Re: [Elecraft] FW: Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP]

Regarding using a tower as a vertical:

Some years ago I had a 50-foot mast with a tribander on it next to my 
house. I ran two wires out my window, one down to the base of the mast 
and one to a point on it that produced a reasonable SWR on 80 meters. 
The rotor cable and feedline for the beam ran down to the ground, and 
then back up to the shack. No ferrites or anything on the feedline. I 
wrapped the rotor cable around a ferrite rod at the rotor controller. I 
had a system of 16 radials, each about 20' long, and in a half-circle.


I ran about 600 watts to this arrangement and didn't notice RF issues in 
the shack. It worked surprisingly well, producing contacts from here 
into the US as far west as Illinois.


73,
Vic, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 2 Mar 2017 05:21, Erik Basilier wrote:

Hi Alan,

Your link didn't work for me, but I assume your article describes how to
make a good bandpass filter. I do in fact recall seeing such an article in
QST years ago. Assuming that you were just pointing out that I can put a
bandpass filter on each feedline, as is common practice in SO2R operations,
I need to state my case in more detail:

Since I have second antenna covering 20-15-10 (a vertical), I started out
doing just that: putting a bandpass filter on each. I was in a hurry and
bought the LBS commercial filters rather than building based on the old
article. The antennas are close together, and even after I upgraded so as to
have two K3 radios, I was unhappy with the isolation with one K3
transmitting on 40 on the beam and the other K3 receiving on 20 on the
vertical. Just out of curiosity I plan to dig deeper into this situation, as
I think somewhat better results could be achieved. However, seeing the big
difference in performance on a given band between the vertical and the beam,
I really wanted both radios to have a beam. That is where I decided to get
the multiplexer (a model that includes 40m). Performance wise, this was
going to be like having one multiband beam, including 40m, for each radio.
Much better than using the vertical for one radio, assuming of course that
the physical sharing of one beam would aggravate the interference situation
I had when using separate antennas and bandpass filters. With the
multiplexer, per manufacturer's recommendation, each band still uses its
separate bandpass filter, so that total attenuation between bands is much
greater than what can be expected with bandpass filters alone. Still, I was
apprehensive of a possible increase in interference. The outcome was nothing
short of stunning: No interference at all. I see a possiblity that I could
have somehow reduced the interference experienced with separate antennas and
using bandpass filters, but I can't see that approach competing with the
superior results using a single antenna + multiplexer + bandpass filters.
The QST review backs up my assumption that the great results with that
configuration was no fluke. Of course, I cannot include 80m in the same
approach as long as I don't have a single antenna that includes that band
(and I can't quickly get a multiplexer that includes all 5 bands). So, for
80 I will have a separate feedline and just a bandpass filter. BTW I am very
happy to not have yielded to the temptation to upgrade my beam to a Steppir,
as the multiplexer approach requires the antenna to be tuned simultaneously
to multiple bands, not to tune to one band at a time.

If I had been able to achieve really good isolation with just a bandpass
filter for each band, your approach with an 80m antenna that also covers 40
would make good sense to my situation. As it is, keeping 40m within the
beam, even with no gain over running 40m on the second antenna, makes sense
as it allows me to route 40m not just through the bandpass filter, but also
through the multiplexer. Since I already tried an 80m inverted vee on the
tower, and it ruined the 40m performance of the beam, I am looking for other
approaches for 80m. It might be possible to change the beam to bring it back
to resonance on 40, but this particular beam is a complicated design
already. A sloper is one possiblity, but it is not likely to be my first
attempt, as it would be close to the beam and it would be somewhat similar
to the vee. At this point I am leaning toward either a separate shortened
vertical such as a Butternut model for 80 and 40 (not likely to use the 40
part) or using the tower itself as a vertical. For the latter approach I
would need to prevent the tower's feedline bundle (the part going into the
house) from forming part of the radiating element. I remember an old Antenna
Book discussing methods of feeding the tower as a vertical, but the author
seemed to ignore the issue of the cables coming off the tower. Maybe it was
assumed that the cables would be disconnected at the bulkhead whenever the
tower would be used as a vertical.  Nobody has replied to me about
experiences dealing with that issue. Also as 

Re: [Elecraft] RX Mush, why the fuss?

[Jim Brown]

On Wed,3/1/2017 10:29 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
I recently purchased the new synths for my K3 and supposedly they help 
significantly on that score, but I haven't had the opportunity to 
install them yet. 


Don't put it off -- it's an easy 30 minute job.

73, Jim K9YC

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

Rich,

 

Thanks for your reply; very helpful!

Something similar to your shunt feeding method is what I have had in mind.
Since my tower is a crankup (55 ft topped by about 22 ft of mast+antennas),
I do have some misgivings about managing the wire running parallel to the
tower, in the scenario where the tower sections are telescoping and
releasing the tension on the wire. Maybe I should first try attaching the
feed to the top of the bottom section rather than the top of the tower.

The most interesting part of your installation is your grounding of most of
the coax cables at the tower base, and also at the entry box. When I
installed my tower in 1993 I had read a recommendation to let the cables
form a gentle curve almost touching ground, which is what I did. The idea of
grounding them at the tower base did not occur to me, and doesn't seem
compatible with the gentle curve concept. At the house I did think about
feedthrough panel that could be grounded, but I was in a hurry and didn't do
the work. Some of my vhf/uhf cables are of the thick variety (much thicker
than RG-213, and extra connectors cost significant money. Since then, it has
been on my to-do list to go back, cut the cables, install connectors, and
install a grounded plate or box. At the time when I wanted to try the tower
as a 160 vertical, I didn't feel confident that doing that work would be as
effective as choking off common mode currents with ferrites, and that did
seem to work well as long as the cables fit in the device. After reading
your post I get the impression that instead of obtaining choke(s) for the
cable bundle as it is today, I should do the work of grounding the cables at
the house entry and also at the tower base. For non-coax control cables I
could apply my choke. You state that not all of your cables were grounded.
For such a situation my first thought is that the result would depend on
cable length and frequency, and if there is no problem in your situation
then luck might have played a role. You did not mention trying your setup
for 80. In my case, I have more need for 80m than 160, and I am still unsure
if the whole metal tree might be on the big side for 80. That should be easy
to determine with a model. Thanks for the details of your ground system. If
I were to erect a separate vertical for 80, I would have to install a lot of
radials, so doing the same around the tower is not a big deal. Like in your
case, most of the radials would be on one side of the tower (directed away
from the house). When I did feed the tower on 160 as an experiment years
ago, I had (and still have) just two ground rods at the base, plus copper
ribbon, which was meant to encircle the house, a project that was never
finished, but has been on my to-do list ever since. I see a lot of
similarity with your situation, but I need to put in some work to catch up!
Now, supposing I get it all done, and it all works as expected, the next
step is seeing the resulting 80m capability in the context of a 2-radio
system. Obviously, only one radio can be on 80 at a given time, and it will
use a bandpass filter but not a multiplexer. The 80m antenna (=tower) will
be closer to the beam than my high-band vertical.The 80m rf will flow in
very close proximity to the beam, the use of which by another radio is
protected by both the multiplexer and the applicable bandpass filter. Will
that be enough protection, given that the proximity situation is worse than
with the high-band vertical? I am not totally sure, but it seems a
reasonably good bet to me. 

 

73,

Erik K7TV



---

Erik,

I've been feeding K3 RF to my house bracketed, 75 ft Rohn 25 tower for years
with great success on 160 Meters. The tower is topped with HF and VHF yagis
which act as a capacitive top hat. The 50 Ohm coax feedline is connected to
a tap on the coil of a parallel tuned circuit. The top of the LC circuit is
connected to a #16 THHN wire which runs parallel to the tower, about 18"
outside one of the legs and connects to a bolt around 10 ft down from the
top of the tower. At the base of the tower I simply tune the capacitor and
find the best spot on the coil to tap to obtain the lowest SWR. There are 16
quarter wave radials around the tower, most of them on the tower side of the
house from south to north and a few wrapping around and under the back deck
toward the northeast. There are around a dozen 8 ft ground rods connected to
the tower with #6 wire and the tower also is connected to a perimeter ground
system surrounding the house.

