition with (AFAIK) unproven 
equipment.


Wes  N7WS

On 4/8/2018 6:39 PM, Gary Smith wrote:

Elusive again tonight but a better signal
than yesterday. Only heard him well at the
beginning of GL and he dropped off 30 min
later. Could hear EU calling him clearly
before GL so the band was in decent shape
still. Going to be tough for me to hear
him at this QTH but that's the game.

GL to all,

73,

Gary
KA1J


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

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

[Wes Stewart]

Sounds like SNOTEL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOTEL

In 1976, the ARRL SW Division convention was held here in Tucson. The local club 
sponsor hadn't done anything toward serious VHF programs, so Steve, then W7RUC, 
now W7CI, and yours truly, arranged a VHF breakfast meeting at the convention 
hotel.  At personal expense we sent letters to all of the Tropo/MS/EME guys we 
could think of inviting them to the breakfast.  For speakers, we got Mike, 
K6MYC, to talk about antenna design and another guy, whose, to my regret, name 
escapes me, to speak about MS propagation.  His talk was about his company's 
involvement in a similar (if not the same) program. He had tons of data on 
meteor bursts, most of them shorter that we used on CW and SSB at the time.


Wes  N7WS

ps. Reportedly, our meeting was the hit of the convention.

On 3/31/2018 10:40 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

This is an interesting discussion related to FT8.

In 1973 (a whole 45 years ago!) when I worked for Boeing Electronic Products 
in Seattle, they had a commericial (not ham radio) meteor
scatter station.  An ASR-33 at the master station in Seattle would send what 
amounted to "CQ" to a system of slave receivers connected to rain gauge 
sensors (they do get a bit of rain in Seattle :-) around the Pacific 
Northwest.  If a particular rain gauge sensor picked up pings from meteor 
trials, it would immediately transmit its data back,
presumably while the trial was still hot.  If the trail went cold, the slave 
would get another chance the next time a meteor came. So this ASR-33 would 
just print data as it came in at random times.  There may have been a DEC 
PDP-11 involved (there were no microprocessors at the time unless you count 
pocket calculators, and the HP35 wasn't

programmable).

I don't know much FT8, but this legacy system sounds a lot like
FT8.  Automatic QSO'ing, like the floating FT8 station out of
Hawaii.  Waiting for the teletype to fire up every few minutes
while it earned "worked all rain gauges" was more like watching paint dry than 
having "fun".  They did need to have an "operator" at the master station to 
change the paper in the teletype once in a while.


Rick N6RK 


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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

[Wes Stewart]

1)  I have yet to (and likely never will) install an RX only antenna.  Hence, I 
receive on the same inverted-L I transmit on.  It's been my experience that I 
still hear better than I get out with 500W.  Perhaps it is just operator skill 
that makes it possible.  :-)


2)  "Poor" is rather subjective.  Compared to some fellow club members who run 
NA7TB I have a poor antenna.  Compared to others with 40 foot verticals in deed 
restricted locations, I have a great antenna.


Regardless, I completed working my TB DXCC this season, which was my goal.

Wes  N7WS

On 3/30/2018 10:47 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

1.  You never use an inverted L or other vertical for receiving,
unless maybe, you are in a QTH so remote and noise free it might work.
But in-town, forget it.

2,  From my experience, 7 or 8 out of 10 hams on 160 m., have poor
antennas, usually low horizontal wires.  Most of these fellows are
casual operators who ragchew and are okay as long as they understand
the limits of their antennas.

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



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

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

[Wes Stewart]

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


Wes  N7WS

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


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


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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

[Wes Stewart]

Could be. An effective balun on 160 isn't trivial, but then the questions are at 
least twofold. 1) How ineffective is it and what are the relative currents on 
the intended radiator compared to the incidental radiator and 2)  what 
constitutes the ground plane?  On my cactus patch I'm working my tail off to get 
an effective ground plane laid down under my "real" inverted L.  I would be 
saddened to know that 120 feet of Heliax laying on the ground from the antenna 
to the shack would be all I need. :-)


Wes  N7WS

On 3/28/2018 6:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

One thing about an inverted vee on 160 that can
confusing:  if you don't go to a lot of trouble to
have a really effective balun, you end up having
feedline radiation.  In the case, you really have
an inverted L.  This is related to articles written
about so called "loop skywires" where they say:
do NOT use a balun.  That's because they are really
counting on the feedline to be the vertical radiator
on 160 meters and the loop is just top loading.

