[Elecraft] Elecraft CW Net Report
Good Evening, Twenty meters was plus ungood while forty meters was a bit worse at double plus ungood. I kept off the main frequency on both bands but heard no one else. If the doldrums last for another two years it will be a long interregnum. Good thing Elecraft gave us such rigs which will get us through the low points as well as excel in the best ones. However, preaching to the choir is unproductive. On 14050.5 kHz at 2200z: KL7CW - Rick - Palmer, AK K6XK - Roy - Rolfe, IA K5TM - Thom - Simpsonville, SC On 7045.5 kHz at z: K6PJV - Dale - Citrus Heights, CA KG7V - Marv - Ocean Shores, WA K6TET - Ted - San Bruno, CA Maybe next week Van Allen and the sun can exchange memos and see if they can come up with IGY conditions; those are the best I can remember. 73, Kevin. KD5ONS Das Leben ist viel zu kurz um schlechten Wein zu trinken. _ __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
On 9/9/2018 8:02 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: The WWV antennas are center-fed vertical dipoles. "The WWV antennas are half-wave vertical antennas that radiate omnidirectional patterns. ... And WWVH on Kauai, HI has two-element arrays of half-wave verticals on 5, 10, and 15 MHz. The arrays have cardioid patterns with deep nulls toward the mainland to minimize interference with WWV in Ft. Collins, CO. https://tf.nist.gov/images/radiostations/wwvh-large/wwvh5.jpg Gus Hansen, KB0YH __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
The WWV antennas are center-fed vertical dipoles. "The WWV antennas are half-wave vertical antennas that radiate omnidirectional patterns. There are antennas at the station site for each frequency. Each antenna is connected to a single transmitter using a rigid coaxial line, and the site is designed so that no two coaxial lines cross. Each antenna is mounted on a tower that is approximately one half-wavelength tall. The tallest tower, for 2.5 MHz, is about 60 m tall. The shortest tower, for 20 MHz, is about 7.5 m tall. The top half of each antenna is a quarter-wavelength radiating element. The bottom half of each antenna consists of nine quarter-wavelength wires that connect to the center of the tower and slope downwards to the ground at a 45 degree angle. This sloping skirt functions as the lower half of the radiating system and also guys the antenna." Wes N7WS On 9/9/2018 3:48 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: It may be the only Franklin left in NA. __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
Thanks Fred. I'm familiar with measuring broadcast fields for both directional and non directional systems. The variances over the seasons with varying moisture levels in the ground and the difference with and without vegetation is clearly measurable and predictable. But still the efficiency of the radiator was not clearly defined. As to hams, I suppose we individually evaluate a given antenna under the conditions we have available. From that we can say that given antenna ZZ is more or less efficient than antenna XX. What ever that XX antenna happens to be. While others may say that their XYZ is the best antenna they have ever had, this may be true, that is until one may find another antenna to be better. What ever "better" is defined. And again, each of us will have objectives in terms of what our antenna and station must attain. As Rob Sherwood said when asked "what is the best receiver", his answer; "what ever satisfies your needs and you feel as comfortable to operate and can afford". I suppose antennas are much in the same vein of characterization. Yes, at VHF and UHF there are means and facilities to accurately measure antenna efficiency. Usually we find those to be in the 60% to 80% range. Unfortunately some of the applied power is converted to heat, the result of IR loss, and thus is lost in terms of electromagnetic radiation. Again the means and the equipment required, as Jim K9YC stated, generally is well above and beyond the means of most hams. Some years ago I was fortunate to have supervised access to the antenna test range at the Motorola facility in Florida and also at the anechoic chamber owned by IBM in S. FL. These supported my graduate studies. No further answers required on my part. I've launched into a "reading" project to further educate myself on the topic. 73 Bob, K4TAX On 9/9/2018 5:48 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: Yes, very straightforward theory. Just gather all the watts actually radiated by the antenna and divide it by the watts you put into Rr. Unfortunately, I did not really address Bob's question ... "How do you sweep up all those watts?" :-) That is a nearly intractable problem at HF unless you'll tolerate significant inaccuracies and assumptions. It's much easier at UHF and uWaves. An alternative is to measure/compute the losses. Did something similar on a 10 KW FM broadcast TX, calculating the power it took to heat the exhaust air on the premise that the rest went up the coax to the antenna and I knew what the PA input power was. KFBK in Sacramento CA [1530 KHz] eliminated a lot of the unmeasurable variables by employing a Franklin antenna [center-fed half-wave vertical] over the rice fields of the southern Sacramento Valley [nearly always standing water, and always wet]. The center-fed vertical exhibits far less ground losses than bottom-fed monopoles ... at 50 KW, it's colloquially known as the "Flame Thrower of Sacramento." It may be the only Franklin left in NA. KFBK is also famous as the birthplace of the RCA Ampliphase transmitters and the radio birthplace of Rush Limbaugh. NEC models coupled with terrain models can be used to establish upper and lower bounds on antenna efficiency with pretty good fidelity to reality. But Bob still posed a good question. 