 

The shields of most, but not all, of the coax cables leaving the tower are
grounded at the tower base. Before all coax and control cables enter the
shack they all are grounded at the steel entry box around 30 feet from the
tower base.

 

 

So how does a shunt fed 75 ft 

Re: [Elecraft] RX Mush, why the fuss?

[David Gilbert]

That isn't actually true.  Threshold and slope combine to form a point 
of non-linearity that can cause all sorts of in-band mixing products 
when multiple signals exist at roughly the same levels.  I and others 
have experienced that first hand in the past.  I can running stations in 
a contest with a fairly narrow passband and if I get more than a few 
callers at roughly the same level, and if that level is in the vicinity 
of the knee in the gain curve formed by the onset of the AGC, the A-2B 
and 2A-B (etc) products generated by the nonlinearity create all sorts 
of mush that muddles the copy.  Noise at that point in the curve can 
perform similar dirty deeds.


I use as little AGC slope as possible with a fairly high threshold as a 
result ... tough on the ears sometimes but helps the rate dramatically.


If I remember correctly, even without the AGC there is a knee at the low 
end of the response curve (but still above the noise limit) in the 
original synths.  I recently purchased the new synths for my K3 and 
supposedly they help significantly on that score, but I haven't had the 
opportunity to install them yet.


73,
Dave   AB7E



On 2/28/2017 4:37 PM, dave wrote:


My thoughts on this are that those who are concerned about the slope 
and threshold settings are barking up the wrong tree. The mush would 
result if you have your hold time or hang time or decay set too short. 
With a brief hold time the weaker signal pops up to the level of the 
stronger on as soon as the stronger one disappears. A longer hold time 
keeps the relative level of the two signals at the correct 
relationship. The answer is hold time, not threshold or slope.


Those of us in the southeastern US may have a problem with all the 
lighting we get. The lightning spikes tend to drive the desired signal 
too low. So we kinda have to keep hold time short if we are to hear 
anything. But there should be some level of decent compromise in there 
somewhere. IIRC the K3 has an AGC setting that helps with this but 
does not eliminate it.


72 de dave
ab9ca/4



On 2/28/17 2:53 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:

I must confess to some bewilderment about the seemingly endless
discussion about the adjustment, or mis-adjustment, of AGC slope,
threshold or "RF" gain.

Claims are made that one's favorite settings cause signals within the
passband to retain their relative amplitudes thus allowing the
discrimination between them, while less favorable settings compress
them into "mush."

I will confess that my experience with the design of AGC systems is
limited to analog receivers and perhaps there is some digital magic
that makes DSP radios act differently from analog ones in this case.
But in my experience, AGC control is derived from the stronger signal
received.

After the SNR is adequate (delayed AGC in 1960s terms, above threshold
today), the overall gain is reduced by some amount to maintain a
desired output or to prevent overload, and any other signals present
suffer the same gain reduction.  Hence a signal 30 dB stronger than
another is still 30 dB stronger even after the application of AGC.  If
it isn't then we have a very nonlinear receiver, which is desirable if
we're receiving FM but highly undesirable otherwise.

My reading between the lines suggests that the "mush" proponents think
that after achieving threshold, changing the slope somehow changes the
ratio between signals, i.e. there is less gain for strong signals than
there is for weaker ones.

Frankly, after 60 years of listening to shortwave noise and in my
youth working in a machine shop and hanging around too many alcohol
and nitro burning race cars, my tinnitus practically drives me nuts at
times; I welcome a flat AGC slope.

If I'm all wet with this, I'd like to be enlightened.

Wes N7WS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ho13d...@gmail.com
.


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to xda...@cis-broadband.com



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Walter Underwood]

The fan antenna over my house is multiple resonant dipoles on different bands 
with a common feedpoint. Those work fine.

You can also have a driven dipole with a parallel coupled resonator of a 
slightly different length. This will give an antenna with a second 
near-resonant point and lower SWR between the two points. The coupled wire is 
continuous. It is not broken in the middle like the driven dipole.

wunder
K6WRU
Walter Underwood
CM87wj
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire  wrote:
> 
> I know them as fan antennas. The old UHF "bow tie" TV antennas are a good
> example. 
> 
> The discussion about radiation resistance vs. feed-point resistance is
> specious. When feeding more than one resistance in series, such as a
> monopole impedance and a ground impedance, Ohm's law prevails. The higher
> resistance consumes the most power. So techniques to reduce the ground R or
> increase the antenna feed point R all contribute to more radiated power. 
> 
> 73, Ron AC7AC
> 
> -Original Message-
> On 3/1/2017 11:17 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
>> You can also use close-spaced parallel elements that are resonant at
> slightly different frequencies than the driven element. This is a different
> way to make a broadband antenna. This design has a name, but it escapes me
> right now.
>> 
>> wunder
>> K6WRU
>> Walter Underwood
>> CM87wj
>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>> 
> 
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to wun...@wunderwood.org

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K-Pod: A failure to Communicate

[Wes Stewart]

BINGO, I believe we have a winner.

AUTOINF is NOR, however, I use LP-Bridge for port sharing the K3S USB with 
various logging programs and SpectraVue software running my SDR-IQ that I use as 
a band scope.  So there is pretty regular bus activity.  When I disable 
LP-Bridge it *appears* to resolve the issue.  I hedge, since this is an 
intermittent problem.


There is no other stuff going on, I use a KPA500 and KAT500 cabled normally with 
AUX cables.  No PTT, foot switches, etc.  Strictly VOX operation. It's not an RF 
problem; verified by putting the K3S in test mode.  All of the function buttons 
seem to be affected.  I have one set so tapping turns VOX on or off.  It fails too.


I'm glad Bob concurs that a simple command should not terminate prematurely when 
another command is initiated. Chaining should work.


So I see two birth defects here that need fixing.

Wes  N7WS

On 3/1/2017 1:34 PM, Bob Wilson, N6TV wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Wes Stewart > wrote:


Just for completeness, since the K-Pod utility was on the same computer, I
decided to reload the firmware.  I restarted the K3 utility and for
giggles placed a space in front of the M1 command string.  It functioned
normally. If I put a space after the command before the semi-colon,
nothing was executed.  I re-saved all of the macros and loaded them back
into the radio. Things actually appeared to be better. I thought that
maybe I fixed it.  But sadly that's not the case.  Like all intermittents,
it's...well...intermittent.


When you see this happen, is there any software talking to the radio, like HRD 
or the K3 Utility?  If you shut down the computer completely, so nothing is 
sending commands to the serial port, does the delay still occur?


Is CONFIG:AUTOINF set to NOR or to 1 (for a SteppIR, perhaps)?  Maybe all 
those AI command outputs interfere with simultaneous commands sent from the K-POD?


Note that if anything closes the PTT line after you press a memory button, the 
memory will halt immediately. Is that a possibility?  Amp. keys radio?


Does this intermittent behavior happen on both Phone and CW?  Of course this 
won't apply to Phone unless you have the KDVR3 voice memory installed.


I also discovered that there is another idiosyncrasy (IMO).  Perhaps it is
intended, but when I tap M1 on the K3 for example, multiple times, the
message (my call) is chained and sent as many times as I tapped the
button. Doing this from the computer via the command tester works the same
way.  However, tapping the function key on the K-Pod a second time
immediately ends the message.  So I can't chain messages.  Furthermore
this seems to exacerbate the intermittent condition


I'm seeing this also, and it doesn't make sense to me either.  If tapping a 
K-POD button simply sends "SWT21;" to the radio (tap M1), why should it work 
any different when software sends SWT21; to the radio?  Seems like message 
chaining should work the same as tapping M1.