Therefore, low inverted vee "success stories" may
not mean what you think they mean.

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



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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

[Wes Stewart]

We live in two countries separated by a common language.

In the states, we consider any wire in a "v" shape suspended upside down to 
be...wait for it... an inverted vee, regardless of height as far as I know.


Are you suggesting that in Merrie Olde England there is a specified angle 
between legs that define a "v"?


Wes  N7WS

On 3/28/2018 2:23 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

...You'd have to have the centre at
least 100ft high for it to be an inverted vee.

Roger G3YRO
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

[Wes Stewart]

My first 67 entities worked on 160 were with an inverted-vee with apex at about 
45 feet and the ends about 5 feet high.  Actually a few were with the antenna 
cut for 80 and using a tuner.  I couldn't even run full power (500W) with that 
configuration.


Wes  N7WS


On 3/27/2018 11:49 AM, Carl Luetzelschwab wrote:

Pete N4ZR said one option was to "Suspend inverted vees for 80 and 40 from
the top of the rocket launcher (right under the tribander)."

Gene AD3F commented on low inv-vees:  "From what I've read on Topband and
TowerTalk over the years, a low Vee as you're proposing is likely to be a
cloud warmer."

Yes, a low inv-vee will radiate more energy at the higher elevation angles.
But it still radiates energy at the lower elevation angles that are useful
for longer distance contacts. For example, a 160-Meter inv-vee at an apex
of 45 feet is about 10 dB down (approx 2 S-units) at an elevation angle of
15 degrees compared to a quarter-wave vertical over average ground.

For the CQ 160M CW contest in January 2017, I used a 160-Meter inv-vee at
45 feet, with the last third of each end running horizontal and bent 90
degrees from the main portion to fit on our property. Yes, it's a
compromise antenna, but I worked 44 states (missed ME, ID, NE, AK), 7
Canadian provinces and 17 DXCC entities (mostly Carib, Central Amer and
South Amer, with some EU and a North Africa). My amp at 800 Watts certainly
helped, along with a Shared Apex Loop array for receive.

I wasn't first in most pile-ups, but perseverance got the job done most of
the time. So don't count out a low inv-vee if you have trouble putting up
something better. The inv-vee is relatively easy to erect and it's
efficient in terms of not needing a ground system. Of course an 80-Meter
inv-vee at 45 feet will be better than a 160-Meter inv-vee at 45 feet, as
it's twice as high in terms of wavelengths.

Carl K9LA
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX Activity Night

[Wes Stewart]

Hi Dave,

Although I made my first 160 QSO using a DX100 and a re-tuned car radio for a 
receiver in 1959 (a VE7 no less) I've not really been a regular on topband.  
Last year it dawned on me that if I got a 160 DXCC I would have 9 bands, so that 
became a goal.  I now have it worked but need about 5 or 6 more QSLs.


As for more "goo" I dunno.  I'm 76 and am supposed to be downsizing :-).  I 
previously sold the tube amp, ripped out the 240V service and bought an Elecraft 
KPA500.  Now they have a KPA1500 but it's $6K and I have other ongoing issues 
with some of my Elecraft stuff, although the KPA500 has been almost flawless.


Plus, I've already spent an astonishing amount of $ on a simple inverted-L.  
Sonotube, concrete, chrome moly ground post, DX Engineering foldover mount, 
winch, aluminum tubing, hose clamps, guy ropes and wire for radials.  Whew.  
Whatever happened to the beer can vertical?  I was going to say I can afford 
upgrades, but the stock market just sank 700 points, so maybe not.


But, as you say, it's mostly fun and cheaper than playing golf.