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 9/9/2018 2:01 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: Skip, That is a great formula for theory - I vaguely remember it from my electromagnetic fields course. But how you measure it? With practical measurement equipment, it is difficult to isolate to a single plane. That may be do-able with fully characterized equipment in a controlled antenna field space or in an EMC lab, but it certainly is not practical in a typical ham antenna installation - and even the radiation resistance is not easily measured. Antenna modeling done properly will provide a much more easily produced result. Comparative results between different antennas can be obtained from a reference pickup antenna, but that can only show the relative performance, we still have to guess at the efficiency. 73, Don W3FPR __ 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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
On 09/09/2018 01:01 PM, Jim Brown wrote: On 9/9/2018 12:39 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote: How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Not easily. :) B... AND -- propagation reporting systems like WSPR and the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) can provide very good comparisons between antennas IF a LOT of reports from a LOT of stations is averaged over a LOT of time. Back in the late 1970s, when I worked at W1AW, a new 90-foot tower with stacked monobanders for 20 meters was installed. We wanted to compare the new antenna against the big rhombic that had been used for many years for the 20 meter bulletin and code practice transmissions. So, for a week or two, we did test transmissions after each scheduled transmitting session. We would switch between antenna "A" and antenna "B", send long dashes, and ask listeners to send in QSL reports. (Which antenna was "A" and which was "B" varied randomly for each test.) I collected the reports and plotted them on a map of the US. We found that the rhombic was a little better directly on its boresight to the west (toward southern California from Connecticut) but the stacked Yagis had a much wider beamwidth so were better over the country as a whole. By the way, you don't have to transmit to compare two antennas if your receiver has an accurate S meter. Just switch between the antennas and compare S meter readings. Alan N1AL __ 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 MIC socket
It is a TRRS 3.5 mm socket. If you want to use a non-Elecraft mic, you might want to break out the PTT line. You can do that with a stereo-to-mono splitter. I wrote a blog post about that, here: https://observer.wunderwood.org/2015/08/16/yamaha-cm500-headset-with-ptt-on-elecraft-kx3/ wunder K6WRU Walter Underwood CM87wj http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Sep 9, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Mike Flowers wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > What size is the MIC socket on the side of a KX3? It appears to me to be > larger than a 3.5 mm socket. > > I'm getting a new-to-me KX3 here on Monday and want to be prepared. > > Thanks for your help. > > *73 de Mike, K6MKF - Director & Past President, NCDXC* > __ > 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
[Elecraft] KX3 MIC socket
Hi Folks, What size is the MIC socket on the side of a KX3? It appears to me to be larger than a 3.5 mm socket. I'm getting a new-to-me KX3 here on Monday and want to be prepared. Thanks for your help. *73 de Mike, K6MKF - Director & Past President, NCDXC* __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
Yes, very straightforward theory. Just gather all the watts actually radiated by the antenna and divide it by the watts you put into Rr. Unfortunately, I did not really address Bob's question ... "How do you sweep up all those watts?" :-) That is a nearly intractable problem at HF unless you'll tolerate significant inaccuracies and assumptions. It's much easier at UHF and uWaves. An alternative is to measure/compute the losses. Did something similar on a 10 KW FM broadcast TX, calculating the power it took to heat the exhaust air on the premise that the rest went up the coax to the antenna and I knew what the PA input power was. KFBK in Sacramento CA [1530 KHz] eliminated a lot of the unmeasurable variables by employing a Franklin antenna [center-fed half-wave vertical] over the rice fields of the southern Sacramento Valley [nearly always standing water, and always wet]. The center-fed vertical exhibits far less ground losses than bottom-fed monopoles ... at 50 KW, it's colloquially known as the "Flame Thrower of Sacramento." It may be the only Franklin left in NA. KFBK is also famous as the birthplace of the RCA Ampliphase transmitters and the radio birthplace of Rush Limbaugh. NEC models coupled with terrain models can be used to establish upper and lower bounds on antenna efficiency with pretty good fidelity to reality. But Bob still posed a good question. 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 9/9/2018 2:01 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: Skip, That is a great formula for theory - I vaguely remember it from my electromagnetic fields course. But how you measure it? With practical measurement equipment, it is difficult to isolate to a single plane. That may be do-able with fully characterized equipment in a controlled antenna field space or in an EMC lab, but it certainly is not practical in a typical ham antenna installation - and even the radiation resistance is not easily measured. Antenna modeling done properly will provide a much more easily produced result. Comparative results between different antennas can be obtained from a reference pickup antenna, but that can only show the relative performance, we still have to guess at the efficiency. 73, Don W3FPR __ 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 WSPR Thermo Stressing?
