Re: Topband: NOISE CANCELLERS
Tom, Thank you for providing this information. Your time is valuable and we all appreciate your input on these (and countless other matter)! 73, Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 17, 2013, at 10:55 AM, "Tom W8JI" wrote: > > The most frequent problem (by far) with good noise cancellers is operator > related. > > The second most common problem is antenna choice. > > > >> Any suggestion on how to use the unit best? Set up another single RX >> Element? Use 'the tower'? > > When you mix antennas to make a null, the signal levels from the antennas > have to be equal in the null direction. You really are adding two signals > from the null direction 180 out-of-phase together. > > Logically, if one antenna has significant response in an undesired direction > with problem signals and the other does not, you can reduce signal-to-noise > of the good antenna when you add in the poor antenna to form a null. For > example, using a small vertical loop to further null a vertical array with no > overhead response will add overhead response and high angle horizontal > response even while increasing the null. The loop also has a 180 shift for > signals from the opposing directions, while a vertical does not. This can > create phase problems when adding the two together. You might have increased > back null and decreased front signal at the same time. > > Another issue is antenna level and phase response with signal angle and > direction. A dipole, for example, changes polarization as the signal moves > off broadside. It is only perfectly horizontal directly broadside, and has an > increasingly tilted pattern as the signal moves toward the ends, where the > signal response is vertically polarized at high angles. The tilt is a > different rotation direction, depending on which way the signal moves from > broadside. > > All of this factors in. We have to be careful what we mix together if we are > dealing with signals. > > If we are dealing with noise alone and not looking for a pattern change, then > the noise antenna just has to have much stronger response to the noise than > to any signal. > > Either way can remove noise, but the functions behind removing noise are > different. > > If I had a local noise from one source, I would put a small antenna very > close to that noise source or next to something conducting a strong, > dominant, signal from that noise source. An insulator arc or arcs from one > point on a power line that was otherwise pretty clean could be picked up > anywhere along that line. Multiple insulator arcs from multiple locations, > all radiating to the receive antenna from different directions, are a > different story. Getting near the line would not work. > > You can null an infinite number of sources if they come from one point, or if > they come from multiple points all in the same general direction and that > general direction is different than the desired signals. > > It is pretty difficult to explain every possible case, but those are a few of > the most common situations. > > The bottom line is: > > Nulling noise from multiple sources in one basic direction, or nulling > signals, or changing patternsyou want similar antennas or similar pattern > responses (but far from the closest noise source). It is generally easier if > we do not mix antennas with grossly different responses. > > Nulling a single noise source or multiple noise sources at a single > pointyou want a local sense antenna near the source or near something > coupled to all the sources so the noise antenna hears way more noise than > signal. It doesn't matter what the antennas are. > > 73 Tom > _ > Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 160m/80m duoband vertical question
Hi Jim I use a telescoping fiberglass pole with a 34 foot wire inside for 40 meters and run a 23 foot wire up the outside for 30 meters with both wires connected together at the base and fed there against ground radials. It works fine. Seems like a "scaled up" version for 160 /80 ought to work and I don't think it would matter the 160 portion is sloped. Good luck! Bob AA6VB >> On 11/5/2013 10:27 AM, Jim Garland wrote: >> My 160m vertical is 79ft high (wire running up a 26m Spiderbeam fiberglass >> pole), with a capacity hat. Is it workable to put an 80m 1/4 wave wire on >> the same mast join both antennas at the base, in the same way people make >> multiband fan dipoles? The idea would be that when operationg on 80m, the >> 160m antenna would present a high Z, and vice-versa when operating on 160m. >> I don't have a feeling for how much interaction there would be between the >> two wires, separated by only a couple of inches. Another option would be to >> electrically isolate the wires and select one or the other with a relay. If >> possible, I'd like to avoid matching networks and complicated switching >> arrangements, because the antenna is 700 ft from my station. Any advice is >> most welcome. >> >> 73, >> >> Jim W8ZR >> >> _ >> Topband Reflector > > _ > Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Vertical vs inverted L question/opinions