Wes  N7WS



On 3/22/2018 8:21 AM, David Olean wrote:


Hi Wes,

I got home late (0100 UT) from a school band performance (grandkids!) and 
found no activity to speak of. I hoped to find G3YRO but no luck.  QRN levels 
from lightning had dropped towards Europe but there was zilch for activity. My 
fault that I did not stick around after 0230UT.   I suspect that condx were 
not so good that way.  I would agree on the 500 watts. On 160, you need all 
the goo you can muster for the DX.  I love playing with QRP on 160 and I can 
reach out maybe 800 or 900 miles on a good night, but, when calling stations 
across the Carib, Atlantic or way out in the Pacific, even 500 watts is 
"iffy".  So many times I hear loud DX stations and I try to call at the 100 
watt level to no avail.  It is so easy to have 10 dB of extra noise on your 
receiver and that prevents you from hearing anything other than the loudest 
signals.  The nights that are truly quiet and with the band open, are few and 
far between. I run 1500 watts out and feel that I hear much better than I can 
transmit as well.  It is difficult.  I guess that is why I love 160!


I am winding a bunch of coax chokes today to help my 160 noise problems.  I am 
also going out to get about 80 lbs of ground rods for the same project. :-)


Dave K1WHS

(another 160 newbie!)


On 3/22/2018 2:49 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
Worked PJ5/SP2GCJ @0315 for a new one for me.  OA4TT would have been a new 
one too  (I'm a newby).  He was quite strong but the one time he replied to 
me he didn't have my complete call, missing the "s", and he gave up and went 
back to CQ very quickly (I thought).


HC2AO was ESP, at best.

It's interesting that I seem to hear better than I get out, even using the 
inverted-L on RX. 500W doesn't seem to cut it.


Wes  N7WS


On 3/22/2018 6:36 AM, Lee. KX4TT via Topband wrote:
Hmmm - local QRM (lights from nearby baseball field) made early evening copy 
tough on CW, so I booted up WSJT-X and saw some EU stations there (5B4AIF 
was steady copy, and some other EU stations would show up from time to 
time), from 0100-0200. Not the best conditions, but also not the worst. 
Worked OA4TT about 0400; Jack was QSA4-5 copy between some nasty static 
crashes. That's what I get for not wanting to shovel snow -) .


73 de Lee KX4TT
Tampa, FL


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


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



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

Re: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX Activity Night

[Wes Stewart]

Worked PJ5/SP2GCJ @0315 for a new one for me.  OA4TT would have been a new one 
too  (I'm a newby).  He was quite strong but the one time he replied to me he 
didn't have my complete call, missing the "s", and he gave up and went back to 
CQ very quickly (I thought).


HC2AO was ESP, at best.

It's interesting that I seem to hear better than I get out, even using the 
inverted-L on RX. 500W doesn't seem to cut it.


Wes  N7WS


On 3/22/2018 6:36 AM, Lee. KX4TT via Topband wrote:

Hmmm - local QRM (lights from nearby baseball field) made early evening copy 
tough on CW, so I booted up WSJT-X and saw some EU stations there (5B4AIF was 
steady copy, and some other EU stations would show up from time to time), from 
0100-0200. Not the best conditions, but also not the worst. Worked OA4TT about 
0400; Jack was QSA4-5 copy between some nasty static crashes. That's what I get 
for not wanting to shovel snow -) .

73 de Lee KX4TT
Tampa, FL


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

Re: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX Activity Night

[Wes Stewart]

Listening in AZ.  nil so far. 0300Z

On 3/21/2018 3:50 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

Well hopefully we'll get some stations on the band tonight !

I'll be on around 1828kHz from about Z . . .

Hope you'll be on too

73 Roger G3YRO
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Excessive noise on beverages

[Wes Stewart]

Dave,

First I see by my log that we've had two QSOs---35 years apart--- one on 2-meter 
EME and one on TB.


I'm no Beverage expert---antenna Beverage that is--- but it seems to me that 
shortening the west antenna just decreased its sensitivity.  If you're pointing 
at one or more noise sources, there isn't much antenna improvements can do.


