Re: Topband: Topband Inv-L Joy
Had a more difficult time getting the antenna up there this time. The first spud snapped away from the fishing line & in the dense thicket I was unable to find where it landed. Had to make another & the mosquitos were so thick they posted a LUAU sign on my forehead. Till I get something better I retrieved my WD-1A military field phone wire that was left out in the marsh as my old beverage wire. and after a comedy of errors I finally got the antenna up. I was earlier getting a SWR of 1.1 on 160 before and now am getting 1.1 on 1.74365 MHZ 1.74365mhz R=51 X= 6,7,8 swr 1.1 At the desired frequency to match the antenna I've aimed for 1.8MHZ here's the information I was able to get at my desired frequency: 1.8025 mhZ Coax loss 6.3db C=4193 XC=21 L=1.970 X1=21 r=41 x=21 swr 1.6 So this is what the antenna is giving me at this moment. I need to get back down and add the broken wire to the radial bed and I should also trim some length to bring my values to 1.1 at 1.025MHz. Given the info above from the MFJ 259B any idea how much I might nibble off and more, is there anything in this info that tells me I should look to do anything differently? Hopefully the coax loss will be mitigated by a friend bringing me 350' of hardline. Can't wait! Thanks, Gary KA1J _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Lightning QRN season?
The persistence of easily more than half a year of loud QRN in the evenings on 160, perhaps 3/4 of the year, has generated the *expectation* that no one is on. The expectation of activity is what generates activity. The band is clearly open to some degree at various times any night, even in July. From here, it's quite possible to work JA's and almost everywhere where there is overlapping darkness during Summer. Even daylight paths sometimes appear with skews. That's why the "first WAC of the season" thing always puzzled me, because there really is not a specific season. It's just when people get on. _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Lightning QRN season?
Yes Thursday nights in summer you will find us on in NCCC Sprint just the last minute or two on 160M. 0228-0230 UTC Friday. Sometime we chat a little after 0230 on 160M. LU's (esp LU5OM) has been on 160M several times in past couple weeks. Guantanamo was activated for at least one night on 160M in early July. IARU HF on 160M was just amazingly good to EU. I think I said that a few times already. Wow. I would like to get on more pre-dawn to work Southern Hemisphere but darkness is so short in summertime! Tim N3QE -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy Olinger K2AV Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:44 PM To: Richard Jaeger Cc: Mike Waters; topband Subject: Re: Topband: Lightning QRN season? The persistence of easily more than half a year of loud QRN in the evenings on 160, perhaps 3/4 of the year, has generated the *expectation* that no one is on. The expectation of activity is what generates activity. The band is clearly open to some degree at various times any night, even in July. A lot of people will get on for the summer Stew Perry, and various summer contests will get contestants on 160 for multipliers. There is an expectation of activity at certain times known to many contestants. The summer 160 starved can get on 160 for the NCCC Thursday night tests, but will have to take the time to know when the participants come down to 160 for a few minutes of a very short contest. An unexpectedly quiet summer night on 160 with no expectation of activity, will be just that -- a quiet night. If anything, the length of QRN season has become longer over the decades, sometimes pushing bad nights into December and January. Global warming? It's antenna building and fixing time. 73, Guy. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Richard Jaeger wrote: > Mike, > > The band has been open frequently in the morning to VK/ZL. > Several of us are on almost every morning checking propagation with > VK3ZL and others. > The band is open a lot, but activity is low. > > I checked the log and have made contact with VK3ZL 29 days since the > beginning of May with signals ranging from 339 to 579 (peaked at 569 > this AM). Dan, W5XZ, may have made more qsos. > Many other days signals have been present but unreadable in the noise. > > On the other hand, evening propagation to Europe has been the poorest > I remember. > Only a few contacts (G3JMJ & IV3PRK). > I was traveling and missed most of the contests, so don't know about > activity then. > > Here is the (not very long) list of dx from my log from the beginning > of May. > > VK3ZL > VK4MA > PJ6/K4UEE > T46C > KG4RX > KH6AT > KH6ZM > KV4FZ > G3JMJ > IV3PRK > ZL3IX > > I have also heard VK3IO, OA4TT, and HK. > > Dick, K4IQJ .. > > > _ > Topband Reflector > _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Lightning QRN season?