You can always add a small PC type fan that sits on the desk and blows on the KX3 heat sink. I will just add an extra margin of comfort. -- Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.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] KX3 WSPR Thermo Stressing?
Thanks for your reply Don. I read the High Temp Limit is set for 60c so I figure I was not dangerously high but just wanted to check if there might be a mechanical preference between the shorter duty cycle with the lower temp but larger temp swing causing more of a expansion contraction issue over time or the higher duty cycle with higher temp but not near as much heating cooling. I know that on some devices the thermo stressing of components due to repeated heating cooling cycles is a issue. This will probably be in continuous use for a while so my concern is the long term effects. I will keep a watch on the temp and maybe add the heatsink as you suggested. tnx George WD0AKZ -Original Message- From: Don Wilhelm Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2018 11:30 AM To: George Pasek ; elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 WSPR Thermo Stressing? George, Actually 53 degC is not that hot. Look at the specs for semiconductors and you will find that is only a medium temperature. Actually at 500mW, it is unlikely that the KX3 will be damaged by even a continuous key-down. If you are operating it outdoors, you should keep it out of direct sun. If it concerns you, I would suggest adding one of the aftermarket heatsinks. 73, Don W3FPR On 9/9/2018 12:11 PM, George Pasek wrote: I am using my KX3 as a WSPR beacon at 500mw with a Arduino based controller which provides GPS time sync, WSPR data, and audio. Currently I am running mono band at 1 two minute transmit cycle per 10 minute time block. Now I want to add KX3 band switching to my controller and increase my T/R duty cycle. Watching the PA.I current I see that my current 2 minute ON 8 minute OFF cycle shows a 30c ON – 46c OFF temp range. Running a 2 minute ON 2 minute OFF cycle shows a stabilized 36c – 49c range after about 5 ON/OFF cycles, and running continuous transmit cycles stabilizes at 48c – 53c after 6 cycles. So based on these 3 duty cycles I see a 16c, 13c, and a 5c temperature rise. The 2 on/8 off has the lowest max temp but the widest temp range, the continuous transmit has the highest max temp but the lowest range. My plan would be to have my controller switch the KX3 through 5 bands transmitting the 1 minute 53 seconds on a band and switching to the next band during the 7 second opening. I have done extended temperature calibration with the XG50 so frequency stability should not be a issue. My question is, 53c (127f) is hot, are there any thermo stress issues to the PA or the KX3 in general with running any of these three duty cycles? Obviously I don’t want to damage my KX3. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
Times change. In recent years vertically polarized man-made electrical noise has been a growing problem. I was forced to use a dedicated receive antenna to mitigate severe local noise problems (switching power supplies, plasma TVs etc.) from my surrounding neighbors. Because the only practical transmit antenna option was a vertical (little space), I had to give up on it as a receiving antenna. After some experimentation, I settled on what is essentially a folded dipole antenna cut for 40m, which is very close to the ground. It's about 60 ft long and the wire spacing is about 4 ft, with the lower wire only 2 ft from the earth, with a balun at the feedpoint in the middle of the higher wire. 50 ohm coax runs from the balun to the shack, lying on the ground to further minimize noise pickup. It is strung along a fence on the lot line. On all bands from 40m to 15m, the difference in signal to local noise ratio between it and the vertical transmit antenna and this antenna is considerable, up to 15dB. I suspect it would be a terrible transmit antenna, but it works fine as a receive antenna. DX signals are often heard by it much better than on the vertical. I don't have problems with the transmit signal overloading the receiver input, perhaps because they are polarized differently. The folded dipole feedpoint is about 50 ft. from the vertical antenna. The advantage of the separate receive antenna is that I can use an NCC-1 phasing system box in conjunction with the handy RX ANT In/Out insert point on my K3. It's configured to use the Tx antenna signal from RX ANT Out as the noise signal into one of the NCC-1 inputs, with the other receive antenna connected to the other, and the NCC-1 output connected to RX ANT In. The difference in vertically polarized local noise pickup between the antennas lets me get a deep null on any particular noise source in the surrounding houses. The effect is to allow me to operate when I'd otherwise have to give up and be content with watching the man-made noise waveforms dance around on the P3 screen. Using the NCC-1 introduces a directional effect of course, but as long as the signal isn't arriving at exactly the same azimuth as the local noise it works well. I think that a lot of folks afflicted with strong local noise are using small so-called magnetic loop antennas for the same reason. At times I feel like the Grinch in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", muttering "...the noise noise noise!". 73, Bob NW8L title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit. I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting and receiving." In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to try one someday. Wes N7WS On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. It’s an interesting book. Chuck KE9UW __ 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...@whitemesa.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
Re: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas
Skip, That is a great formula for theory - I vaguely remember it from my electromagnetic fields course. But how you measure it? With practical measurement equipment, it is difficult to isolate to a single plane. That may be do-able with fully characterized equipment in a controlled antenna field space or in an EMC lab, but it certainly is not practical in a typical ham antenna installation - and even the radiation resistance is not easily measured. Antenna modeling done properly will provide a much more easily produced result. Comparative results between different antennas can be obtained from a reference pickup antenna, but that can only show the relative performance, we still have to guess at the efficiency. 73, Don W3FPR On 9/9/2018 4:26 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: It's the double integral of the power [watts] over all elevation angles 0 to Pi and all azimuths 0 to 2Pi divided by the power [watts] dissipated in the radiation resistance at the feed point. This of course assumes the antenna is over a flat, horizontal plane. ;-) 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 9/9/2018 12:39 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote: How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Bob, K4TAX __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