I can't recommend a tower detuning mode, however, you might at least consider 
terminating the feedpoint on receive rather than leaving it open.  My system is 
quite modest on TB, a 55' vertical with an ~85' loading wire.  The separation 
between the vertical and a tower is 90'.  The 85' loading wire is attached (via 
an insulating rope) to the tower.  The tower supports a triband Yagi and a 
dual-band inverted-vee for 40-80. In doing some feedpoint measurements on the 
vertical v. number of radials with a vector network analyzer I saw a little 
anomaly on the Smith Chart.  To make a long investigation short, I discovered 
that either lowering the inverted-vee or terminating the coax at the shack end, 
rather than having it open, corrected the anomaly.  I have no clue as to what 
this might have been doing to the pattern.


Wes  N7WS


On 3/6/2018 10:30 AM, David Olean wrote:
I have been putzing around trying to improve my 160 meter setup, and have run 
into a real problem. Most of the USA is covered by two directions from here in 
Maine.  SW and W.  My problem is that I have an excessively high noise level 
on both of the beverages that run in these directions.  In the last six months 
it has gotten worse, and so bad that I cannot use either beverage.  The wires 
terminate at the side of my barn where I have ground rods and the RG-6 goes 
through PVC conduit up to the shack on the second floor of the barn.  During 
the day I see noise levels at -133 or -132 on the two wires, but at night the 
noise had climbed to levels around -100  or to -110 on a good night.  I 
suspected that I was getting noise coupled in from my vertical which is rather 
close and on the other side of my barn all of 55 ft away.


Yesterday, I modified the west beverage and shortened it so that it terminated 
about 150 feet away from the barn and I ran new coax back across the field.  I 
kept the SW beverage as is to compare noise levels at night. Lo and behold, 
but the noise went to -110 on the SW beverage, but only about -120 dBm on the 
modified beverage.  This is a 10 dB improvement.  Other directions at night 
run at about -130, so I am now seeing a 10 dB extra hit in noise to the west.


The vertical is a shunt fed Rohn 25 with a total height just over 90 ft with 
top loading from a 5 element long boom 10 Meter yagi. I am not sure if it is 
possible to simply un resonate this tower. Does anyone have experience with 
simple ways to decouple a shunt fed tower from the rx antennas?


The extra 10 dB of noise that I get to the west and SW  is mostly due to the 
location of a town about 7 or 8 miles away in NH. It is ripe with all sorts of 
power line noise.  I still can't rule out re radiation from the vertical 
though! I spent many years fighting with the electric utility to quell the 
noise. I involved Riley Hollingsworth and later on, Laura Smith, his 
replacement.  The effort was futile and I lost heart as the problem was just 
too big for one person to fight.  I was hoping that the noise would not affect 
160 meters as it had messed up my VHF exploits, and so far I only have this 
ten dB swath of noise that bothers me in two directions.


Any help with un resonating a shunt fed tower would be appreciated.

Dave K1WHS


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



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

Re: Topband: Conditions on 160m for ARRL Contest

[Wes Stewart]

A casual S effort here.  Worked only one EU (LZ2WO) on Saturday night local 
time.

On 2/19/2018 2:21 AM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

Well on Friday night I couldn't hear one single American station . . . even
though I heard a couple of Southern Europe stations working a few.

Saturday night conditions were better, but signals were well down on what
they have been for the past few weeks.

However, in the 3 hours I spent on the band (at different times in the
night) I did manage to work 61 American stations . . . including a few in
Brazil and the Caribbean.

For future reference, here in Britain there are about 6 Navigation Beacons
between 1810 and 1818 kHz (they sound like the old Decca HiFix) . . . these
make copying weak signals VERY difficult, so a good idea to avoid this part
of the band !

Roger G3YRO


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



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

Re: Topband: Working dupes on a band

[Wes Stewart]

Actually, there is QRM.  In fact I gave up FT8 after about a hundred Qs  after 
trying to work a nameless west African who started getting clobbered mid QSO.


I just kept repeating reports hoping that the QRM would compete and move, when 
up popped JTAlert with a message to the effect that my QSO partner had sent a 
text message saying that he had my reports and I should just send RRR to 
complete the "contact."  At that point I turned off the radio and uninstalled 
WSJT-X.


