Topband: Glorioso Lack of CW.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 $$ via the OQRS process. OQRS says > LOTW included with card request. > > Now, if I do none of the above, will they eventually dump the logs to > LOTW? I usually see a comment in DXpediton postings that eventually > you get a LOTW confirmation. Can't find that anywhere on this one. > > Thanks 73 Bill K3SV > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector Gilles DESANSAC F6IRA 55 Rue du stade 40410 Pissos Courriel : f6...@live.fr Tel : 06 27 58 22 46 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: TT8XX QSL Help
Appears to me that if you want confirmation you pay up. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for free LoTW. I've heard that a lot of expeditions don't like Clublog OQRS because they require that free QSLs via the bureau be issued. So the only way to get tightwad Europeans and Asians* to pay up is to require it for a QSL. * See: "Who Pays for that New One?", QST, October 2018, pp 69-73. Quote: "And, while only 4% of North American stations request a QSL via the bureau, European and Asian bureau requests average 14%, and those stations do not contribute to the funding flow." Steps off soap box. Wes N7WS On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 12:42:51 PM MST, Bill Gillenwater wrote: I am a little confused with the QSL options for the Chad/TT8 operation that is in progress. Most (and I say MOST) operations have 3 or more options for getting QSO confirmation. I'm filling "band-slots" for Chad and basically want a LOTW confirmation (eventually). You can donate "up-front" or pay $$ 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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
_ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