That's one of the reasons I asked the question. Normally antenna efficiency is measured in an RF anechoic chamber. I'm not aware of one suitable in size for HF antennas. Bob, K4TAX Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 9, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Jim Brown wrote: > >> On 9/9/2018 1:03 PM, Mel Farrer via Elecraft wrote: >> VERY CAREFULLY on an antenna range for that purpose. You can model it and >> get an idea of what it should be, but it is installation specific. > > AND the test ranges required for HF and MF antennas occupy a lot of land with > well defined and consistent soil quality. We're talking tens and hundreds of > square miles, the ability to make calibrated measurements in three > dimensions, and military budgets. > > I'm aware of several excellent antenna engineers who have done some great > work with drones to measure antenna DIRECTIVITY. but efficiency is another > BIG step up in both complexity and cost. > > 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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
On 9/9/2018 1:03 PM, Mel Farrer via Elecraft wrote: VERY CAREFULLY on an antenna range for that purpose. You can model it and get an idea of what it should be, but it is installation specific. AND the test ranges required for HF and MF antennas occupy a lot of land with well defined and consistent soil quality. We're talking tens and hundreds of square miles, the ability to make calibrated measurements in three dimensions, and military budgets. I'm aware of several excellent antenna engineers who have done some great work with drones to measure antenna DIRECTIVITY. but efficiency is another BIG step up in both complexity and cost. 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
It's the double integral of the power [watts] over all elevation angles 0 to Pi and all azimuths 0 to 2Pi divided by the power [watts] dissipated in the radiation resistance at the feed point. This of course assumes the antenna is over a flat, horizontal plane. ;-) 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 9/9/2018 12:39 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote: How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Bob, K4TAX Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Mel Farrer via Elecraft wrote: Great Don, You and I grew up in the same time era.. Now, I am wiser and have more CRS,Anyway, Here is my take on antennas in general. I have MANY that I can chose from at any time, HOWEVER, Some antennas "hear" better even if they are not as efficient as my transmitting antenna. The crazy thing is the good receiving antenna, when things get tough, are not the most efficient on transmit. Does that make sense? I hope so. Mel, K6KBE From: Don Roberts via Elecraft To: "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 12:27 PM Subject: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas Having been a ham since 1956, I also agree from my experience, that I along with every ham I knew, used the same antenna to receive and transmit. From my first home brew one tube, through my first Globe Chief kit, through Globe Scout, NCX3, and Globe GTX 550, all in the 50/s and into the 60/s, and all had the same antenna for receive and transmit. I too, went from the dpdt knife switch, to the Dow Key relay. My QSL collection confirms this for the stations worked during that period. 73, Don W4CBS Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android __ 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 farrerfo...@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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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 k6...@foothill.net __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
You said it Jim, but in to many words, It is installation specific, period. Mel, K6KBE From: Jim Brown To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas On 9/9/2018 12:39 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote: > How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Not easily. :) But NEC provides quite good predictions IF the antenna is completely and accurately described in the model. For verticals, that includes ground quality. For all antennas it includes height above ground, counterpoise, radial systems, and transmission lines. AND -- propagation reporting systems like WSPR and the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) can provide very good comparisons between antennas IF a LOT of reports from a LOT of stations is averaged over a LOT of time. 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 farrerfo...@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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
VERY CAREFULLY on an antenna range for that purpose. You can model it and get an idea of what it should be, but it is installation specific. Mel, K6KBE From: Bob McGraw K4TAX To: Mel Farrer Cc: "don_roberts2...@yahoo.com" ; "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Bob, K4TAX Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Mel Farrer via Elecraft > wrote: > > Great Don, > You and I grew up in the same time era.. > Now, I am wiser and have more CRS, Anyway, Here is my take on antennas > in general. I have MANY that I can chose from at any time, HOWEVER, Some > antennas "hear" better even if they are not as efficient as my transmitting > antenna. The crazy thing is the good receiving antenna, when things get > tough, are not the most efficient on transmit. Does that make sense? I hope > so. > Mel, K6KBE > > From: Don Roberts via Elecraft > To: "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" > Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 12:27 PM > Subject: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas > > Having been a ham since 1956, I also agree from my experience, that I along > with every ham I knew, used the same antenna to receive and transmit. From my > first home brew one tube, through my first Globe Chief kit, through Globe > Scout, NCX3, and Globe GTX 550, all in the 50/s and into the 60/s, and all > had the same antenna for receive and transmit. I too, went from the dpdt > knife switch, to the Dow Key relay. My QSL collection confirms this for the > stations worked during that period. > 73, Don W4CBS > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > __ > 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 farrerfo...@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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