Don, Others are far more knowledgable than I, but top loading has less loss than base loading so the L should perform better, all else being equal. That said, I have been using a 60' base loaded vertical with 8 elevated radials and have 136 countries from a 1/4 acre city lot in the black hole of California, I suspect the total would be a lot better with an L! Good luck, Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:10 AM, "Goldtr8 (KD8NNU)" wrote: > I am requesting opinions on what would work best for 160m based on a bottom > loaded vertical or inverted L. > > I have in the past used and inverted L for 160m using a common feed with my > 80m vertical. The 80m vertical has parallel wires for 40m and 20m also and > it works real well with 38 radials laid down in the grass. I like to compare > it to a fan dipole but only the vertical section is the multi wire part as > the radials are buried. > > Anyway I am starting to plan for the winter season and I am wondering if a > loading coil on the bottom of the vertical would yield better results than > the inverted L. The L is limited to at best 50ft vertical section and the > rest on trees.My thoughts are if I use the 80m vertical section I will > have 68 ft of height which may be better than the L.The vertical is not > structurally strong enough to add a wire or a cap hat to the top of it. > > Clearly I have the ability to try both and play around but I have time to > make alternate plans so I am fishing for opinions and or suggestions. > > > ~73 > Don > KD8NNU > -.- -.. ---.. -. -. ..- > _ > Topband Reflector > _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 'Re: fine whiskey is a daylight beverage
This one is AWESOME: "In days of old when ops were bold and sidebands not invented, the word would pass by pounding brass and all were well contended." (author unknown to me? would like to know where it came from) Thanks Raoul (ZS1REC), 73, Bob/AA6VB All good topband ops know how to put up a beverage at night. _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Elevated Radials Questions
Not to hijack the thread, but anyone have a general idea how much improvement one would get by going from 8 to 12 gull wing resonant elevated radials on a 60 foot base loaded vertical? 73, Bob AA6VB > > N7LF's work also shows that more elevated radials are better than > fewer. Since the losses are a function of the square of the field > intensity, spreading the E field more evenly over a larger area > reduces losses by decreasing the peak field intensity. ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: DX window
On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:42 AM, "Bill Cromwell" wrote: > > So what is this DX window? 1825 to 1830 kc? If that's where the DX calls > and transmits then where do W/VE stations transmit in reply? The idea is that W/VE stations do not call CQ in the window, but can respond to a DX station who is calling there. Respond on the DX frequency unless, of course the DX is working split. > That's where I seem to hear W/VE stations calling CQ DX. Yes, and that is part of the "problem" the DX window is trying to address. 73, Bob AA6VB > > ___ > Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com > ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: November 30-December 2 -- ARRL 160 Meter Contest
We can look forward to "Stew Perry" Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:54 PM, "Jim Brown" wrote: > On 11/29/2012 3:15 PM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote: >> >> >> Again this weekend the ARRL presents the worst and most unfair 160 meter >> competition ever devised. > > If you think it's unfair from your QTH, try working it on the west coast. > West coast contesters have grown VERY tired of participating in contests > where very experienced contesters operating from very good stations have not > even the slightest chance of being competitve because the scoring rules put > us at a 10:1 disadvantage. When I moved from Chicago to Santa Cruz in 2006, I > began building a station that would have been a super station if it was east > of the Mississippi, and for several years pursued contesting seriously. Each > year I entered 160M contests, each time I worked all states and added to my > list of countires worked, and each time I had the top score in SCV, a section > full of serious contesters. Not because I was that good, but because all > those serious operators had no interest in a contest they would by playing > with both hands tied behinds their backs. Think about it -- east coast > stations run 100 EU stations, a distance of 4,000 miles or less, some more in > AF and get 60 multipliers. I run 100 JAs (5,500 miles) and a few VKs and ZLs (6,000 - 8,000 miles) and get three multipliers. And maybe I find half dozen more mults in the Pacific islands, UA0, and HL. > > The same thing happens in most major contests -- the guys with stations > around the Atlantic seaboard have a great time, accumulate great scores, and > acquire the (underserved) reputations of contesting "gods" ONLY because of > where they live. And because they are contesting "gods," they dominate the > councils and committees that set the rules for contests, fight like hell > against any changes in the rules that might reduce that advantage, and go > along with anything that accentuates it. The new Ontario multipliers are > only one small example -- a far greater one is the extra multiplier in WRTC > for HQ stations, which essentially doubles the east coast advantage by > doubling the number of mults, mostly from EU countries. I've responded to > 160M contests first by running 100W, and then after making WAS in a weekend, > by operating QRP. I'm passing out the SCV multiplier only to those stations > who really want to work the west coast, who have Beverages pointed this way, > and stay up after EU has gone to bed. > > So what it boils down to is that if you want us back in the game, you've got > to work to change the scoring rules of contests so that we WANT to play. > Contest rules are from the dark ages, when it had to be done with pencil and > paper, so they had to be very simple. Thanks to the ease of computer logging > and log checking, scoring rules could take many possible forms, anything from > distance based scoring, or assigning multipliers to JA prefectures and VK > states, to handicapping by ARRL section, state/province. The Stew Perry model > is but one (pretty good) example. But if the east coast contest establishment > insists on maintaining a status quo where only east coast stations are > competitive, and where the rules don't make east coast stations even WANT to > work the west coast enough to point their antennas in our direction, you're > going to have to get used to playing with yourselves. > > 73, Jim K9YC > ___ > Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com > ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Topband: PT0S
Logs are on LoTW. Incredible. Those guys are amazing! Thank you es 73! Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Topband: 8877 Tube
Wonder if someone can help with a technical question with the amp I use on 160 meters. The Spec Sheet for the 8877 tube lists the "Absolute Maximum Plate Voltage of 4000 Volts" for the tube, and also says in "typical operation" the plate voltage is between 2700 and 3500 volts. In my amp (Ameritron AL-1500), the plate voltage is 3750. My question is - should I be concerned (it's clearly below the maximum" but above the range that is considered "typical"? I just want to be sure I'm not adversely affecting the useful life of the tube. Any help would be appreciated. 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Topband: PT0S Logs
According to the PT0S website, there are 9964 QSOs in the Database - Last QSOs in the Database: 1057 UTC 14 November 2012 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Outing The Scofflaws...
<< John, k9uwa wrote: Sometimes its accidental guys. Picture this example. DX says: TU Everybody calls. I drop in my call twice at 30 WPM. Hear nothing. Drop in call twice again. ... during that brief moment DX sends 7DX? and I don't hear him as I am still transmitting call twice. And again I hear nothing as DX is now listening for rest of the 7DX callsign. Maybe I am on top of that guy? I don't know that. I Still haven't heard the DX answer anyone so dump in the call twice more and listen. Yes, sometimes it is accidental, and I have been guilty of calling when I should be listening. However, I am amazed at the number of hams on 160 meters who call when the KNOW they shouldn't! Bob/AA6VB ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Outing The Scofflaws...
I amazed at the number of DXers who call non stop, almost regardless if whether PT0S is working someone. And then, my favorite, "7DX??". And many who have no possible relation to that call keep sending. Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2012, at 6:10 AM, "K4SAV" wrote: > The thing I find amazing is the number of people that send on top of the > station that the DX is trying to work. For the past two nights while > listening to PT0S and listening for the frequency of the station he is > working, I always hear the same station at that frequency sending non-stop on > top of the station the DX is trying to work. This guy is on the #1 honor > role, and he isn't the only one that does this. I guess he figures if he > makes himself enough of a pest, that the DX station will work him just to get > him out of the way. > > Jerry, K4SAV > > > > On 11/13/2012 1:29 AM, Jim Brown wrote: >> I am sufficiently disgusted with behavior in the pileups tonight and last >> night to observe that some using VE3XB repeatedly called PT0S when PT0S was >> repeatedly calling NN6L. Since VE3 is about 2,000 miles closer to PT0S than >> I am, and because he was calling over, and over, and over, I'd say it's >> likely that he would have been copying PT0S at least as well as I was, and I >> had no trouble telling that PT0S was calling NN6L. >> >> Only one example. >> >> 73, Jim K9YC >> ___ > > > ___ > Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com > ___ Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
Re: Topband: Outing The Scofflaws...
