Re: Topband: high take-off angle
Yes well I might explain my statement a little. First of all I have read all the books by ON4UN and also this by NM7M together with lots of other writeups etc etc. I am NOT saying that thats not true. What I´m saying is at my northerly latitude I can just not see any useful high angle and I´m talking about stuff further away then 150 miles, this holds true for both 80 and 160m. I do have great experience in 80m DX-ing and also 160m but more experience on 80m so far. For example I´m quite sure I´m the one in Europe that has made the most "long path" QSO´s into the USA on 80m and this goes back into the late 1960´ties. I have tried a zillion RX antennas on 80 and 160 and the clear conclusion is that I have to get the wave angle below 25 degrees or even much below. For example, this means that Beverage antennas has to be made longer than most people think, IMO at my latitude longer then 3-4 wl or even much longer then they really start to performe. In my book 25 degrees or lower is low angle by the way. The further down towards the equator one gets it seems like there is more and more high angle that can be used but not this far north as 67 degrees latitude. I think it has to do with the D-layer. At this latitude with geomagnetic activity most every day the D-layer will be a player in the equation most of the time and you simply do not see that further down towards the equator. So the high angle stuff that "might" have been useful will get absorbed in the D-layer and what you need to do is sneak in and out below the D-layer. I better stop before it gets booring! 73 Jim SM2EKM On 2011-10-17 05:20, Bob Eldridge wrote: > Hi Jim > Twenty years or so ago NM7M wrote a program in DOS that predicted the > position of the "tilt" in the E layer on the dark side of the > terminator, more than usual refraction at that point causing a > steeply downward signal as it exits the layer. Believing this, I made > sure I had some antennas that responded to high angle, and they often > provided better results than the high vertical loops just at that > time, resulting in hundreds of early morning QSOs with VK and ZL. > The band "opened earlier" for the lower angle response antennas, but > they ceased to be better about half an hour before sunrise. It was > common experience for West Coast stations to see better signals from > the Pacific on Inverted Vees than on monopoles just before sunrise. > I suppose if one has only one antenna, a low angle response one is > better for DX, as long as it has some response at 20 or 30 degrees, > but some QSOs will be missed. > Bob VE7BS > > - Original Message - From: "Jan Erik Holm" > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:15 AM > Subject: Re: Topband: high take-off angle > > >> This I have NEVER seen in SM2 land, the lower angle the >> better. Jim SM2EKM >> -- > > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: high take-off angle
Hi Jim Twenty years or so ago NM7M wrote a program in DOS that predicted the position of the "tilt" in the E layer on the dark side of the terminator, more than usual refraction at that point causing a steeply downward signal as it exits the layer. Believing this, I made sure I had some antennas that responded to high angle, and they often provided better results than the high vertical loops just at that time, resulting in hundreds of early morning QSOs with VK and ZL. The band "opened earlier" for the lower angle response antennas, but they ceased to be better about half an hour before sunrise. It was common experience for West Coast stations to see better signals from the Pacific on Inverted Vees than on monopoles just before sunrise. I suppose if one has only one antenna, a low angle response one is better for DX, as long as it has some response at 20 or 30 degrees, but some QSOs will be missed. Bob VE7BS - Original Message - From: "Jan Erik Holm" To: Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:15 AM Subject: Re: Topband: high take-off angle > This I have NEVER seen in SM2 land, the lower angle the > better. Jim SM2EKM > -- ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: high take-off angle
When designing a low band antenna for my Guam QTH, I purposely went through great trouble to make a true "TEE" vertical to avoid having an inverted L on 160. I figured that being limited to 55ft of vertical height, the rest of the "L" would present a significant higher angle horizontally polarized component. I am located 1,500 miles from Japan and 7,000 miles from both Eastern North America and Western Europe. I wanted to maximize low angle takeoff and efficiency by using top loading and a good radial field, and to keep the radiating portion centered as much as possible over my radials. I understand that high angle propagation does occur on 160m, however low angle generally rules. With room for only one transmit antenna, I felt it was more important to be prepared for the 90% scenario, instead of those rare occasions when high angle takeoff is a factor. I think those who worked me for a new one and those who still need Guam on 160m will thank me for the decision I made. By all means, if you have room for more than one antenna, a second high angle radiator could be the trick to completing some QSOs. However, if you only have room for one, I'd aim to have a radiator as high in efficiency with as low an angle of takeoff as possible. This is what you get with a vertical over salt water, usually considered "the ideal situation". 73, Dave KH2/N2NL ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: BOG termination
Topbanders I just ran out a 500 ft BOG. Now its unterminated. I'd appreciate any suggestions for a terminating resistor value. Or, is 500 ft a good length to leave it unterminated? -- 73 Art K6XT ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Spam:*****, Re: Receiver Frontend Protector?
