Okay. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 10:52 PM terry burge <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Would not count on it, huh? Well, if the Echo 1 and echo 2 would work > (which we know they did work and prove the method for bouncing signals off > a satellite to elsewhere on the earth, why not something as large as the > space station. I would think some of the Oscar folks might have already > tried it. After all, the space station is larger than those echo ballons. > > Oh, by the way. I just finished putting on one of my new screw down > PL-259's after scaping the shields where they clamp together and continuity > wise they seem OK. The real proof will be putting some power thru them > measuring the 'dump' power between the 4 square 80 meter comtek switching > unit and the dummy load. Take a look at a 4-square and you should see what > dump power is. Both the Comteks and the DXEngineering models use dummy > loads on them. > > Terry > KI7M > > > On February 3, 2019 at 8:12 PM Mike Waters <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't count on it! > > > > 73, Mike > > www.w0btu.com > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 9:25 PM terry burge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe the International Space Station could reflect a 160 meter signal > or > > > reradiate it. It's larger than a football field. Just a thought. Let's > see, > > > people could use the space station to bounce signals off of. Another > reason > > > to keep it from falling in the Pacific Ocean someday. > > > > > > Terry > > > KI7M > > > > > > > On February 3, 2019 at 2:44 PM Arthur Delibert <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Back in the early 60s, NASA launched a couple of satellites named > Echo I > > > and Echo II that were essentially huge reflecting balloons. You could > tune > > > to WWV on 20 MHz at a time of day when that was above the MUF. When > the > > > Echo satellite came by, WWV would pop up out of nowhere for a few > seconds > > > and then disappear again. To the best of my knowledge, the Echo > satellites > > > are long gone; but this sounds like a similar phenomenon. > > > > > > > > Art Delibert, KB3FJO > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Topband <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul > Kiesel > > > via Topband <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 2:10 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Phenomenon > > > > > > > > I don't have an explanation for this, but I had a similar experience > > > during the contest. My receiveantenna is an unterminated BOG running > > > alongside the road in front. I struggled to get F4HEC's call because > he was > > > so weak. He persisted and I finally got it. He was the first European > that > > > I heard in the contest. When we finished the QSO, EI0R dumped his call > and > > > he was 579. Unbelievable because I almost never hear Europe on 160 CW. > I > > > gave him a report and turned it back. By then he was barely copyable > as his > > > signal had dropped back down to the noise floor and I never heard him > > > again. I managed to work several other Europeans whose calls I had to > work > > > at digging out. I would say conditions were generally good for me to > hear > > > those European stations, but the momentary signal from EI0R was very > strong > > > and unexpected. > > > > 73, Paul K7CW > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2019, 9:38:50 AM PST, Dan Atchison via > > > Topband <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > During the CQ WW 160 CW contest a week ago while operating at the > N1LN > > > > M/S station, I happened to be in a fantastic run of EU. > > > > > > > > On one and only one QSO, I worked a "G" station whose callsign's last > > > > suffix letter was at least 20dB stronger than the rest of his call. > I > > > > mentioned this to NR4M while discussing the contest with Steve at the > > > > Richmond Frostfest and he said he experienced the same on one > occasion; > > > > he thought meteor and I was thinking airplane. > > > > > > > > Anyone else experience this on topband and if so, have a "scientific" > > > > explanation? > > > > > > > > 73, > > > > Dan -- N3ND > > > > _________________ > > > > 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 > _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