On 9/9/2018 12:39 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote: How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Not easily. :) But NEC provides quite good predictions IF the antenna is completely and accurately described in the model. For verticals, that includes ground quality. For all antennas it includes height above ground, counterpoise, radial systems, and transmission lines. AND -- propagation reporting systems like WSPR and the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) can provide very good comparisons between antennas IF a LOT of reports from a LOT of stations is averaged over a LOT of time. 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof." 73 - W3HBM On 9/9/2018 3:39 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote: How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Bob, K4TAX Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Mel Farrer via Elecraft wrote: Great Don, You and I grew up in the same time era.. Now, I am wiser and have more CRS,Anyway, Here is my take on antennas in general. I have MANY that I can chose from at any time, HOWEVER, Some antennas "hear" better even if they are not as efficient as my transmitting antenna. The crazy thing is the good receiving antenna, when things get tough, are not the most efficient on transmit. Does that make sense? I hope so. Mel, K6KBE From: Don Roberts via Elecraft To: "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 12:27 PM Subject: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas Having been a ham since 1956, I also agree from my experience, that I along with every ham I knew, used the same antenna to receive and transmit. From my first home brew one tube, through my first Globe Chief kit, through Globe Scout, NCX3, and Globe GTX 550, all in the 50/s and into the 60/s, and all had the same antenna for receive and transmit. I too, went from the dpdt knife switch, to the Dow Key relay. My QSL collection confirms this for the stations worked during that period. 73, Don W4CBS Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android __ 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 farrerfo...@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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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 gkid...@ilstu.edu __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
How does one measure transmit antenna efficiency? Bob, K4TAX Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Mel Farrer via Elecraft > wrote: > > Great Don, > You and I grew up in the same time era.. > Now, I am wiser and have more CRS,Anyway, Here is my take on antennas > in general. I have MANY that I can chose from at any time, HOWEVER, Some > antennas "hear" better even if they are not as efficient as my transmitting > antenna. The crazy thing is the good receiving antenna, when things get > tough, are not the most efficient on transmit. Does that make sense? I hope > so. > Mel, K6KBE > > From: Don Roberts via Elecraft > To: "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" > Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 12:27 PM > Subject: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas > > Having been a ham since 1956, I also agree from my experience, that I along > with every ham I knew, used the same antenna to receive and transmit. From my > first home brew one tube, through my first Globe Chief kit, through Globe > Scout, NCX3, and Globe GTX 550, all in the 50/s and into the 60/s, and all > had the same antenna for receive and transmit. I too, went from the dpdt > knife switch, to the Dow Key relay. My QSL collection confirms this for the > stations worked during that period. > 73, Don W4CBS > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > __ > 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 farrerfo...@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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
On the low bands 160/80 nothing beats a Beverage, built correctly. It's a very inefficient antenna and wouldn't radiate worth a crap. On the low bands we're looking for increased signal to noise ratio NOT maximum gain. 160m verticals can be pretty efficient radiators. They stink on receive because of noise caused by arrival angels and polarization. They hear equally badly in all directions at once. On the high bands nothing beats a yagi/quad/log, mainly because of their increased gain and efficiency compared to the alternatives. With a yagi/quad/log you can point the "gain" in your favored direction and turn your back on "noise". The gain of a yagi/quad/log works equally on TX and RX. R. Kevin StoverAC0H ARRL, FISTS, SKCC, NAQCC. "If it doesn't work the first time you push the button it won't work the 20th.Just stop." -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net On Behalf Of hawley, charles j jr Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 7:59 AM To: David Gilbert Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise The ARRL recently published a book "Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur". It maintains that "The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver". It maintains that "using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s." And "The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency." And "some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered". It's an interesting book. Chuck KE9UW Sent from my iPhone, cjack > On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:16 AM, David Gilbert wrote: > > > > I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can hear" hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally meaningless reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always) reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit you're likely to equally suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us probably can work anything we can hear but that doesn't mean anything other than we haven't managed to screw up the physics of the world. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > >> On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: >> During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could work anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen. Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My "tuner" was the adjustable link coupling to the tank. College starting 1957, military and SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the rear view mirror when I got home at the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 would repeat even half of 19! >> >> 73, >> >> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW >> Sparks NV DM09dn >> Washoe County > > __ > 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 > c-haw...@illinois.edu __ 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 ksto...@ac0h.net __ 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] ARRL book on receiving antennas