<<
Topband: Image Rejection
Good Day, I am considering an FTdx-5000 (currently use an FTdx-9000) for 160 meters and wondered about the Image and IF Rejection figures of the 5000. They are 60 and 99 db respectively. The Image rejection is about 50 db less than the 9000. I admit to not really understanding the "real world" implications of Image rejection, but this seems to be a large difference. Can someone please tell me if this would be an issue for a guy who will use the rig only for 160 meter dxing? Thanks es 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ Remember the PreStew coming on October 20th. http://www.kkn.net/stew for more info.
Re: Topband: HiZ Install Small Lot
Hi Joe, I don't have any advice. Only some words of encouragement regarding compromise installations, and that they can yield a substantial improvement. I live on a small city lot, no more than a quarter acre. I have tried a dozen receive antennas (K9AY, EWEs, coaxial loops, low dipoles, etc.) over the years looking to improve the all-important signal to noise ratio. Nothing gave a meaningful improvement. Along came the 3 Element Array, so I thought I'd give one a try. Everything about my situation is a compromise. I can't get a 40 foot triangle with equal sides (nor will a 50 foot triangle fit on my lot), one of the elements is 3 feet lower than the other two, the corner of the house blocks the line of sight between two of the elements, two of the elements are near a metal fence and one of the elements is within 50 feet of my vertical. Not a pretty picture. Still, the system is highly directive on 160 meters where I spend most of my time. It provides a very good improvement in signal to noise ratio over my vertical and has truly uncovered another layer of signals for me. I have worked a number of stations on 160 I co uld not hear with my BOG or my vertical. It works better than my 275 BOG most of the time. It REALLY does work, even with all the compromises in my situation. I am amazed at its performance and am VERY happy with the decision to install one. I run the legal limit with no harm to the array - a great feature. I am very pleased with this array - and it works great all the way up to 12 meters, to boot!. Good luck. Do the best you can, and don't worry about the compromises over which you have no control (I don't consider moving a viable option). 73, Bob/AA6VB -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:38 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: HiZ Install Small Lot Hi Guys, I will be installing my new Hi-Z 2-3 RX antenna this coming weekend. I live on a small quarter acre lot in Maryland so I expect a few challenges and compromises. I would like to hear from other small lot Hi-Z owners so I may be able to avoid or workaround any issues and manage my expectations. I will be using 3 home brewed 15 foot verticals made out of 5 foot telescoping sections of sched 40 pvc pipe. (1.25 -> 1 -> .75) These will be painted and mounted to a six foot cedar privacy fence and the wire will continue down the fence 3 more feet providing me with 18 foot total length for each of the verticals. My transmit antenna will be very close to one of the verticals and within 50-100 feet of the other two. I know in advance this will be an issue. I'm looking for ideas to detune it while in RX. I am hoping this antenna will offer much better performance than my short BOG. Any helpful advice would be welcome. Thanks, Joe KB3KJS ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: HK0NA and LOTW
My missing 160 Q appeared on LOTW yesterday - so worth another look Bob/AA6VB -Original Message- From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Grimm Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:50 PM To: topband Subject: Topband: HK0NA and LOTW >From the DARC's DXNewsLetter: " HK0NA LoTW: Bob, N2OO, uploaded the HK0NA QSOs to LoTW. About 15.000 QSOs appear to have been lost in the process, but he's working with the ARRL to resolve this issue." -- Ken - K4XL BoatAnchor Manual Archive BAMA - http://bama.edebris.com ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: HK0NA on LOTW
Has anyone received a LOTW confirmation fir HK0 yet? Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:42 AM, "Jim N7US" wrote: > Additional info about the missing Q’s can be found at > http://www.sjdxa.org/hk0na.htm . > > 73, Jim N7US > > > > -Original Message- > From: wa3...@comcast.net [mailto:wa3...@comcast.net] > > For those of you that use LOTW, HK0NA logs were supposedly uploaded to LOTW > today. Having said that I didnt get 160 confirmed as yet even tho I am in > their log books. I am guessing it takes a long time to process 195000 QSOs > in the LOTW system so I will wait a day or two before I start writing people > to see whats up. > > > > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: New Linear amp