On 10/16/2011 11:31 AM, Missouri Guy wrote: >> If not, what does everyone else use for a >> receiver >> >> frontend protection? > Scott, > > I use a "front end saver". Homebrew from CQ Magazine, Feb 1997. > I think Far Circuits still sells a circuit board for that, but it's > a simple device to build, so perfboard will work too. > > 73, > Charlie, N0TT > ___ > Charlie, The DXE RTR-1 is superb in performance, design and construction. I have in the past built a relay driven unit derive with a Darlington 2N from the H send output on the radio. i have even in a pinch used the MFJ-1026 Noise and Phasing unit which has a built in relay circuit for power through. This way I put the RX antenna(s) bank on the "noise antenna" input and turn down the main antenna pot. This way I also have use of the onboard pre-amp if i need it and noise phasing against the TX antenna. 73 Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: ICE 196 Info
A few months ago there was a post that ICE is now: http://www.morganmfg.us/ I asked about the ICE 196 and received this: "Sorry, we are not currently supplying that product." The interior of the 196 can be seen here: http://cn2r.net/cn2r/Photo/Station/Shack/Switching%20Control/slides/Ice%20196%20Rx%20limiter.html I opened mine and don't see the cap from the junction of the resistor and the blue cap to ground in the picture. The resistor is 5 ohms and the blue cap is .001. The back to back diodes look like small signal 1N34A types. The binocular cores are approximately 1/4 inch long, much smaller than BN73-202s. >From this listing, dimension "B," my guess is that the cores are mostly likely >BN43-1502s: http://toroids.info/BN-43-1502.php 73 - Steve WB6RSE ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: high take-off angle
In QST for September 1995, Brian Beezley, K6STI, had an article titled "A Receiving Antenna That Rejects Local Noise" and Ed Andress had a companion article, "A K6STI Low-Noise Receiving Antenna for 80 and 160 Meters." This antenna, a horizontal square with a twist in the middle, has a very high-angle pattern. It rejects local noise by having barely any of its pattern at low angles. Here's what Andress said: "I compared my DX reception with the local 160-meter Big Guns daily and found that I could copy all the signals they heard, but for a shorter time during the window." In a sidebar, Keith Fowler, W6BCQ, reported that with the horizontal square, he was able to work C21/ZL1AMO; on his other antennas, he could hear only power-line noise. My experience with this antenna, before I was licensed, was that I could hear audio from some Indonesian regional broadcasters that were only weak hetrodynes on other "low-noise" antennas. Beezley himself acknowledged that if you've got the space for it and there isn't a strong noise source right off the end, a long Beverage is a better choice. And since July 2000, when K6SE wrote about flags and pennants, most people looking for a good low-band receiving antenna that will fit on limited real estate have used flags and pennants, and I think Beezley's antenna has been largely forgotten. But his antenna clearly demonstrated that some good DX is possible with antennas that offer only a high-angle pattern. --Art Delibert, KB3FJO > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:15:02 +0200 > From: sm2...@bdtv.se > To: topband@contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: high take-off angle > > This I have NEVER seen in SM2 land, the lower angle the > better. Jim SM2EKM > -- > On 2011-10-16 02:25, Bob Eldridge wrote: > >> I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all > >> high angle radiation from an inverted L. It is well established that > >> even a low horizontal > >> dipole can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow > >> and > >> having both possibilities present in the L is a benefit. > >> Carl > > Hear! Hear! Especially at or near SR and SS. > > Bob VE7BS > > > > ___ > > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > > > > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: high take-off angle
ON4UN's book has lots of info on high angle signals arriving at SR and SS. John's motto - you can never have too many receiving antennas for the different conditions. Mark Lunday WD4ELG ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: Re Receiver Frontend Protector? (Scott Long)
Scott et al, Take a look at the front end protector by OK1RR: http://www.ok1rr.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.35 It's an updated version of the original CQ Magazine '97 version with parts that I believe are easier to source these days (at least here on the eastern seaboard of the Atlantic). I'm using one of these to protect my FT2000 and SDR-IQ that share my K9AY (I've installed the OK1RR circuit alongside a homebrew BB signal splitter: http://www.dxing.info/equipment/rolling_your_own_bryant.dx). I'm only running 100w and my RX array is about 500 feet from my TX antennas but you can never be too sure. I'm planning ahead as well; I've beverages in my future... Credit & kudos to John EI7BA for making me wise to the OK1RR solution and for supplying the pre-built OK1RR circuit I'm currently using. -- Regards Cormac, EI4HQ [Cork/UTC+1] ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L
>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:48:45 -0600 >W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: >a low horizontal dipole can work amazing amounts of DX on >160 Amazing high or amazing low? George, AA7JV ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Receiver Frontend Protector?