Great Don, You and I grew up in the same time era.. Now, I am wiser and have more CRS, Anyway, Here is my take on antennas in general. I have MANY that I can chose from at any time, HOWEVER, Some antennas "hear" better even if they are not as efficient as my transmitting antenna. The crazy thing is the good receiving antenna, when things get tough, are not the most efficient on transmit. Does that make sense? I hope so. Mel, K6KBE From: Don Roberts via Elecraft To: "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 12:27 PM Subject: [Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas Having been a ham since 1956, I also agree from my experience, that I along with every ham I knew, used the same antenna to receive and transmit. From my first home brew one tube, through my first Globe Chief kit, through Globe Scout, NCX3, and Globe GTX 550, all in the 50/s and into the 60/s, and all had the same antenna for receive and transmit. I too, went from the dpdt knife switch, to the Dow Key relay. My QSL collection confirms this for the stations worked during that period. 73, Don W4CBS Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android __ 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 farrerfo...@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
[Elecraft] ARRL book on receiving antennas
Having been a ham since 1956, I also agree from my experience, that I along with every ham I knew, used the same antenna to receive and transmit. From my first home brew one tube, through my first Globe Chief kit, through Globe Scout, NCX3, and Globe GTX 550, all in the 50/s and into the 60/s, and all had the same antenna for receive and transmit. I too, went from the dpdt knife switch, to the Dow Key relay. My QSL collection confirms this for the stations worked during that period. 73, Don W4CBS Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
I think you'll find the quoted statement below to be nonsense, Chuck, I think he made that up. Hams in the 40's and 50's [and probably before] used one antenna because antennas are expensive and require space. None of the ham community I knew when I was first licensed in pre-transceiver days [1953] used separate receiving antennas. I remember being given a Dow-Key coax relay with a movable spring-loaded pin on the receive side that shorted the RX when in TX for the first TX I built from scratch [2 807's in PP to cancel the 2nd harmonic of 10 m in Channel 2]. Transceivers came along near the end of the 50's and were undoubtedly a huge motivator for the shift from AM to SSB since you were guaranteed to transmit and receive on the same frequency, removing one of the difficulties of separate TX and RX, and zero-beating with no carrier. Separate RX antennas were the rule in maritime CW at the time, TX and RX sites were separated by miles. Separate RX antennas sort of crept into the ham vernacular much later, mainly in the context of large contest/DX superstations. It is certainly true that while a Beverage RX antenna can produce a really desirable S/N ratio over the TX Inv-L on 160, and you would never want to TX on it, the reason most of us do not have Beverage RX antennas is we don't own enough land. I believe that Don Wallace, W6AM, who definitely owned enough land had several Beverages scattered around under the multiple TX rhombics. [:-) 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” __ 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] Receiving Antennas
I strongly agree with this, and while I haven't seen that book, I just published an applications note about chokes and transformers for receiving antennas that includes the concepts quoted from that book. I often work DX contests running 5W, including most 160M contests. The stations that are able to work me are those with good RX antennas. That matters a lot in contests like the Stew Perry, where each contact is scored by a formula that includes multipliers for distance and for the power used on each end. The guy on the other end of a QSO with a QRP station gets extra points for that QSO. A few years ago, I was attempting to work three DXpeditions that were around the Antarctic circle on 160M. I was running legal limit, and they could hear me, but the hardest part of the QSO was me hearing them, thanks to my local noise. I worked all three of them, but at least one of them would not have made it into the log without the Beverage I have pointed in that direction. I also do a lot of contesting running legal limit, and in some contests where power is limited to 100W. I have very good TX antennas for 80 and 40, so a lot of east coast stations are calling me, often with not so good antennas. I'm able to hear and work more of them because of the Beverage I have pointed in that direction. Not everyone benefits from RX antennas -- those who don't care to work weak stations, and those with very low local noise levels, for example. And not everyone CAN install RX antennas -- most of us are lucky to be able rig a TX antenna. That was my situation when I lived on city lots in the middle of Chicago, and even in the WV city where I grew up! 73, Jim K9YC On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. It’s an interesting book. __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