Uh, I thought the legal limit was 1.5 KW Sent from my iPhone On Jul 7, 2012, at 7:49 PM, "Peter Voelpel" wrote: > > BEKO in Germany uses them in their 2m amps for about two years. > > Last year I was operator at a contest station with 3x HLV-2000 into three > antenna groups. > They worked perfectly at 2KW out > > 73 > Peter, DJ7WW > > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: Meaning of AGC "Delay"
Dear All, I am looking at the AGC parameters on the FTdx9000D. Yaesu uses the term "delay" but does not define the term. Other manufactures use the term "attack" time which I understand to mean how quickly the AGC reacts to a signal at the "threshold" level. "Hold" time means the period of time the AGC voltage remains constant at the peak level once the AGC is activated by a signal above the threshold. "Decay" is the rate at which the AGC voltage is reduced (gain increased) once the "hold" time expires. So, two questions: 1. Does anyone know for sure what Yaesu means by the term "delay"? Does it have the same meaning as the "decay" time? Different authors uses different terms to mean the same thing but do not define the terms - leading to confusion. 2. When we adjust the AGC "delay" on a Yaesu rig, what are we doing? Thanks for any clarification. 73, Bob AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: It is not so much propagation
I think the idea is that a qrp station might not be heard by a station so weak the qrp station needs a beverage to hear him. Of course, one could describe circumstances where that would be true and others where it would not be true. I thought it was clever 73 Bob/AA6VB Sent from my iPhone On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:38 PM, "ZR" wrote: > That makes absolutely no sense when at the edge of reception. > > Carl > KM1H > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jim F." > To: "Milt -- N5IA" > Cc: > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: Topband: It is not so much propagation > > > QRPers generally do not need Beverages as much as other stations > do. > > Think about that one for awhile. > > jim / W1FMR > > > > > --- On Mon, 3/19/12, Milt -- N5IA wrote: > >> From: Milt -- N5IA >> Subject: Re: Topband: It is not so much propagation >> To: >> Cc: Topband@contesting.com >> Date: Monday, March 19, 2012, 2:23 PM >> Beverages do NOT make lightning >> caused static crashes go away. They can >> significantly reduce the received level of the crashes from >> the directions >> different from the listening direction. >> >> However, in the listening direction Beverages will actually >> "clear up" the >> crashes being heard from that direction. In other >> words, those crashes will >> become the predominant ones you hear with the exception of >> those caused by >> local storms. >> >> The crashes from the listening direction will not be as >> strong as they will >> be when listening on the TX antenna. >> >> The points I am trying to make are: >> >> 1. Beverages work VERY well. >> >> 2. Beverages will NOT eliminate all static crashes. >> >> 3. There is no silver bullet, but Beverages are about >> as close to the >> perfect solution as you can get. >> >> 4. There is NO substitute for acreage. I >> sincerely wish everyone had the >> capability of installing Beverages. But that wish is >> no different than my >> wish that we all had our TX antennas at the edge of a salty >> ocean beach. >> So, we live with what we have. >> >> Mis dos centavos, >> >> de Milt, N5IA >> >> --- >> >> From: Guy Olinger K2AV >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:19 AM >> >> Only if they have space for them. >> >> --- >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, K4OWR >> wrote: >> >> When I switch to my beverage antenna the noise pretty >> much goes to >> almost nothing. >> Don't most serious operators have oneor more??? >> BILL K4OWR >> >> -- >> >> On 3/19/2012 10:22 AM, N7DF wrote: >> >> During the summer the storm static is the main obstacle to >> top band >> operation here 40 over nine crashes every >> 30 seconds kind of drown out >> everything, QRP or QRO >> >> >> ___ >> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK >> > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4880 - Release Date: 03/19/12 > > > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: LOTW