Wes  N7WS

On 2/1/2018 4:37 PM, jayb1...@optonline.net wrote:

You guys shud try FT8 on 160..DX stations hear and decode everybody at the
same time – no QRM !! They then just work their way down the list...nobody
interferes with anybody else –everybody gets a chance...jay ny2ny 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: 160m DX Activity Night

[Wes Stewart]

Wednesday would work for me.  That said, a few thoughts:

1: "right across America" includes US east coast and northern tier stations and 
those of us another hop or two further from you in the far southwestern part of 
the country.


2:  Unless I've confused you with another Roger, I remember a night a week or so 
ago when you were quite good copy here in Arizona.  It was anguish to listen to 
you work nothing but eastern US stations.   Selective calling and more rapid 
QSOs would have better utilized the opening and put more stations in your log, 
and you in mine.


Wes  N7WS


On 1/29/2018 12:04 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:

160m has often been open from Europe right across America over the past few
weeks . . .

Some nights there are LOTS of NA stations on the band . . . other times it's
very quiet, and endless CQ calls produce no replies! (despite RBN showing
there is good propagation)

Can I suggest we come up with a weekly DX Activity Night on CW?

How about a Wednesday?

73 Roger G3YRO


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



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

Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use

[Wes Stewart]

Fortunately, WAS rules are different. If they weren't you could work all states 
on10 GHz just by driving or flying from state to state.


If DXCC worked this way there would be a lot fewer guys on the top of the Honor 
Roll.  That said, the 50 mile rule wouldn't affect me one bit:-)


Wes  N7WS

On 1/14/2018 12:24 PM, jayb1...@optonline.net wrote:

We may be debating this issue too much – IMHO it seems simple using the ARRL
DXCC rules: If both the Rx and the Tx are located within the borders of the
country (Rx cud be 1000 miles away..), it’s a valid QSO for DXCC, WAS, etc
purposes.


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

Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use

[Wes Stewart]

There has been some related discussion on the Clublog group.

I'm 76 years old (this is my 60th year in ham radio) and two away (SV/A and 
FR/G) from top of the Honor Roll.  I don't think I'll make it in this lifetime.  
In these years, I've had a local DXer (SK) call me on the telephone to let me 
know that "I" worked TYA11, when I most assuredly hadn't.  He thought he had 
done me a favor by using my call, without permission of course, to make the 
contact.  I read him the riot act. I believe that another "Honor" Roll member 
used a similar "contact."


I made a recent, now abandoned, foray into FT8.  I quit that when I got a text 
message via JTAlert from my QSO partner, who was being badly QRMed at that 
point, telling me he had my report and just needed RRR.  Some, I suppose would 
think of this as a good QSO.  Not me.


From my QRZ bio: "All of these contacts have been made with modest stations, 
personally constructed and operated by me and located within 10 miles of the 
center of Tucson."  This is the way I do it; however, I'm not about to try and 
impose my personal ethics on anyone else, each to his own.


Wes  N7WS


On 1/14/2018 8:23 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote:

Hi Steve,

I believe it is important to make clear when we are using a distant WebSDR 
receiver so we do not mislead others to wrong conclusions about propagation 
conditions nor the performance of their station equipment. I do agree there is 
nothing inherently evil about using WebSDR. One primary goal of ham radio is 
to communicate. You can't work them if you can't hear them. But we also draw 
conclusions about propagation and station performance. In the case of 
"contests" or activities like DXCC paper chasing use of far remote receivers 
could undermine the core of the activity. I am not a paper chaser so others 
must decide that issue.


I have been playing with WebSDR reception and I expect to eventually submit 
some logs that relies on use of those. The log will always include the 
information about what receiver was used and it's location. I think that is 
important information. Others may have different motives. I am not a radio 
legislator and I am not in enforcement.


Do your best to fit your own activities into the 'big picture' and practice 
good citizenship.