I’ve used small tuned loops to null out local noise and various wire antennas. The biggest issue I’ve had with receiving antennas has been trying to keep the transmitted power out of the transceiver’s separate receive input. FYI, a pair of parallel crossed 1N914 diodes across the input worked well. Something I originally used for NMR receivers. Chuck KE9UW Sent from my iPhone, cjack > On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:18 PM, Michael Blake via Elecraft > wrote: > > Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and > BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna > either. > > 73 - Mike - K9JRI > > >> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: >> >> I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its >> title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to >> stretch a bit. >> >> I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for >> antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a >> transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until >> transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of >> this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by >> Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew >> even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same >> antenna for both transmitting and receiving." >> >> In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, >> separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower >> hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have >> advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor >> Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I >> guess I'll have to try one someday. >> >> Wes N7WS >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: >>> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio >>> Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to >>> radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to >>> present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that >>> “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided >>> with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The >>> glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving >>> antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept >>> of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are >>> abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. >>> It’s an interesting book. >>> >>> Chuck >>> KE9UW >>> >> >> __ >> 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 k9...@mac.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 c-haw...@illinois.edu __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
I've used a separate receive antenna..once. Then I noticed when I transmitted on my dedicated transmit antenna, I fried the front end of my receiver. Won't do that again. Of course I was a green General op at the time and that was in 1960. Since then.well I chalk everything and every error and every oops to educational expense. And yes, I've paid out a lot and I've learned a lot. As a Novice I learned that DPDT knife switch worked every time and reliably too. Since then, some 58 years in the passing, I've always used the same antenna for receiving as transmitting. Works for me. On the other hand, some ops say a blah blah blah antenna is quieter than a blah blah blah antenna. Or my antenna is flat from 160M - 6M. Yeah, well so is my dummy load on both counts. There is no free ride folks. Yes it may be quieter because one of the nulls just happens to favor a noise source or a host of other reasons. Or the system loss, feed line and matching network brings the signals and noise down closer to the noise floor of the receiver. Once the signals and noise are about 10 to 15 dB above the noise floor of the receive, the receiver begins to behave in a very nice manner. Signals can be heard more effectively. I recall Rob Sherwood has written a good bit on this topic. Worth the read. 73 Bob, K4TAX On 9/9/2018 12:18 PM, Michael Blake via Elecraft wrote: Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna either. 73 - Mike - K9JRI On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit. I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting and receiving." In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to try one someday. Wes N7WS On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. It’s an interesting book. Chuck KE9UW __ 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 k9...@mac.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 rmcg...@blomand.net __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna either. 73 - Mike - K9JRI > On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: > > I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its > title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to > stretch a bit. > > I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for > antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a > transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers > came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, > ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in > the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It > is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both > transmitting and receiving." > > In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, > separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower > hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have > advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor > Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I > guess I'll have to try one someday. > > Wes N7WS > > > > > > >> On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: >> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio >> Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to >> radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to >> present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that >> “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided >> with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring >> differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas >> becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of >> efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are >> abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. >> It’s an interesting book. >> >> Chuck >> KE9UW >> > > __ > 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 k9...@mac.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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit. I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting and receiving." In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to try one someday. Wes N7WS On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote: The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. It’s an interesting book. Chuck KE9UW __ 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 WSPR Thermo Stressing?