Perhaps it is a K-POD button de-bounce bug of some sort; with the K-POD 
occasionally seeing a double-tap of the button when only single tap is intended?


73,
Bob, N6TV



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

I know them as fan antennas. The old UHF "bow tie" TV antennas are a good
example. 

The discussion about radiation resistance vs. feed-point resistance is
specious. When feeding more than one resistance in series, such as a
monopole impedance and a ground impedance, Ohm's law prevails. The higher
resistance consumes the most power. So techniques to reduce the ground R or
increase the antenna feed point R all contribute to more radiated power. 

73, Ron AC7AC

-Original Message-
On 3/1/2017 11:17 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
> You can also use close-spaced parallel elements that are resonant at
slightly different frequencies than the driven element. This is a different
way to make a broadband antenna. This design has a name, but it escapes me
right now.
>
> wunder
> K6WRU
> Walter Underwood
> CM87wj
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Rich - K1HTV]

Erik,
I've been feeding K3 RF to my house bracketed, 75 ft Rohn 25 tower for years 
with great success on 160 Meters. The tower is topped with HF and VHF yagis 
which act as a capacitive top hat. The 50 Ohm coax feedline is connected to a 
tap on the coil of a parallel tuned circuit. The top of the LC circuit is 
connected to a #16 THHN wire which runs parallel to the tower, about 18" 
outside one of the legs and connects to a bolt around 10 ft down from the top 
of the tower. At the base of the tower I simply tune the capacitor and find the 
best spot on the coil to tap to obtain the lowest SWR. There are 16 quarter 
wave radials around the tower, most of them on the tower side of the house from 
south to north and a few wrapping around and under the back deck toward the 
northeast. There are around a dozen 8 ft ground rods connected to the tower 
with #6 wire and the tower also is connected to a perimeter ground system 
surrounding the house.

The shields of most, but not all, of the coax cables leaving the tower are 
grounded at the tower base. Before all coax and control cables enter the shack 
they all are grounded at the steel entry box around 30 feet from the tower base.


So how does a shunt fed 75 ft tower work with a barefoot K3 feeding it? With 
100 Watts I've confirmed 229 countries on the Topband and have worked 89 
countries on all continents with QRP 5 Watts. You can check out the 160M QRP 
WAC cards at:
http://www.qrz.com/db/K1HTV


If you haven't tried shunt feeding your grounded tower, give it a try. You may 
be surprised at how well it can work on 160 Meters.


73,
Rich - K1HTV


= = =


Erik, K7TV wrote:

Years ago, after putting up a heavy-duty crank-up tower with several
antennas on a tall mast at the top, I was interested in loading up the whole
metal tree for 160 and/or 80. However, I didn't like the prospect of
transmitted power getting back into the shack via the existing feedlines,
causing all kinds of problems including losses. From a surplus vendor I
obtained four square slabs of ferrite (no spec's) and taped them together to
form a box-shaped common mode choke around the existing feedlines (and rotor
control cable etc). I didn't have radials at the tower base, but a couple of
long and wide copper strips buried and connected to ground rods to which the
tower was grounded. I opened up the tower ground connection and I had a feed
point. Finding resonance was not as easy as using my antenna analyzer. The
signal from the analyzer was overwhelmed by picked-up broadcast signals,
rendering the analyzer unuseable. I got by using a custom measurement setup.
It turned out that the entire metal tree resonated in the broadcast band and
was inductive at 160. I tuned it with a serial variable capacitor, and found
the antenna worked very well on 160. However, I didn't continue using it, as
I didn't feel safe not to have the tower grounded. I pondered schemes to add
some kind of gamma-like matching device, but never got around to it. Also I
never tried it on 80, but I suspect it would not been ideal for low angle
radiation.

Later I added more antennas to the mast, and with the added cables, the
whole bundle would no longer fit in the makeshift ferrite choke. Out of
curiosity I once again tried ungrounding the tower to check on its
characteristics as a vertical antenna. I could no longer find the resonance
I had seen and used before. Apparently, the ferrite choke had been a crucial
part of the scheme.

At this point I still don't have an antenna for 160 or 80. (I did try an
inverted vee off the tower for 80, but it caused terrible de-tuning of the
40m part of my beam on the tower, so I gave up on that. Maybe I should try a
sloper.) I am thinking of putting up a dedicated vertical, but on my small
lot it would couple to the tower. Perhaps it would be better to give the
tower another look as my low-band vertical? My source of ferrite slabs dried
up years ago. I wonder if anyone else on the list has used a similar
approach and found a good way to choke off RF on a bundle of feedlines?
Individual chokes don't seem very attractive to me as I have many cables,
but if one has to go that route then it would make sense to look very
carefully at the choice of chokes. I would also be interested in knowing
about others' experiences with feed systems that leave the tower grounded.

Thanks in advance for any useful ideas!

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] FW: Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

Hi Alan,

Your link didn't work for me, but I assume your article describes how to
make a good bandpass filter. I do in fact recall seeing such an article in
QST years ago. Assuming that you were just pointing out that I can put a
bandpass filter on each feedline, as is common practice in SO2R operations,
I need to state my case in more detail:

Since I have second antenna covering 20-15-10 (a vertical), I started out
doing just that: putting a bandpass filter on each. I was in a hurry and
bought the LBS commercial filters rather than building based on the old
article. The antennas are close together, and even after I upgraded so as to
have two K3 radios, I was unhappy with the isolation with one K3
transmitting on 40 on the beam and the other K3 receiving on 20 on the
vertical. Just out of curiosity I plan to dig deeper into this situation, as
I think somewhat better results could be achieved. However, seeing the big
difference in performance on a given band between the vertical and the beam,
I really wanted both radios to have a beam. That is where I decided to get
the multiplexer (a model that includes 40m). Performance wise, this was
going to be like having one multiband beam, including 40m, for each radio.
Much better than using the vertical for one radio, assuming of course that
the physical sharing of one beam would aggravate the interference situation
I had when using separate antennas and bandpass filters. With the
multiplexer, per manufacturer's recommendation, each band still uses its
separate bandpass filter, so that total attenuation between bands is much
greater than what can be expected with bandpass filters alone. Still, I was
apprehensive of a possible increase in interference. The outcome was nothing
short of stunning: No interference at all. I see a possiblity that I could
have somehow reduced the interference experienced with separate antennas and
using bandpass filters, but I can't see that approach competing with the
superior results using a single antenna + multiplexer + bandpass filters.
The QST review backs up my assumption that the great results with that
configuration was no fluke. Of course, I cannot include 80m in the same
approach as long as I don't have a single antenna that includes that band
(and I can't quickly get a multiplexer that includes all 5 bands). So, for
80 I will have a separate feedline and just a bandpass filter. BTW I am very
happy to not have yielded to the temptation to upgrade my beam to a Steppir,
as the multiplexer approach requires the antenna to be tuned simultaneously
to multiple bands, not to tune to one band at a time.