73,

Bill  KU8H

On 01/14/2018 10:03 AM, Steve Babcock wrote:
I have been "sitting" on this for a few weeks wondering if I should share 
this information, but after seeing some spots yesterday for VU2GSM on 160m, I 
decided that others may appreciate it.

I know I would.

If you have worked Kanti, VU2GSM recently on the low bands...40, 80 or 160 
you should be aware that he was most likely RX using a NA webSDR. The links 
below are PDF copies of email correspondence with Kanti confirming that this 
is routine for him.The emails are between both VE5UA, myself and VU2GSM. 
(Please read the email threads from the "bottom up" to be chronological.)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15n35-1wHPOdWi2Xib7QAQgxkg-hrOujs/view?usp=sharing 
 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdZFLJrwcBs-vHh0PNZc2DSevu3lrwcg/view?usp=sharing 
 



To be clear, I do not judge Kanti for his desire to augment his rx, and do 
not think it is wrong. If he chooses to use Ham radio this way that is his 
choice. However, I myself do not wish to include a "half" QSO toward my own 
(personal) DXCC count, and perhaps others will feel the same hence this 
email. I also don't judge others that are good with such webSDR QSOs since 
each has his own goals and objectives.


Here is some background. I have been working VU2GSM frequently and with ease 
on 40m in the morning and evening. He would respond almost immediately to my 
calls which seemed odd. More typical is Rakash VU2RAK who has a great signal 
but usually can't copy me, though we have QSOd a few times when conditions 
are exceptional.
While at a local ham lunch, I mentioned this, and Don VE6JY said that Kanti 
is often logged into his webSDR. The following week I copied VU2GSM on 80m in 
the evening with very light copy with my 2el Yagi and 1000' beverage 
(diversity rx with K3). He answered immediately and we had a QSO. I was 
suspicious. I emailed Don VE6JY and he confirmed that at that time Kanti was 
indeed logged into his SDR.

I deleted the QSO from my log.
This then precipitated the e-mail correspondence which I share on the 
attached links.


There is little doubt this is going on all the time, and we will never know. 
We can't undo the technology that makes webSDR possible.
There are those who who feel that this destroys the “integrity” of the DXCC. 
However, not everyone cares about DXCC.
Kanti is not a villan. He 

Re: Topband: Band Open - But No Sunrise Peak

[Wes Stewart]

Although my first ever top-band QSO was in 1959 and was a DX station (VE7) it's 
only been in the last year or so that I've been semi-seriously working the 
band.  The impetus being a 9th band DXCC.  At the moment, I have 82 entities 
worked, 52 of them in the last 12 months.  I'm clearly not an expert. That said, 
my observations from the desert of southern Arizona are that I've never noted 
any peaking at my SS but up until maybe a month ago I was noting a peak at my SR.


The caveats are: 1) I'm using my ground-mounted 55' high Inverted-L TX antenna 
on RX, 2) there is a lot more noisy land mass to the north and east of me than 
to the west.  A peak at my SS, if any, when I'm looking for stations in darkness 
(EU, AF), brings up noise as well as signals and offers no SNR improvement. The 
other downside is the increased QRM and the extra hops to any DX.  To the west 
at my SR, the usual activity is from JA, HL, BY and sometimes UA9/UA0.  All of 
these are ~6,000+ mile paths. Noise from the east naturally subsides but there 
is "usually" also a definite peak in received signals.


"Usually" is the operative word.  A couple of surgeries and disconnected 
antennas due to a passing storm had me QRT for the last ten or so days, but this 
AM I was back on.  At 1230Z, the band was loaded with JAs and one HL, most of 
whom I've worked before.  In deference to the W4s I heard calling them I only 
worked the pleading ones.  (I wish I got the same deference in the other 
direction).  Signals were above average, S5-S7.  I decided to hit the shower and 
come back at SR which was 1425Z today.  I returned at about 1400Z and the band 
was totally quiet, with the exception of one station in CO, calling CQ.  I don't 
know whether conditions suddenly changed or all dozen JAs decided to go to bed 
at the same time.