It has been asked: "Why don't more people use LOTW?" I put it off using LOTW for years because I feared, incorrectly, that it would be difficult to set up and use. Just last week, I finally got up the nerve to try it. Much to my pleasant surprise, LOTW was very easy to set up. So, using myself as a sample of one, and extrapolating from there, I believe many folks have not tried LOTW because they have the same concern I did The many other reasons have be noted 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Radial question
I currently use the spray on my patio, lawn and driveway as a ground system. It works so well I took down my elevated radial system which made my XYL very happy. Now I have a much more efficient antenna AND a much happier wife. I have worked more DX on 160 this season than in all prior years combined! Next, I am going to spray it on the house and use it the vertical radiator. If all goes as planned, I will take down my vertical after due A/B testing. I am also planning to spray a set of elements on the roof in lieu of a yagi. Should work well on the high bands but have decreased performance as frequency decreases due to it's low height. With relays, directions could be switched instantaneously! There are always tradeoffs. Think of the applications for hams with antenna restrictions! 73 Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPad On Feb 11, 2012, at 7:09 AM, "Tree" wrote: > I have a question for the radial experts out there. > > If I spray this stuff on my radials - will it improve my signal on 160 > meters? > > It seems that this would help my signal reach its "happy spot" and "launch > out into space". > > http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/11/spray-on-antenna-revealed-best-thing-to-come-in-a-can-since-eas/ > > Tree N6TR > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Top band despondent
John, Do not despair, my fellow Topband Aficionado! I also live on a 1/4 lot in a residential subdivision in San Jose - part of the Black Hole of the 160 meter world. I don't have the luxury of living on or near the East Coast where working Europe (with lots of DXCC entities) is the same "chip shot" working JA is for us on the West Coast If conditions allow, put up a ground mounted vertical of at least 60 feet, and either top load it if you have room or base load it with a large coil made of 1/4" copper tubing about 6-8" in diameter. First try your existing radial field and see how it works. Collect some data. Then you might try raising the bottom of the vertical about 3' and insulate the bottom. Use at least 8 or preferably 12 resonant elevated radials. My vertical is 60' base loaded affair mounted right next to my house, on a 3' high 3" PVC pipe, and the 8 radials slope up at a 45 degree angle to the roof and then in all kinds of asymmetrical directions. The pattern is distorted by the radial field, but the antenna still works fairly well. I am a little gun, but with 1.5 KW, I have managed to work 133 countries and am having the time of my life. If my situation allowed, I would change to top loading in a heartbeat. If you want to call me to discuss details I will be very pleased to pass on what litt le I have learned about Topband life from a small city lot. You CAN have success, but you need a more efficient antenna. 73, Bob/AA6VB HI all, I have had a rocky relationship with TOPBAND that has never really blossomed. My QTH is small about 1/4 acres. Only two tree's and NO towers allow. Now that has not stopped me. I have WAS on 160m (took 10+ years) and a splattering of countries. But I will go on to my problem. I am just NOT heard. I can hear great with my selection of antennas (resonant on 160m I have a inductively loaded INV L vert about 40ft 20ft horiz (home brew by the insane mind that is my own with 4 elevated radials also loaded like the radiating element) A Cushcraft ma160v with about 40 radials on the groud. A Alpha delta dxa with about 50 radials on the ground. These radials are all random ranging from 1/16 to 1/4 wave. ) The verticals make great contest antenna for stateside as the cushcraft is resonant from about 1.800 to 1.825 and the Inv L flat from 1.820 to about 1.850. This all aside I can hear like I'm running a receiving loop or even a small beverage (had a nice one at an old qth back in the 90's) but I cant seem to be heard. I can put 1kw++ into these antennas but still no luck most of the time. For example I have been calling the HK0NA tonight on 1.833/4 he is s9+ on 1000d and I am not even getting a ?? Other than the WARC band and my eternal quest for a bigger signal on 20/30/40m I am happy with my antennas. Though I admit I am always experimenting and have a separate operating position just for experiments and the rare guest op. Well if I'm just crazy then so be it. I've been banging my head on this problem. Any suggestions would be welcome. I an willing to direct email larger descriptions and even pictures of what I am working with... Caveats: I wasn't born yesterday, But, I do believe in magic. sooo Other than buying out all my neighbors and putting up some big antennas lets try and be constructive.. (that is unless ya wanta give me themoney to buy out my neighbors 8) ) de John ko1h ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Top band: Preventing QRM