If I had been able to achieve really good isolation with just a bandpass
filter for each band, your approach with an 80m antenna that also covers 40
would make good sense to my situation. As it is, keeping 40m within the
beam, even with no gain over running 40m on the second antenna, makes sense
as it allows me to route 40m not just through the bandpass filter, but also
through the multiplexer. Since I already tried an 80m inverted vee on the
tower, and it ruined the 40m performance of the beam, I am looking for other
approaches for 80m. It might be possible to change the beam to bring it back
to resonance on 40, but this particular beam is a complicated design
already. A sloper is one possiblity, but it is not likely to be my first
attempt, as it would be close to the beam and it would be somewhat similar
to the vee. At this point I am leaning toward either a separate shortened
vertical such as a Butternut model for 80 and 40 (not likely to use the 40
part) or using the tower itself as a vertical. For the latter approach I
would need to prevent the tower's feedline bundle (the part going into the
house) from forming part of the radiating element. I remember an old Antenna
Book discussing methods of feeding the tower as a vertical, but the author
seemed to ignore the issue of the cables coming off the tower. Maybe it was
assumed that the cables would be disconnected at the bulkhead whenever the
tower would be used as a vertical.  Nobody has replied to me about
experiences dealing with that issue. Also as the tower with its antennas is
resonant in the BC band, I would model it to find out if it has a resonable
vertical radiation pattern if fed as a whole on 80. 

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Alan
Bloom
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:29 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

Hi Erik,

It is certainly possible to use a separate filter in the feedline to each
antenna.  For example, here's an article I wrote many years ago on how to
homebrew your own:

http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/89595

Those filters are only good for 100W or so, but there is no fundamental
reason they couldn't be scaled up to 1500W.  I haven't researched it, but
I'm thinking there must be commercial equivalents as well.

Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[M. George]

I used LP-Bridge for many years and never was satisfied with the
reliability... plus the time it takes to create the virtual ports was
always irritating to me. It is pretty good and the price sure is right
however!

I have switched to Win4K3Suite with com0com for the CAT sharing of the
K3(s) and it has been rock solid.  As others have mentioned, you can share
the K3 CAT interface with up to 4 other applications and the lastest
version of Win4K3Suite also adds 3 or 4 (off the top of my head) read only
interfaces that you can use... i.e. like an SDA100 SteppIR controller or an
Amplifier that will track the transceiver frequency.  VSPE looks pretty
good, but the license feed for the signed 64 bit version is ~$25 and that
gets you half way to the cost of Win4K3Suite... Win4K3WSuite in and of
itself is really nice.  The more I use it, the more I like it... for
example, pre defined RX EQ settings are so nice where you can just push a
button and change the EQ settings on the K3 in a few seconds and if you are
tweaking the EQ settings, you get to hear things live without having to
leave the Config menu.  Anyway, I'm really like the spectrum display to in
combination with an LP-PAN2.  It's become the replacement to NaP3.  It's
all together just a much more reliable solution than LP-Bridge and NaP3
IMHO.  I can't live without my LP-PAN2 by the way... but now I no longer
need to deal with LP-Bridge and Win4K3Suite starts right up with no delay
where the com0com ports are created when Windows 10 starts up.

Max NG7M

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Tim Tucker  wrote:

> I have used LP Bridge in the past but found that it crashed too often to
> suit my tastes.  I am currently using VSPE 64 bit on two machines (for the
> past 2 years) without any problems.
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, buddy s  wrote:
>
> > i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
> > identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
> > appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.
> >
> > thanks, es
> >
> > 73 de
> > W3BS, Buddy Spiegel
> > __
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > Message delivered to ae...@worldwidedx.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Owner, worldwidedx.com
> AE6LX, Amateur Radio
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to m.matthew.geo...@gmail.com
>



-- 
M. George
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[Tim Tucker]

I have used LP Bridge in the past but found that it crashed too often to
suit my tastes.  I am currently using VSPE 64 bit on two machines (for the
past 2 years) without any problems.

Tim

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, buddy s  wrote:

> i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
> identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
> simultaneously.
>
> if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
> appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.
>
> thanks, es
>
> 73 de
> W3BS, Buddy Spiegel
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to ae...@worldwidedx.com
>



-- 
Owner, worldwidedx.com
AE6LX, Amateur Radio
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[Harry Yingst via Elecraft]

Another vote to LP  Bridge


  From: Matt Zilmer 
 To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:48 PM
 Subject: Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with 
k3 and a laptop with only com3
   
Try LP Bridge?  That's works well here.

73,

matt W6NIA


On 3/1/2017 9:31 AM, buddy s wrote:
> i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
> identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
> simultaneously.
>
> if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
> appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.
>
> thanks, es
>
> 73 de
> W3BS, Buddy Spiegel
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to mzil...@roadrunner.com

-- 
Pull the curtain, Fred.  It won't be long now.

Matt Zilmer, W6NIA
[Shiraz]

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to hlyin...@yahoo.com


   
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Fred Jensen]

Coupled resonator?  I built a C-R antenna for 30, 17, and 12 when we 
first got the WARC bands using 300 ohm open-wire line.  Only the 30 m 
wire was fed.  It seemed to work well, on the rare occasions I could 
find someone on the bands.  The same technique can be used to expand the 
BW of an 80 meter antenna although there are some side effects to be 
dealt with.


73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 3/1/2017 11:17 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:

You can also use close-spaced parallel elements that are resonant at slightly 
different frequencies than the driven element. This is a different way to make 
a broadband antenna. This design has a name, but it escapes me right now.

wunder
K6WRU
Walter Underwood
CM87wj
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[Dave Fugleberg]

I've been playing with Win4K3 Suite lately... Among (many) other things, it
allows up to four different programs to think they are all connected
directly to the same K3 st the same time. I've been testing it with DXLab
Commander and N1MM+.
Both programs lead and follow the radio - in other words, I can change
frequency, mode, etc on the radio, in Win4K3, N1MM, or commander, and all
of the others change with it.
73 de W0ZF

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:49 AM Matt Zilmer  wrote:

Try LP Bridge?  That's works well here.

73,

matt W6NIA


On 3/1/2017 9:31 AM, buddy s wrote:
> i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
> identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
> simultaneously.
>
> if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
> appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.
>
> thanks, es
>
> 73 de
> W3BS, Buddy Spiegel
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to mzil...@roadrunner.com

--
Pull the curtain, Fred.  It won't be long now.

Matt Zilmer, W6NIA
[Shiraz]

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to dave.w...@gmail.com
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K-Pod: A failure to Communicate

[Bob Wilson, N6TV]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Wes Stewart  wrote:

> Just for completeness, since the K-Pod utility was on the same computer, I
> decided to reload the firmware.  I restarted the K3 utility and for giggles
> placed a space in front of the M1 command string.  It functioned normally.
> If I put a space after the command before the semi-colon, nothing was
> executed.  I re-saved all of the macros and loaded them back into the
> radio. Things actually appeared to be better. I thought that maybe I fixed
> it.  But sadly that's not the case.  Like all intermittents,
> it's...well...intermittent.
>

When you see this happen, is there any software talking to the radio, like
HRD or the K3 Utility?  If you shut down the computer completely, so
nothing is sending commands to the serial port, does the delay still occur?

Is CONFIG:AUTOINF set to NOR or to 1 (for a SteppIR, perhaps)?  Maybe all
those AI command outputs interfere with simultaneous commands sent from the
K-POD?

Note that if anything closes the PTT line after you press a memory button,
the memory will halt immediately.  Is that a possibility?  Amp. keys radio?

Does this intermittent behavior happen on both Phone and CW?  Of course
this won't apply to Phone unless you have the KDVR3 voice memory installed.

I also discovered that there is another idiosyncrasy (IMO).  Perhaps it is
> intended, but when I tap M1 on the K3 for example, multiple times, the
> message (my call) is chained and sent as many times as I tapped the
> button.  Doing this from the computer via the command tester works the same
> way.  However, tapping the function key on the K-Pod a second time
> immediately ends the message.  So I can't chain messages.  Furthermore this
> seems to exacerbate the intermittent condition
>

I'm seeing this also, and it doesn't make sense to me either.  If tapping a
K-POD button simply sends "SWT21;" to the radio (tap M1), why should it
work any different when software sends SWT21; to the radio?  Seems like
message chaining should work the same as tapping M1.