Wes  N7WS


On 1/12/2018 10:23 AM, Nick Hall-Patch wrote:
Wasn't some of the apparent peaking of signals at sunrise due to improved 
signal to noise levels as noise levels drop at sunrise?


20 years ago for many of us, noise levels did actually drop at sunrise.   For 
many DXers now, (man-made) noise levels stay the same after sunrise, so, no 
apparent increase in signal strength (actually increase in S/N ratio).


This is not to say that there was  no "real" increase in signal levels at 
sunrise 20 years ago, just that it was perhaps less frequent than was thought 
at the time.    If someone has recorded signal strength levels from that 
period, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.


This morning, in western Canada, a medium-wave broadcaster, HLAZ-1566kHz from 
South Korea was audible until after 1700UT,  an hour past local sunrise, with 
a reasonable sunrise peak. Yesterday, there wasn't much of a sunrise peak, 
and  local noise conditions haven't changed that much over 24 hours.


Was any west coaster on 160m on those two mornings?

73,

Nick
VE7DXR




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

Re: Topband: WKYW on 1810kc

[Wes Stewart]

Yeah but, do they QSL?

On 1/10/2018 4:14 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:

I just sent them an email. Maybe others can also.
Boy, whatever problem they have results in a good 160m signal.
Tnx all for replies.
Bill K4JYS


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

Re: Topband: Anyone else hear these?

[Wes Stewart]

It's amazing how much information you can find once you know what you are 
looking for.  Until then, not so much.  I tried searching for "beacons", etc, 
with no luck. Hence the question.


N7WS


On 12/16/2017 4:30 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Lots of information is in the searchable archives of this reflector at
lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/. A search for "drift net",
"fishnet", and "fish net" will return everything that you wanted to know
about these beacons, but were afraid to ask. ;-)

There are one or two ham websites that are also a wealth of information.
Some have a list of them and encourage reports of new ones, as well as
photos and technical details.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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

Re: Topband: Anyone else hear these?

[Wes Stewart]

Thanks for all of the replies.  Seems I'd heard these mentioned someplace but 
didn't put two and two together.


On 12/16/2017 1:19 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
From time to time I'm hearing some non-ham stations transmitting on 1823 and 
1829 KHz.  These signals typically pop up as steady carriers then identify in 
Morse and disappear.  I've heard IDs of 4OMD, 4NAF and 4NAG.


Ideas?

Wes  N7WS



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



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

Topband: Anyone else hear these?

[Wes Stewart]

From time to time I'm hearing some non-ham stations transmitting on 1823 and 
1829 KHz.  These signals typically pop up as steady carriers then identify in 
Morse and disappear.  I've heard IDs of 4OMD, 4NAF and 4NAG.


Ideas?

Wes  N7WS



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

Re: Topband: ARRL 160

[Wes Stewart]

Jose,

First thank you for the QSO.  You are one of the few Europeans I have worked on 
160 with my very modest station in southern Arizona and are a new one for me.


I think the that the key here is "a few Hz" offset.  Of course 100 Hz is more 
than a few and would be too much for a receiving station with a 50 Hz filter in 
use.  I will just turn on XIT and dial in +/- 20 - 30 Hz.


As a practical matter in my case, I will in all likelihood not be heard in any 
pileup of central or east coast USA stations anyway.


Wes  N7WS

On 12/7/2017 10:53 AM, Jose Ramon wrote:

That's not going to work often during a contest. It depends on how crowded
is the band you stretch or narrow your passband. When a narrow filter is
set if you call 100 Hz away we won't hear you.
During a dxp the scenario is quite different, you're the alone, I normally
set, whenever is possible, the widest passband so I can hear anyone on the
split within 2,5 KHz, the brain does the rest.

Thanks for the last weekend ARRL contest QSOs.

73
Jose, EA7KW

2017-12-07 18:33 GMT+01:00 Wes Stewart <wes_n...@triconet.org>:


Shh.  You're giving away my secrets.