>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:31:32 + >Missouri Guy wrote: >> If not, what does everyone else use for a >> receiver frontend protection? I build all my RX antennas with a relay in the transformer box. The relay, which is powered through the coax, opens the loop and shorts out the input of the transformer whenever the station is switched off or when transmitting. That way I get RX protection during transmit and during thunderstorms (when the station power is off). George, AA7JV ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L
Sorry, have a misconstrued topic sentence below, probably from not finishing an edit of the sentence from a double negative. You can see that the topic sentence is at odds with the details. Thanks to KM1H for pointing out the error. Should start with: Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live with, having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable advantage. On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live > with, not having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable > advantage. > > If one does not have "dense" and uniform radials the ground field > cancellation advantage of radials is lost, and having a low current center > on the vertical section now is a lossy issue. The max would be right at the > grass or at the base of elevated radials, basically as low as you can get. > Since for many this ground cancellation advantage cannot be had on their > property, the next best thing is to get as much current center as far UP on > the vertical wire as is possible. My current center is between 70 and 90 > feet up on the wire and the horizontal is 105 feet. > > My driveway bisecting the area under the only plausible wire location would > not have allowed a "T," but reflection on the issues says I'm better off > with the L. > > Given how lossy some grounds can be, and with less than dense and uniform > radials, for a given installation a "short" T may simply be *throwing away* > the energy not radiated at horizontal angles. Remember that the > horizontally polarized radiation is not subject to the horrendous ground > losses of vertical polarization. > > With vertical antennas on 160, the five ton elephant in the room is what > one is doing about ground losses. Everything else is yippy puppies. Unless > one has an excellent radial system, reducing ground losses is about the only > significant question. > > 73, Guy. > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM, ZR wrote: > >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "ZR" >> To: "Jim Bennett" ; >> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:49 AM >> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L >> >> >> I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all high >> angle radiation >> from an inverted L. It is well established that even a low horizontal >> dipole >> can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow and having >> both >> possibilities present in the L is a benefit. >> >> Carl >> KM1H >> >> ___ >> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK >> > > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L
- Original Message - From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" To: "ZR" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 11:33 AM Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L > Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live > with, not having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable > advantage. I would call it a disadvantage. That high lobe has a definite advantage for many contacts, DX and somewhat local. I see it regularly on 80M with the inverted vee at 170' where the main lobe is at the horizon and the other is straight up and rather broad. A 160 vee is at the same feedpoint and often blows the verticals away. The rope ends are tied off at about 20' high almost 300' away. Carl KM1H ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L
I bet this is because they actually have an antenna that radiates signal and not an antenna that loads great but turns all the RF into heat? Getting a full sized anything on 160 has to be better than some of real estate challenged antennas out there. and it is much easier to work amazing amounts of DX when you are on the east coast of the USA instead of buried in the middle of the country. I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all high angle radiation from an inverted L. It is well established that even a low horizontal dipole can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow and having both possibilities present in the L is a benefit. Carl KM1H ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Receiver Frontend Protector?
They are back up but not producing everything that they used to. A firm that used to do much of the work for ICE is selling the products now. There is a product called front end saver that is also available. Google it. Mike W0MU J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011 CQ WW DX CW W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net On 10/15/2011 12:40 PM, Scott Long wrote: > I use two bi-directional beverage antennas. I am interested in > > the I.C.E. 196. I know that they were temporarily suspending their > > manufacturing due to the loss of their owner. Does anyone know if I.C.E. > has > > started back up? If not, what does everyone else use for a receiver > > frontend protection? I am using the Yaesu FT-920, it has a RX ant port, but > > I don't trust the internals of the 920 to protect my frontend. > > > > Scott, K8SM > > > > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Receiver Frontend Protector?
> If not, what does everyone else use for a > receiver > > frontend protection? Scott, I use a "front end saver". Homebrew from CQ Magazine, Feb 1997. I think Far Circuits still sells a circuit board for that, but it's a simple device to build, so perfboard will work too. 73, Charlie, N0TT ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: high take-off angle
This I have NEVER seen in SM2 land, the lower angle the better. Jim SM2EKM -- On 2011-10-16 02:25, Bob Eldridge wrote: >> I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all >> high angle radiation from an inverted L. It is well established that >> even a low horizontal >> dipole can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow >> and >> having both possibilities present in the L is a benefit. >> Carl > Hear! Hear! Especially at or near SR and SS. > Bob VE7BS > > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: Receiver Frontend Protector?