Perhaps it is a K-POD button de-bounce bug of some sort; with the K-POD
occasionally seeing a double-tap of the button when only single tap is
intended?

73,
Bob, N6TV
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft]

We're exceeding the OT limit on this topic. While very interesting, lets wrap it 
up by end of day today.


73,
Eric
Moderator
/elecraft.com/
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[Bob Wilson, N6TV]

Maybe try OmniRig by VE3NEA ?  It allows all
supported programs to share the serial port of the K3 at the same time.

Both Ham Radio Deluxe Bridge and Logic 9 are listed as compatible.  But,
perhaps it doesn't work with the latest version of HRD?

http://dxatlas.com/OmniRig/CompatibleSoft.txt

http://wd5eae.org/Software.html  - "OmniRig / Ham Radio Deluxe Bridge (for
HRD 3.x/4.x)"

There are other solutions such as the microHAM controllers that provide two
virtual serial ports per radio.

73,
Bob, N6TV

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, buddy s  wrote:

> i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
> identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
> simultaneously.
>
> if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
> appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.
>
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Afsk a

[Don Wilhelm]

Paddle input is only available in PSK-D and FSK-D data submodes.

DATA A and AFSK are only for soundcard generated data.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 3/1/2017 1:33 PM, mar...@the-wallers.net wrote:

Hi,

Can you help me please?

I was playing with data modes the other day and my kx3 was happily sending rtty 
in afsk a mode using the morse paddle. Today it no longer accepts input from 
the morse paddle in afsk mode but does in other data modes.

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Alan Bloom]

Hi Erik,

It is certainly possible to use a separate filter in the feedline to 
each antenna.  For example, here's an article I wrote many years ago on 
how to homebrew your own:


http://p1k.arrl.org/pubs_archive/89595

Those filters are only good for 100W or so, but there is no fundamental 
reason they couldn't be scaled up to 1500W.  I haven't researched it, 
but I'm thinking there must be commercial equivalents as well.


Alan N1AL


On 02/28/2017 10:41 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:

Alan,

Thanks for your reply. Your approach would provide 40m capability to replace
the 40m capability that my (Sommer) beam loses through detuning.
However, I wonder how hard your tuner must work on 40? Enough to create
substantial feedline losses when the tuner is in the shack?
Anyway, I have another reason not to choose your approach:
I am rebuilding my station to support SO2R, and it is tough to avoid
interference between the two radios operating on different bands, especially
40 - 20 and with the antennas close together.
I found to my surprise, before the QST review came out, that the Low Band
Systems multiplexer and band pass filters (my setup includes 40m) eliminates
the interference problem. However, this scheme requires that the antennas be
on a shared feedline. With your approach the 40m antenna would no longer be
on the same feedline as the higher bands.



-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Alan
Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:09 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

I use two of the top guy wires as an inverted vee.  There are insulators
near the top of the guys and about 50 feet or so down.  The vee is brought
to resonance on 80 meters with a center-tapped loading coil, which also acts
as a balun.  The best match was with the coax tapped right about at the end
of one side of the coil (and of course the coax shield to the grounded
center tap).

Works great on 80 meters without a tuner and on 40 meters with a tuner.

Alan N1AL


On 02/28/2017 09:42 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:

Years ago, after putting up a heavy-duty crank-up tower with several
antennas on a tall mast at the top, I was interested in loading up the
whole metal tree for 160 and/or 80. However, I didn't like the
prospect of transmitted power getting back into the shack via the
existing feedlines, causing all kinds of problems including losses.
From a surplus vendor I obtained four square slabs of ferrite (no
spec's) and taped them together to form a box-shaped common mode choke
around the existing feedlines (and rotor control cable etc). I didn't
have radials at the tower base, but a couple of long and wide copper
strips buried and connected to ground rods to which the tower was
grounded. I opened up the tower ground connection and I had a feed
point. Finding resonance was not as easy as using my antenna analyzer.
The signal from the analyzer was overwhelmed by picked-up broadcast

signals, rendering the analyzer unuseable. I got by using a custom
measurement setup.

It turned out that the entire metal tree resonated in the broadcast
band and was inductive at 160. I tuned it with a serial variable
capacitor, and found the antenna worked very well on 160. However, I
didn't continue using it, as I didn't feel safe not to have the tower
grounded. I pondered schemes to add some kind of gamma-like matching
device, but never got around to it. Also I never tried it on 80, but I
suspect it would not been ideal for low angle radiation.



Later I added more antennas to the mast, and with the added cables,
the whole bundle would no longer fit in the makeshift ferrite choke.
Out of curiosity I once again tried ungrounding the tower to check on
its characteristics as a vertical antenna. I could no longer find the
resonance I had seen and used before. Apparently, the ferrite choke
had been a crucial part of the scheme.



At this point I still don't have an antenna for 160 or 80. (I did try
an inverted vee off the tower for 80, but it caused terrible de-tuning
of the 40m part of my beam on the tower, so I gave up on that. Maybe I
should try a
sloper.)  I am thinking of putting up a dedicated vertical, but on my
small lot it would couple to the tower. Perhaps it would be better to
give the tower another look as my low-band vertical? My source of
ferrite slabs dried up years ago. I wonder if anyone else on the list
has used a similar approach and found a good way to choke off RF on a

bundle of feedlines?

Individual chokes don't seem very attractive to me as I have many
cables, but if one has to go that route then it would make sense to
look very carefully at the choice of chokes. I would also be
interested in knowing about others' experiences with feed systems that

leave the tower grounded.




Thanks in advance for any useful ideas!



73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing 

Re: [Elecraft] Afsk a

[Nr4c]

The KX3 never accepted paddles input to send RTTY using DATA sub-mode AFSK A. 
You must select sub-mode FSK D to use this feature. Read the manual on Data 
modes.  

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill


> On Mar 1, 2017, at 1:33 PM, "mar...@the-wallers.net"  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Can you help me please? 
> 
> I was playing with data modes the other day and my kx3 was happily sending 
> rtty in afsk a mode using the morse paddle. Today it no longer accepts input 
> from the morse paddle in afsk mode but does in other data modes.
> 
> I have a feeling I've changed a setting somewhere but I don't know where?
> 
> Any advice greatly appreciated.
> 
> Martin
> G0PJO
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 28 Feb 2017, at 18:17, Bill Johnson  wrote:
>> 
>> Because?
>> 
>> Have a great day!
>> Bill J
>> K9YEQ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Elecraft  on behalf of Wes Stewart 
>> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:37:13 AM
>> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals
>> 
>> Ted,
>> 
>> You need to read W7XC's (SK) article in QST Mar 1990, pp 26-30
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2/27/2017 4:13 PM, Dauer, Edward wrote:
>>> A question that’s admittedly a bit OT – though if I need a pretext, the rig 
>>> to be used is a K3 . . .
>>> 
>>> I have been reading through the usual texts about vertical antennas for 80 
>>> meters, to replace the half wave dipole I now have and the Vee I had but 
>>> didn’t like.  But I have not yet found the answer to one question I am 
>>> thinking about:  The advantages or disadvantages of an inverted L compared 
>>> to other variations of the top-loaded vertical.
>>> 
>>> Assume a 40-foot ground-mounted vertical section made with wire running up 
>>> a fiberglass mast.  There could be a remote tuner or balun at the base if 
>>> it’s needed.  The top of the vertical section would be guyed with four 
>>> lines more or less parallel to the earth extending from the top tip of the 
>>> vertical section to four suitably located trees.  That physical 
>>> configuration offers three kinds of options.
>>> 
>>> One is an inverted L.  One of the four guy lines would be a wire making the 
>>> L and long enough to have the overall antenna resonate, with nonconductive 
>>> line from there to the tree.  The other three guy lines would be 
>>> nonconductive for their entire length.
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to n...@widomaker.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Walter Underwood]

I’m not sure what the original post is actually suggesting, but there are three 
antennas techniques like that, and all have their uses.