Wes  N7WS

On 12/7/2017 10:07 AM, ma...@ka5m.net wrote:


I respectfully disagree with Don Kirk. My experience has been different. I
don't how many pileups I've broken quickly - where the station I'm trying
to
work is operating simplex - by going split and transmitting a few Hz above
or below "zero beat". The operator at the other end is trying to copy a
callsign, and if everybody is "zero beat" it makes it very difficult to
copy
anybody. Anything you can do to make your signal "stand out" or
differentiate it from the crowd makes it easier for the station you're
trying to work. (Also speeding up or slowing down a few WPM sometimes
helps.)

Someone taught me this a long time ago, and it works. He's worked a lot of
good DX in the last sixty (60) years or so.

73,
Marsh, KA5M



_
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: ARRL 160

[Wes Stewart]

Shh.  You're giving away my secrets.

Wes  N7WS

On 12/7/2017 10:07 AM, ma...@ka5m.net wrote:

I respectfully disagree with Don Kirk. My experience has been different. I
don't how many pileups I've broken quickly - where the station I'm trying to
work is operating simplex - by going split and transmitting a few Hz above
or below "zero beat". The operator at the other end is trying to copy a
callsign, and if everybody is "zero beat" it makes it very difficult to copy
anybody. Anything you can do to make your signal "stand out" or
differentiate it from the crowd makes it easier for the station you're
trying to work. (Also speeding up or slowing down a few WPM sometimes
helps.)

Someone taught me this a long time ago, and it works. He's worked a lot of
good DX in the last sixty (60) years or so.

73,
Marsh, KA5M



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

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Wes Stewart]

My scenario had the CW man on the frequency FIRST.

On 11/29/2017 4:54 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

A typical CW guy will hear FT8 or JT65 as a kinda whiny wobbly intermittent 
carrier. And will probably think it’s just some neighborhood switching power 
supply noise. He won’t CQ right on top of it (because he wants to hear a DX 
respondent) but he will have no problem firing up 500 Hz away.

But the digital guys e.g. FT8 have 2khz wide filters. So there is a fundamental 
assymetry here.

Tim N3QE


Sent from my VAX-11/780


On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Wes Stewart <wes_n...@triconet.org> wrote:

So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, sends a 
couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then sometime 
later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up and wants to 
park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer my own question: 
the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.

Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging as 
one west African station apparently tried to do with me.

Wes  N7WS



On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:
There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work them and 
some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman agreements are of the 
past.sucks

PAUL. N0aH


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

Re: Topband: FT8 qrm

[Wes Stewart]

So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing, sends a 
couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations.  Then sometime 
later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up and wants to 
park on the CW man's frequency?  Who is to blame?  I'll answer my own question: 
the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.


Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text messaging as 
one west African station apparently tried to do with me.


Wes  N7WS


On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal NØAH wrote:

There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work them and 
some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman agreements are of the 
past.sucks

PAUL. N0aH



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

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Wes Stewart]

Well, yes, the transmitter is looking into the transmission line and then the 
antenna load, so they are different.  To be fair you need to place the analyzer 
at the input (TX) end of the line.  Now the TX and the analyzer see the same 
thing.  But this isn't a good way to match the antenna to the line, which I 
believe is the object of this exercise.


Wes  N7WS


On 11/2/2017 5:14 PM, VK3HJ wrote:

I also concur with JC's recommendation.

Antenna analysers are useful, but you change the circuit when you remove the 
feed line and connect the analyser. What your analyser sees is different to 
what your transmitter sees.


Luke VK3HJ 


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

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Wes Stewart]

Trevor,

You haven't really provided enough information to solve your problem.  If you 
want to use a shunt coil then I suggest that you consider measuring the R-jX at 
your frequency of interest and then designing an L-network using purposeful 
shortening of the antenna to create a capacitive reactance and then shunting the 
feedpoint with an inductance.  For example, if the frequency is 1.82 MHz and R 
remained 18 ohm (it probably won't) then shortening the antenna to make the 
feedpoint 18 -j25, a shunt inductor of 3.3 uH will yield an SWR of 1.05:1


This is in effect an unbalanced version of a hairpin match on a Yagi DE.

Wes  N7WS


On 11/1/2017 9:54 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:

Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a 
low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap 
the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by 
moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



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