George, Actually 53 degC is not that hot. Look at the specs for semiconductors and you will find that is only a medium temperature. Actually at 500mW, it is unlikely that the KX3 will be damaged by even a continuous key-down. If you are operating it outdoors, you should keep it out of direct sun. If it concerns you, I would suggest adding one of the aftermarket heatsinks. 73, Don W3FPR On 9/9/2018 12:11 PM, George Pasek wrote: I am using my KX3 as a WSPR beacon at 500mw with a Arduino based controller which provides GPS time sync, WSPR data, and audio. Currently I am running mono band at 1 two minute transmit cycle per 10 minute time block. Now I want to add KX3 band switching to my controller and increase my T/R duty cycle. Watching the PA.I current I see that my current 2 minute ON 8 minute OFF cycle shows a 30c ON – 46c OFF temp range. Running a 2 minute ON 2 minute OFF cycle shows a stabilized 36c – 49c range after about 5 ON/OFF cycles, and running continuous transmit cycles stabilizes at 48c – 53c after 6 cycles. So based on these 3 duty cycles I see a 16c, 13c, and a 5c temperature rise. The 2 on/8 off has the lowest max temp but the widest temp range, the continuous transmit has the highest max temp but the lowest range. My plan would be to have my controller switch the KX3 through 5 bands transmitting the 1 minute 53 seconds on a band and switching to the next band during the 7 second opening. I have done extended temperature calibration with the XG50 so frequency stability should not be a issue. My question is, 53c (127f) is hot, are there any thermo stress issues to the PA or the KX3 in general with running any of these three duty cycles? Obviously I don’t want to damage my KX3. __ 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] KX3 WSPR Thermo Stressing?
I am using my KX3 as a WSPR beacon at 500mw with a Arduino based controller which provides GPS time sync, WSPR data, and audio. Currently I am running mono band at 1 two minute transmit cycle per 10 minute time block. Now I want to add KX3 band switching to my controller and increase my T/R duty cycle. Watching the PA.I current I see that my current 2 minute ON 8 minute OFF cycle shows a 30c ON – 46c OFF temp range. Running a 2 minute ON 2 minute OFF cycle shows a stabilized 36c – 49c range after about 5 ON/OFF cycles, and running continuous transmit cycles stabilizes at 48c – 53c after 6 cycles. So based on these 3 duty cycles I see a 16c, 13c, and a 5c temperature rise. The 2 on/8 off has the lowest max temp but the widest temp range, the continuous transmit has the highest max temp but the lowest range. My plan would be to have my controller switch the KX3 through 5 bands transmitting the 1 minute 53 seconds on a band and switching to the next band during the 7 second opening. I have done extended temperature calibration with the XG50 so frequency stability should not be a issue. My question is, 53c (127f) is hot, are there any thermo stress issues to the PA or the KX3 in general with running any of these three duty cycles? Obviously I don’t want to damage my KX3. Tnx George WD0AKZ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
You've broken the code Dave, speak softly, let everyone else figure it out on their own. [:=) Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV David Gilbert wrote: > > >I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can >hear" hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally >meaningless reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always) >reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit >you're likely to equally suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us >probably can work anything we can hear but that doesn't mean anything >other than we haven't managed to screw up the physics of the world. > >73, >Dave AB7E > > > >On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: >> During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could >> work anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen. >> Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my >> "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able >> to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window >> screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My >> "tuner" was the adjustable link coupling to the tank. College >> starting 1957, military and SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the >> rear view mirror when I got home at the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 >> would repeat even half of 19! >> >> 73, >> >> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW >> Sparks NV DM09dn >> Washoe County > >__ >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 k6...@foothill.net __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”. It’s an interesting book. Chuck KE9UW Sent from my iPhone, cjack > On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:16 AM, David Gilbert wrote: > > > > I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can hear" > hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally meaningless > reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always) reciprocal between > transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit you're likely to equally > suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us probably can work anything we can > hear but that doesn't mean anything other than we haven't managed to screw up > the physics of the world. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > >> On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: >> During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could work >> anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen. Window >> screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my "28-28" >> [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to work >> everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window screens are no >> longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My "tuner" was the >> adjustable link coupling to the tank. College starting 1957, military and >> SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the rear view mirror when I got home at >> the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 would repeat even half of 19! >> >> 73, >> >> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW >> Sparks NV DM09dn >> Washoe County > > __ > 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 c-haw...@illinois.edu __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can hear" hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally meaningless reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always) reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit you're likely to equally suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us probably can work anything we can hear but that doesn't mean anything other than we haven't managed to screw up the physics of the world. 73, Dave AB7E On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could work anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen. Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My "tuner" was the adjustable link coupling to the tank. College starting 1957, military and SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the rear view mirror when I got home at the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 would repeat even half of 19! 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County __ 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] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise
Some window screens are aluminum. I've used aluminum screen successfully for the ground plane for a 10M vertical antenna. 73 Bill AE6JV On 9/8/18 at 5:00 PM, k6...@foothill.net (Fred Jensen) wrote: Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. --- Bill Frantz| Security is like Government | Periwinkle (408)356-8506 | services. The market doesn't | 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them.| Los Gatos, CA 95032 __ 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