A cage element connects everything together to make a fat, low-Q element. Those 
often have enough bandwidth to work over the entire 80m band. W1AW uses a cage 
dipole for 80m.

A folded element is a bit shorter and has a higher impedance. It is also more 
broadband, mostly because of the fat elements, like a cage dipole.

You can also use close-spaced parallel elements that are resonant at slightly 
different frequencies than the driven element. This is a different way to make 
a broadband antenna. This design has a name, but it escapes me right now.

wunder
K6WRU
Walter Underwood
CM87wj
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Jim Brown  wrote:
> 
> On Wed,3/1/2017 5:25 AM, Charlie T, K3ICH wrote:
>> Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out of 
>> multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire woven 
>> through the ladder sections and fed on one wire?
> 
> Nope. And that's not "theory," that's someone's dumb idea. :)
> 
> BUT -- using multiple spaced conductors in parallel and connecting them at 
> both ends makes the conductor "thicker," which both lengthens it 1-2 percent 
> and broadens the SWR bandwidth. The same thing happens with a tower as 
> compared to a single wire. The vertical part of my 160M Tee vertical is a 
> pair of #12 spaced about 9 inches. When I added the second wire, I observed 
> that my SWR bandwidth approximately doubled.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to wun...@wunderwood.org

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Charlie T, K3ICH]

Well, THAT was certainly an eye-opener.

Thanks to all who commented. I really learned a lot from that discussion.

Thanks,  Charlie k3ICH



-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Wes 
Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:18 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

Now that I provided the succinct answer, allow me to provide an in-depth answer.

But rather than me doing it, I will take the easy way out and simply provide a 
link to the fine explanation done by Tom, W8JI:

https://www.w8ji.com/radiation_resistance.htm

Wes  N7WS


On 3/1/2017 7:27 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:
> No truth at all.
>
> On 3/1/2017 6:25 AM, Charlie T, K3ICH wrote:
>> Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out 
>> of multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire 
>> woven through the ladder sections and fed on one wire?  The physical 
>> result is three parallel wires but electrically connected so as to form and 
>> "up, down and up
>> again" element.   This supposedly raises the radiating element impedance 
>> relative to the fixed ground loss resistance. The idea I'm told, is 
>> that since the ground resistance (loss) is fixed at whatever it is 
>> but as the actual radiating element impedance is raised, the antenna 
>> becomes more efficient since the ground loss percentage of the 
>> overall feed point impedance is lowered.  This impedance change 
>> happens in much the same way as a folded dipole feed is a higher 
>> impedance than a conventional dipole using a single wires.
>> I saw this written up a few years ago as a means of increasing the 
>> overall efficiency of an inverted L for either 160 of 80 M.
>>
>> I had an "L" made of the smaller ladder line on 160 with only four ¼λ 
>> radials on the ground that seemed to work fairly well. My plan was to 
>> install elevated radials, but that would have been a LOT of wire around the 
>> yard.
>> Something broke on it after a year or so, and I never re-installed it.
>>
>> 73, Charlie k3ICH

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to pin...@erols.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft QSK

[Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP]

No, the real question is why doesn't Elecraft make a KPA1500!

I agree about the Alpha PIN diodes. I had an Alpha 86 for a few years, 
and never had any trouble with the PIN diodes -- and I made plenty of 
'antenna mistakes'. I sold it because I was tired of waiting the 90 
seconds for it to warm up, and I believed that Elecraft was about to 
release the KPA800 and 1500.


I suspect some of the PIN diode failures were due to static discharges. 
I had ICE antenna protectors that provided a good DC path to ground and 
a good lightning ground system. Or else I was lucky.


73,
Vic, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 1 Mar 2017 01:14, wb6r...@mac.com wrote:

The Elecraft KPA500 silent QSK is achieved without expensive PIN
diodes but rather with relatively inexpensive switching diodes. I’ll
guess that the 1500 watt Elecraft prototype amp of some years ago
used a similar inexpensive, silent design.

Avoiding QSK should be because of operator preference not because of
fear of relay failure. In the case of operating non-QSK, it’s vital
for the operator to keep calls short and not be caught in a cycle of
doubling with the DX that’s heard all too often.

My Alpha 87A of 17 years or so has never had a PIN diode failure.
When the 87A was first introduced there were indeed PIN diode
failures. This was attributed to a bad batch (or batches?) of PIN
diodes. Subsequent runs of 87A's ceased to exhibit PIN diode
failures. Yet the urban legend persists that 87A’s should be avoided
because of the PIN diodes - which are expensive to replace.

The real question is why amplifier manufacturers continue to use
vacuum relays when inexpensive switching diodes can do the job. Thank
you Elecraft.

73 - Steve WB6RSE

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

John Heys, G3BDQ, in his book "Practical Wire Antennas" describes "folded 
monopoles" or "folded Marconi" antennas - essentially 1/2 of a folded dipole 
worked against a system of radials. The monopole is made of two or three wires. 
Feed is between one wire and the radial system while the second or third 
parallel wires are jointed at the "top" and retur to be connected to the radial 
system. 

A two-wire folded monopole presents a feedpoint impedance of between 80 and 150 
ohms. Heys credits W6SAI in his book "Simple Low-Cost Wire Antennas" (Radio 
Publications, Inc., 1972) for a version made from slotted 300 ohm "twin lead". 
It is in Inverted L configuration for 80 meters: vertical 30 feet (9.1 meters) 
then sloping 25 feet (7.6 meters) to the top of a 35 ft (10.6 meter) support. 
To maintain resonance and compensate for the velocity factor of the twin lead, 
an 8 ft 3" (2.4 meter) single wire is run from the joined conductors at the end 
of the twin lead to the support. 

Heys describes a 3-wire version without a bend but sloping at an angle of 30 
degrees or less from vertical at 65 feet (19.8 meters) centered on 3.6 MHz. 
Heys' version requires a 60 foot (18.2 meter) high support although he notes 
that for 40 meters a 30 foot support will be adequate. As with the two wire 
folded monopole all three wires are connected at the "top" and the feed point 
is between the center wire and the radial system. The other two wire ends are 
connected directly to the radial system. Heys notes that a spacing of 1 foot is 
needed to use the common 1/4 wavelength formula of 234/f (mHz).

Heys says that either antenna can be used on its 3rd harmonic.

73, Ron AC7AC

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Charlie 
T, K3ICH
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 5:25 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out of 
multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire woven through 
the ladder sections and fed on one wire?  The physical result is three parallel 
wires but electrically connected so as to form and "up, down and up again" 
element.   This supposedly raises the radiating element impedance relative to 
the fixed ground loss resistance.  The idea I'm told, is that since the ground 
resistance (loss) is fixed at whatever it is but as the actual radiating 
element impedance is raised, the antenna becomes more efficient since the 
ground loss percentage of the overall feed point impedance is lowered.  This 
impedance change happens in much the same way as a folded dipole feed is a 
higher impedance than a conventional dipole using a single wires.  
I saw this written up a few years ago as a means of increasing the overall 
efficiency of an inverted L for either 160 of 80 M. 

I had an "L" made of the smaller ladder line on 160 with only four ¼λ radials 
on the ground that seemed to work fairly well.   My plan was to install 
elevated radials, but that would have been a LOT of wire around the yard.  
Something broke on it after a year or so, and I never re-installed it.

73, Charlie k3ICH


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Afsk a

[mar...@the-wallers.net]

Hi,

Can you help me please? 

I was playing with data modes the other day and my kx3 was happily sending rtty 
in afsk a mode using the morse paddle. Today it no longer accepts input from 
the morse paddle in afsk mode but does in other data modes.