Good Morning: I have a very modest 160m station. Since I cannot hear as well as most of you, I run the risk of calling CQ on what appears to be a clear frequency and QRMing a DX station calling CQ or disrupting an ongoing QSO. Any suggestions on how to prevent? To minimize any potential issues, I usually select a splinter frequency (i.e., 1820.5, 1823.5, etc), send "QRL?", and listen for a while. 73 Brian, KD6NRP ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK Brian, First listen, then check the packet spots to see if the coast is clear, then call QRL? several times and listen for an "R", etc., and then fire away. We are all friends on Top band and someone will politely ask you to QSY if necessary. 73 and welcome to 160! Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: New entry to TopBand with antenna question
Mike, If your rig does not have an RX only port, you can use a rx/tx relay. There are a number of commercial units available. One (with which I have no connection whatsoever) is made by KD9SV and is available through Radioware. It has an rx protection circuit (to keep you from blowing out your front end), a dual band (160-80 meter) variable gain pre-amplifier and a four-position antenna switch in one box. The four position antenna switch will allow you to select four different receive antennas while giving you front-end protection and a variable dual band pre-amp. You can also by pass the unit and use the transmit antenna when you are operating on the higher bands or if you want to use the low band transmitting antenna. New Improved Solid State Switching design. Again, there are a number of other units out there, or you can build one. GL es 73, Bob/AA6VB > Pardon me for asking a dumb question... but how do you guys switch between > the beverage antenna and the inverted-L... given that your XCVR has only a > single antenna port for both TX/RX? > > Mike, WA9PIE ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Asymmetric radials for GP antennas; Just in case others seek what I've just found...
Christman has written a number of excellent articles on this subject. Some of which are in the ARRL book "Vertical Antenna Classics". FWIW, I have been using a base loaded 60 foot vertical on my urban lot in San Jose, CA for the past 6 years. The base of the vertical is elevated about 3 feet and uses 12 elevated radials on 160 and 4 on 80. Since the vertical is located very near one side of our 12,000 sq. ft lot, and right next to the house, most of the radials are on the roof and cover less than 180 degrees of the compass (more like 120 degrees). >From what I have read on the subject, there is some directivity in the direction of the radials, and a loss of signal strength in those directions with no radials. I have been able to work all over the globe, in every direction, including the Pacific and Europe where there are no radials. I often get excellent signal reports from Asia (my most compromised direction). While the signal reports would be better if I had radials in those directions, I have learned that those of us with "constraints" must simply do the best we can and work within our limitations. Beyond that, we get on the air and have fun. My advice to all those similarly situated is do not be discouraged! Make the best of your situation, and then don't worry about your limitations (this is not directed to Cormac, as I understand his post was an observation about what information is available on this subject of asymmetrical radial systems). Too all others who might be considering 160, do not let the compromises which must be made prevent you from getting on the air and enjoying 160. Good (and very good) success can be had from a small urban lot - even with major compromises in antennas and ground systems. The signals won't be as strong as they would in an "optimal" antenna system, but don't let the fact you can't do what's "best" prevent you from doing the best you "can"! Good luck and 73, Bob/AA6VB Cormac Gebruers wrote: I've been searching for clarity and hard data on the effects of asymmetric radials on radiation patterns and efficiency of a vertical as I'm installing a 21m vertical for 80/160 and will have to live with a radial system that is significantly compromised over a 180 degree sector. I was a bit surprised to "not find" this subject dealt with in any clear decisive way in e.g. the ARRL Antenna Book or ON4UN's otherwise excellent Low Band DXing book (Did I miss it in either publication? If so, just send me a "your an idiot" email and I'll crawl back under my cabbage leaf suitably chastened). ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: 160 Not Dead Yet
Woke up about 6:00 a.m. California time, stumble to the rig, and was very pleased to hear lots of strong signals out of Asia and Russia ... Du1, RU0, JA, 9M6, etc. The signals were from S1 to S9. Some I thought were Stateside until I heard their call sign. The 160 season is not over yet. In fact, this is the best March I can remember 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Top Band INactivity
>> From: "Diane and Edward Swynar" >>or has general activity on >> 160-meters declined significantly in the past few >>weeks...? This morning, the band seemed dead (more on this later). No stations could be heard. I called CQ on and off for maybe 45 minutes, with no answer. When I wasn't calling CQ I was tuning the band looking for DX. I thought there was no propagation. Then, a JA called me with a very nice signal - S7/8. What a surprise. Then, HL5IVL called with an equally nice signal. It was clear to me, at least this morning, that the band was open but no one was operating (at least for a while). I think a parallel can be drawn between dxing on late season dxing on 160 and Spring skiing. In the later part of the ski season, there is still plenty of snow, but most of the skiers have moved on to other interests. So it is with dxing on 160 - still plenty of propagation, but fewer stations operating. 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Top Band Receiving Antennas
John Harden, D.M.D. wrote: The best, and most cost effective, receiving antennas out there are the Hi-Z Antennas triangle, 4-square and 8-circle arrays. I have the triangle array and it works fantastic. I has 6 electrically switched directions and a great F/B ratio. It is essentially equivalent to having six 500 foot beverages when looking at the Receive Direction Factor (RDF). I agree with John. I also have the triangular array and, at 40' per side, it fits in my small backyard. It is an excellent performer and I HIGHLY recommend the system. I've tried the DXE phased verticals, EWEs, K9AY loops, and a host of others. The triangular array is the best by a wide margin, and K7TJR's customer service is nothing short of amazing. 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: Base Loaded Vertical vs. Asymmetrical Top Loading
Dear Topband Aficionados - I could use a little help. I am currently using a 60 foot base loaded vertical, with an 8" diameter coil made of copper tubing. I know top loading gives much better efficiency. The problem is, my lot won't allow the two top loading wires to be in the same plane, so they won't cancel the high angle radiation. I know there is a lot of info missing here but generally, am I likely to see significant improvement over the base loaded vertical if I use top loading but the wires are spaced 120 degrees instead of 180 degrees? Any help would be greatly appreciated. 73, Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Do short beverages "work"?
On 1/24/2011 8:45 PM, Herb wrote: these tests remove all doubts that a "short" Beverage is a superb antenna. I agree! I have a 225 foot unterminated BOG and can attest to the fact it provides a SUBSTANTIAL improvement in SN ratio over the TX vertical in certain directions. Signals on the vertical are often masked by local noise and become perfectly readable in the direction of the BOG. As Gary, NI6T, quoted "any beverage is better than no beverage". I encourage anyone who needs to improve their SN ratio who has not tried one, and can put up a beverage (however "compromised") do so. You may be very pleasantly surprised. It may be far from optimum, but who cares, if it's the best you can do and it helps you work someone you would no otherwise have worked! Those of us on small lots make the best of what we have. Don't let the fact that what you can do is not "perfect" or the "best" prevent you from making progress! Bob/AA6VB ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