I use two bi-directional beverage antennas. I am interested in the I.C.E. 196. I know that they were temporarily suspending their manufacturing due to the loss of their owner. Does anyone know if I.C.E. has started back up? If not, what does everyone else use for a receiver frontend protection? I am using the Yaesu FT-920, it has a RX ant port, but I don't trust the internals of the 920 to protect my frontend. Scott, K8SM ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Topband: high take-off angle
>I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all >high angle radiation from an inverted L. It is well established that >even a low horizontal >dipole can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow >and >having both possibilities present in the L is a benefit. > Carl Hear! Hear! Especially at or near SR and SS. Bob VE7BS ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 106, Issue 17
Hi Dave We used RG6 (Belden 1829A) cables with F connectors for most of our 80M and 160M antennas at the ZL6QH Quartz Hill station. We had no problems running the NZ legal limit (500W) into these feed line systems. 73 Brian ZL1AZE VK3MI -- Message: 4 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:21:09 + From: W5UN Subject: Topband: RG-6 Coax again To: topband@contesting.com Message-ID: <20111014152113.f62a7...@dm0206.mta.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I think I saw someone talk about using RG-6 75 ohm coax at a full KW and F connectors on 160, but I cannot remember if it was on this reflector. I have some "high Quality" RG-6 cable with the "right" vp, but before trying this I would like to hear from someone who has successfully done this already. Dave, W5UN ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: RG-6 Coax again
I second that! I have been using the standard rg-6 ~$45/1000 ft box. I have run over 1kw on 40, 80, and 160 with no problems what so ever. I have been using the snap n seal style f connectors with the rg-6 - pl-259 adaptersno prob's it's a cheap alternative that has always worked for me. Dave KB8NNU > >From: John K9UWA >To: topband@contesting.com >Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:47 AM >Subject: Re: Topband: RG-6 Coax again > >That would have been me Dave. I have been using Garden Variety RG6 >on my 160 array for well over 20 years. I tested a single run of it with a >pair >of heathkit dummy loads. Test piece of cable was 10 feet long with F >connectors to F-UHF adapters. Brick on the KEY on the Amp until the >Dummy loads started to smoke. Amp off and grabbed the coax. No heating >observed in the coax or the F connectors. > >John k9uwa > >> I think I saw someone talk about using RG-6 75 ohm coax at a full KW >> and F connectors on 160, but I cannot remember if it was on this >> reflector. I have some "high Quality" RG-6 cable with the "right" vp, >> but before trying this I would like to hear from someone who has >> successfully done this already. >> >> Dave, W5UN > >John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF >Antique Radio Restorations >k9...@arrl.net >Visit our Web Site at: >http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com >4836 Ranch Road >Leo, IN 46765 >USA >1-260-637-6426 > >___ >UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > > > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L
Particularly for the very minimal radial systems some are forced to live with, not having high angle radiation may actually be a considerable advantage. If one does not have "dense" and uniform radials the ground field cancellation advantage of radials is lost, and having a low current center on the vertical section now is a lossy issue. The max would be right at the grass or at the base of elevated radials, basically as low as you can get. Since for many this ground cancellation advantage cannot be had on their property, the next best thing is to get as much current center as far UP on the vertical wire as is possible. My current center is between 70 and 90 feet up on the wire and the horizontal is 105 feet. My driveway bisecting the area under the only plausible wire location would not have allowed a "T," but reflection on the issues says I'm better off with the L. Given how lossy some grounds can be, and with less than dense and uniform radials, for a given installation a "short" T may simply be *throwing away* the energy not radiated at horizontal angles. Remember that the horizontally polarized radiation is not subject to the horrendous ground losses of vertical polarization. With vertical antennas on 160, the five ton elephant in the room is what one is doing about ground losses. Everything else is yippy puppies. Unless one has an excellent radial system, reducing ground losses is about the only significant question. 73, Guy. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM, ZR wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "ZR" > To: "Jim Bennett" ; > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:49 AM > Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Capacitor for Inverted L > > > I dont understand the sudden urge or desire of some to suppress all high > angle radiation > from an inverted L. It is well established that even a low horizontal > dipole > can work amazing amounts of DX on 160 when conditions allow and having both > possibilities present in the L is a benefit. > > Carl > KM1H > > ___ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > ___ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