I have a feeling I've changed a setting somewhere but I don't know where?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Martin
G0PJO



Sent from my iPad

> On 28 Feb 2017, at 18:17, Bill Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Because?
> 
> Have a great day!
> Bill J
> K9YEQ
> 
> 
> 
> From: Elecraft  on behalf of Wes Stewart 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:37:13 AM
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals
> 
> Ted,
> 
> You need to read W7XC's (SK) article in QST Mar 1990, pp 26-30
> 
> 
>> On 2/27/2017 4:13 PM, Dauer, Edward wrote:
>> A question that’s admittedly a bit OT – though if I need a pretext, the rig 
>> to be used is a K3 . . .
>> 
>> I have been reading through the usual texts about vertical antennas for 80 
>> meters, to replace the half wave dipole I now have and the Vee I had but 
>> didn’t like.  But I have not yet found the answer to one question I am 
>> thinking about:  The advantages or disadvantages of an inverted L compared 
>> to other variations of the top-loaded vertical.
>> 
>> Assume a 40-foot ground-mounted vertical section made with wire running up a 
>> fiberglass mast.  There could be a remote tuner or balun at the base if it’s 
>> needed.  The top of the vertical section would be guyed with four lines more 
>> or less parallel to the earth extending from the top tip of the vertical 
>> section to four suitably located trees.  That physical configuration offers 
>> three kinds of options.
>> 
>> One is an inverted L.  One of the four guy lines would be a wire making the 
>> L and long enough to have the overall antenna resonate, with nonconductive 
>> line from there to the tree.  The other three guy lines would be 
>> nonconductive for their entire length.

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] [KX3] KX3 & CQ-160

[Igor Sokolov]

My experience is a bit different.
 I was using KX3 in the recent UBA contest QRP entry from the center of 
a big city. There were several times when I had to turn PRE off on 20m 
band and switch ATT on on 40m band to cure overloading. This never 
happened in the past with K3. On the other hand we have made over 6000 
QSO in CQWW CW last November operating from Maldives. This operation was 
on all bands 160m included. Never experienced overloading there but most 
of the signals were below S9+10.


73, Igor UA9CDC

01.03.2017 8:58, 'Richard Sharp, KQ4KX' kq...@arrl.net [KX3] пишет:


Just thought I’d drop a note on my experience using my KX3/PX3 setup 
for the CQ-160 contest this past weekend.


I operated this contest last year using a 100W radio but decided to 
try QRP this year. I’m fortunate to be able to use an insulated AM 
broadcast tower (220’ w/120 ground radials) and had a very nice 
experience last year (2016).  So, thought I’d try QRP with my KX3 this 
year (2017).  My setup is a small table in front of the AM tower’s ATU 
connected to the tower side of a blank J-Plug inserted into the jack 
(electrically disconnects the AM tuning unit from the tower – and yes, 
the AM station was QRT during this time) using the dual banana adapter 
on the KX3 with short leads going to ATU ground and the tower side 
J-plug terminal.  The KXAT3 had no problem tuning the antenna (tower) 
for 160m.


First off, the KX3’s receiver was fabulous – this is the first time 
I’ve used my KX3 during such crowded conditions and also with such a 
good antenna where signals were strong.  It handled the conditions 
very well.  I found operating with the RF gain at -30 made listening 
more comfortable.  However, the KX3’s receiver did not seem to have 
any problems prior to me reducing the RX gain.  The PX3 was certainly 
nice to be able to “see” the band.  Unfortunately, being QRP I wasn’t 
able to make nearly the Q’s that I did last year due to some stations 
just not being able to pull me out (many were saying they had high 
noise or QRM).   I’m sure CW and/or the digital modes would’ve been a 
bit more effective with this setup.  It seemed having the stereo 
effect enabled on the KX3 resulted in a lot less ear fatigue using 
earbuds.  I was able to make many contacts for the limited time (4 
hrs.) that I was operating.


Since I don’t recall seeing much discussion using the KX3 on 160m with 
an efficient antenna I thought I’d share my experience.  So, for those 
that might be into the broadcast engineering circles and have access 
to an AM tower (or other type of efficient 160m antenna) I’d certainly 
recommend using a KX3 with such an antenna.


73,

Richard

KQ4KX

__._,_.___

Posted by: "Richard Sharp, KQ4KX" 

Reply via web post 
 
	• 	Reply to sender 
 	• 	Reply 
to group 
 	• 
Start a New Topic 
 
	• 	Messages in this topic 
 
(1)



Have you tried the highest rated email app? 
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated 
email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access 
all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never 
delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.


Visit Your Group 
 



  * New Members


11

Yahoo! Groups 
 

• Privacy 
 • 
Unsubscribe 

Re: [Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[Matt Zilmer]

Try LP Bridge?  That's works well here.

73,

matt W6NIA


On 3/1/2017 9:31 AM, buddy s wrote:

i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
simultaneously.

if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.

thanks, es

73 de
W3BS, Buddy Spiegel
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to mzil...@roadrunner.com


--
Pull the curtain, Fred.  It won't be long now.

Matt Zilmer, W6NIA
[Shiraz]

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Jim Brown]

On Wed,3/1/2017 5:25 AM, Charlie T, K3ICH wrote:

Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out of 
multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire woven through 
the ladder sections and fed on one wire?


Nope. And that's not "theory," that's someone's dumb idea. :)

BUT -- using multiple spaced conductors in parallel and connecting them 
at both ends makes the conductor "thicker," which both lengthens it 1-2 
percent and broadens the SWR bandwidth. The same thing happens with a 
tower as compared to a single wire. The vertical part of my 160M Tee 
vertical is a pair of #12 spaced about 9 inches. When I added the second 
wire, I observed that my SWR bandwidth approximately doubled.


73, Jim K9YC


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Bill Johnson]

Wes, thanks for posting this great reference.  Certainly turns a bunch of stuff 
I have read on its ear and will help with my antenna building underway.

73,
Bill
K9YEQ

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Wes 
Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 10:18 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

Now that I provided the succinct answer, allow me to provide an in-depth answer.

But rather than me doing it, I will take the easy way out and simply provide a 
link to the fine explanation done by Tom, W8JI:

https://www.w8ji.com/radiation_resistance.htm

Wes  N7WS


On 3/1/2017 7:27 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:
> No truth at all.
>
> On 3/1/2017 6:25 AM, Charlie T, K3ICH wrote:
>> Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out 
>> of multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire 
>> woven through the ladder sections and fed on one wire?  The physical 
>> result is three parallel wires but electrically connected so as to form and 
>> "up, down and up
>> again" element.   This supposedly raises the radiating element impedance 
>> relative to the fixed ground loss resistance. The idea I'm told, is 
>> that since the ground resistance (loss) is fixed at whatever it is 
>> but as the actual radiating element impedance is raised, the antenna 
>> becomes more efficient since the ground loss percentage of the 
>> overall feed point impedance is lowered.  This impedance change 
>> happens in much the same way as a folded dipole feed is a higher 
>> impedance than a conventional dipole using a single wires.
>> I saw this written up a few years ago as a means of increasing the 
>> overall efficiency of an inverted L for either 160 of 80 M.
>>
>> I had an "L" made of the smaller ladder line on 160 with only four ¼λ 
>> radials on the ground that seemed to work fairly well. My plan was to 
>> install elevated radials, but that would have been a LOT of wire around the 
>> yard.
>> Something broke on it after a year or so, and I never re-installed it.
>>
>> 73, Charlie k3ICH

__ 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] list submission, using ham radio deluxe and logic with k3 and a laptop with only com3

[buddy s]

i have a laptop, win 10, usb cabled to my k3, and the com port is
identified as com3.  i would like to use ham radio deluxe and logic
simultaneously.

if someone has a similar situation and solved the problem i would
appreciate the details.  i have tried VSPE, unsuccessfully.

thanks, es

73 de
W3BS, Buddy Spiegel
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] WTB: 2 band module for K1

[Dave Redfearn]

Thinking about adding 80 Meters to my K1, so looking for a unused 2 band
module.

