I only have 20 & 15 confirmed, sure hoping for 160, might not be around for the next DXpedetion.
73, Gary KA1J > Granted that summer is not the best time but your efforts in > activating this rare country are greatly appreciated. Good luck and > "god speed". > > 73, > Larry > N7DD > > Sent by Larry > > On Jun 13, 2018, at 12:26 PM, GEORGE WALLNER <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Rob, > You are right about the timing not being good, but it is way too late > now to postpone the operation. Most of us are already in the Pacific > or on a plane, the boat is being loaded, etc., etc. This is the time > we could get and these are the limitations we must live with. The > circumstances at the FWS were conducive to issuing a permit this year. > There was no guarantee that those circumstances would remain the same > in the future. Please remember that, for Navassa we had to wait 18 > years for the official "stars to line up". Also, fewer sunspots are > supposed to be good for TB conditions. As for antennas, of course > taller would be better, but...we got the permit by agreeing, not > arguing. We have a new 160 m antenna design that I have been testing > from C6AGU. With the help of a salt-water "ground" it will work OK. > (NEC indicates a gain of 6 dBi.) 73 and CU, George > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:55:10 -0500 > Rob Atkinson <[email protected]> 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 > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