 

Can be a kit, partially built, or built.

 

Prefer 80 & 40 Meters but can work with about anything for the right price.

 

I know I can order a new one from Elecraft but prefer to re-use or recycle
if possible.

 

 

Thanks! - Dave, N4ELM

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Wes Stewart]

Now that I provided the succinct answer, allow me to provide an in-depth answer.

But rather than me doing it, I will take the easy way out and simply provide a 
link to the fine explanation done by Tom, W8JI:


https://www.w8ji.com/radiation_resistance.htm

Wes  N7WS


On 3/1/2017 7:27 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:

No truth at all.

On 3/1/2017 6:25 AM, Charlie T, K3ICH wrote:
Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out of 
multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire woven through 
the ladder sections and fed on one wire?  The physical result is three 
parallel wires but electrically connected so as to form and "up, down and up 
again" element.   This supposedly raises the radiating element impedance 
relative to the fixed ground loss resistance. The idea I'm told, is that 
since the ground resistance (loss) is fixed at whatever it is but as the 
actual radiating element impedance is raised, the antenna becomes more 
efficient since the ground loss percentage of the overall feed point 
impedance is lowered.  This impedance change happens in much the same way as 
a folded dipole feed is a higher impedance than a conventional dipole using a 
single wires.
I saw this written up a few years ago as a means of increasing the overall 
efficiency of an inverted L for either 160 of 80 M.


I had an "L" made of the smaller ladder line on 160 with only four ¼λ radials 
on the ground that seemed to work fairly well. My plan was to install 
elevated radials, but that would have been a LOT of wire around the yard.  
Something broke on it after a year or so, and I never re-installed it.


73, Charlie k3ICH 


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Roy Koeppe]

-Original Message- 
From: Wes Stewart

Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 8:27 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

No truth at all.

Correct -- radiation resistance remains the same or even slightly lower --  
lower Q.


73,   RoyK6XK 



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Wes Stewart]

No truth at all.

On 3/1/2017 6:25 AM, Charlie T, K3ICH wrote:

Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out of multiple wires 
such as ladder line and even adding a third wire woven through the ladder sections and 
fed on one wire?  The physical result is three parallel wires but electrically connected 
so as to form and "up, down and up again" element.   This supposedly raises the 
radiating element impedance relative to the fixed ground loss resistance.  The idea I'm 
told, is that since the ground resistance (loss) is fixed at whatever it is but as the 
actual radiating element impedance is raised, the antenna becomes more efficient since 
the ground loss percentage of the overall feed point impedance is lowered.  This 
impedance change happens in much the same way as a folded dipole feed is a higher 
impedance than a conventional dipole using a single wires.
I saw this written up a few years ago as a means of increasing the overall 
efficiency of an inverted L for either 160 of 80 M.

I had an "L" made of the smaller ladder line on 160 with only four ¼λ radials 
on the ground that seemed to work fairly well.   My plan was to install elevated radials, 
but that would have been a LOT of wire around the yard.  Something broke on it after a 
year or so, and I never re-installed it.

73, Charlie k3ICH



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

[Charlie T, K3ICH]

Is there any truth in the theory of making the vertical radiator out of 
multiple wires such as ladder line and even adding a third wire woven through 
the ladder sections and fed on one wire?  The physical result is three parallel 
wires but electrically connected so as to form and "up, down and up again" 
element.   This supposedly raises the radiating element impedance relative to 
the fixed ground loss resistance.  The idea I'm told, is that since the ground 
resistance (loss) is fixed at whatever it is but as the actual radiating 
element impedance is raised, the antenna becomes more efficient since the 
ground loss percentage of the overall feed point impedance is lowered.  This 
impedance change happens in much the same way as a folded dipole feed is a 
higher impedance than a conventional dipole using a single wires.  
I saw this written up a few years ago as a means of increasing the overall 
efficiency of an inverted L for either 160 of 80 M. 

I had an "L" made of the smaller ladder line on 160 with only four ¼λ radials 
on the ground that seemed to work fairly well.   My plan was to install 
elevated radials, but that would have been a LOT of wire around the yard.  
Something broke on it after a year or so, and I never re-installed it.

73, Charlie k3ICH



-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ron D'Eau 
Claire
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:08 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 Meter Verticals

One characteristic of a "T", assuming the top wires run in opposite directions 
and are of equal length, is that radiation from the top wires is highly 
suppressed because they are fed "in phase" by the vertical section. That means 
that nearly all radiation is from the vertical section, whereas in an inverted 
"L" arrangement there is considerable radiation from the horizontal section.

Some ultimate "T" type antennas for H.F. were the very short verticals 
documented by Jerry Severt (W2FMI, SK) using umbrella-like multiple top hat 
loading with many "spokes". The QST archives have his articles.  

73 Ron AC7AC



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K-Pod: A failure to Communicate

[Wes Stewart]

Bob

In order to answer your query about spaces in the command strings, I 
disconnected the K3S USB from my logging computer and went to my 
firmware/software maintenance computer.  Running the K3 Utility I saw no extra 
spaces before or after the commands.  If I executed them from the computer 
everything worked as expected.  BTW, there are commands associated with the 
"Hold" of each button, so accidentally holding instead of tapping would have 
been obvious. Furthermore, as I said before, if I tapped for M1, I would see 
"MSG 1" appear on the display every time but sometimes the message (my callsign) 
would not be sent. So the command seemed to be reaching the radio.


Just for completeness, since the K-Pod utility was on the same computer, I 
decided to reload the firmware.  I restarted the K3 utility and for giggles 
placed a space in front of the M1 command string.  It functioned normally. If I 
put a space after the command before the semi-colon, nothing was executed.  I 
re-saved all of the macros and loaded them back into the radio. Things actually 
appeared to be better. I thought that maybe I fixed it. But sadly that's not the 
case.  Like all intermittents, it's...well...intermittent.


I also discovered that there is another idiosyncrasy (IMO). Perhaps it is 
intended, but when I tap M1 on the K3 for example, multiple times, the message 
(my call) is chained and sent as many times as I tapped the button.  Doing this 
from the computer via the command tester works the same way.  However, tapping 
the function key on the K-Pod a second time immediately ends the message.  So I 
can't chain messages.  Furthermore this seems to exacerbate the intermittent 
condition.


At least I know how to turn off the beep.

Wes  N7WS


, On 2/27/2017 11:51 AM, Bob Wilson, N6TV wrote:
Have you tried programming the identical function into both the TAP and HOLD 
macros for each button?  It's very easy to hold down a K-POD button a bit too 
long, which runs a different macro.  If nothing is programmed for the HOLD 
function, you'll see "MACRO 1" or similar blink in the VFO B display.


If that's not it, what are the command strings programmed into M1-M4?  Do they 
contain any leading or trailing blanks?


73,
Bob, N6TV

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Wes Stewart > wrote:


With a nod to Cool Hand Luke

I have mentioned this before in another thread but have heard no response.

I, and I know others, have experienced the annoyance of tapping a key on
the K-Pod and after noticeable latency, seeing a message appear in the VFO
B space that acknowledges the tap, yet the requested action fails to
occur.   Specifically in my case, I'm trying to send CW messages stored in
M1-M4.

This use was the main reason I asked for one of these for a Christmas
gift, so I could use my left hand and save both the buttons on the radio
and/or my rotator cuff on my sending hand.

Can we get a fix for this?

Wes  N7WS

ps. Another function button is supposed to turn VOX on and off. This fails
too often as well.



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com