The persistence of easily more than half a year of loud QRN in the evenings on 160, perhaps 3/4 of the year, has generated the *expectation* that no one is on. The expectation of activity is what generates activity. The band is clearly open to some degree at various times any night, even in July. A lot of people will get on for the summer Stew Perry, and various summer contests will get contestants on 160 for multipliers. There is an expectation of activity at certain times known to many contestants. The summer 160 starved can get on 160 for the NCCC Thursday night tests, but will have to take the time to know when the participants come down to 160 for a few minutes of a very short contest. An unexpectedly quiet summer night on 160 with no expectation of activity, will be just that -- a quiet night. If anything, the length of QRN season has become longer over the decades, sometimes pushing bad nights into December and January. Global warming? It's antenna building and fixing time. 73, Guy. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Richard Jaeger wrote: > Mike, > > The band has been open frequently in the morning to VK/ZL. > Several of us are on almost every morning checking propagation with VK3ZL > and others. > The band is open a lot, but activity is low. > > I checked the log and have made contact with VK3ZL 29 days since the > beginning of May > with signals ranging from 339 to 579 (peaked at 569 this AM). Dan, W5XZ, > may have made more qsos. > Many other days signals have been present but unreadable in the noise. > > On the other hand, evening propagation to Europe has been the poorest I > remember. > Only a few contacts (G3JMJ & IV3PRK). > I was traveling and missed most of the contests, so don't know about > activity then. > > Here is the (not very long) list of dx from my log from the beginning of > May. > > VK3ZL > VK4MA > PJ6/K4UEE > T46C > KG4RX > KH6AT > KH6ZM > KV4FZ > G3JMJ > IV3PRK > ZL3IX > > I have also heard VK3IO, OA4TT, and HK. > > Dick, K4IQJ .. > > > _ > Topband Reflector > _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was: BoD votes LoTW initiatives)
I don't have a problem with removing the symbol rate language ... but I'd rather that symbol rat remain that give carte blanch for automatic 2.8 KHz wide noise generators t fire up anywhere they want in the "CW/digital" band. This is just another backdoor means for he PACTOR III commercial interests to get access to the amateur spectrum after "regulation by bandwidth" failed a few years ago. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 7/24/2013 8:09 AM, Brian Machesney wrote: Joe, I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language. Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other "digital" modes of all kinds. Now, I don't like to hear even narrow-bandwidth PSK or RTTY signals when I'm operating in the "traditionally CW" portions of the bands, but I don't believe this is even primarily a question of symbol rate. When CW contest activity extends into, through and beyond the "traditionally digital" portions of the bands, I find it very difficult to pick a CW signal out of a densely-packed cluster of PSK carriers or RTTY stations. In my experience, it is not the symbol rates of the PSK and RTTY stations that cause the interference, but the ability of my brain to discriminate against the natures of modulation of those signals. I agree with you that we need to review the band plans. But to me that doesn't mean that we should allow the persistence of language which may hold back technical progress. 73 -- Brian/K1LI On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: Save us from a Board of Directors that would not know Digital Operation if it bit them on the ass. All we need is a bunch of 2.8 KHz wide chunks of "white noise" across the entire "non-voice" spectrum. If they want to remove the symbol rate, the bandwidth better be compatible with that of CW (100 Hz or less) in the majority of the shared non-voice spectrum. As usual, the ARRL BOD has proven how little they know about amateur operation! 73, ... Joe, W4TV _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives)
I think proposed symbol rate verbiage is inspired by digital voice technology. As long as digital voice doesn't come to CW bands I'm OK. But I do not see anything in the language that would ban digital voice in CW bands, am I wrong? I am strongly against digital voice taking up bandwidth on current CW bands. I am fine with digital voice being used on the phone bands. I would discourage (through bandplans and international coordination) digital voice from EU in the upper parts of US 40M CW band. I have nothing against low-bandwidth digital modes like JT65 in the 1838-1840 region. But I do strongly encourage ARRL to work with EU societies and rationalize bandplans especially on 40M where the CW sliver is already so tiny tiny and shared with PSK31 in 7035-7040. That's not so much a FCC action as it is a ARRL or IARU action. Tim N3QE -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:43 AM To: Brian Machesney; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives) > I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language. > Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other > "digital" modes of all kinds. > I think perhaps Joe is objecting to the potential **bandwidth** of modes mixing with narrow modes. Many people either don't understand, or are unwilling to admit, that digital modes can occupy a wide bandwidth, and that many or most people cannot copy or recognize what is being sent on a different mode.. Modes really should be segregated by bandwidth and information type, and symbol rate is at least one way to somewhat set limits on bandwidth. I'd prefer to have plans by actual bandwidth, and by compatibility of decoding. It's wonderful that some people have solutions to their personal operating style or habits and are not bothered by some existing mode mixes. In the long term, and for the overall good, it makes no sense at all to mix incompatible modes, or especially to mix significantly different bandwidths. Anyone with an ounce of common "radio" sense should be able to think about this, and understand the potential problems of allowing anything anywhere. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives)
I have to admit to not realizing this matter was on the table. So the ARRL Board of Directors voted to petition the FCC on the strength of their collective wisdom, without asking the membership our opinion, so it seems? Now someone is going to probably point out to me that it has been written about in QST extensively and I skipped over it since my favorite sections are Old Time Radio and Silent Keys. But, darn it, I get almost weekly emails from my director, usually telling me about some awards dinner coming up, or the list of hamfests in the area. Rick K2XT _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives)
Alas, it would appear the BoD does not possess that most uncommon of senses: common sense. Symbol rate and bandwidth are closely related as you say. Gary W2CS On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "Tom W8JI" wrote: >> I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language. >> Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other >> "digital" modes of all kinds. >> > > I think perhaps Joe is objecting to the potential **bandwidth** of modes > mixing with narrow modes. Many people either don't understand, or are > unwilling to admit, that digital modes can occupy a wide bandwidth, and that > many or most people cannot copy or recognize what is being sent on a > different mode.. Modes really should be segregated by bandwidth and > information type, and symbol rate is at least one way to somewhat set limits > on bandwidth. > > I'd prefer to have plans by actual bandwidth, and by compatibility of > decoding. It's wonderful that some people have solutions to their personal > operating style or habits and are not bothered by some existing mode mixes. > In the long term, and for the overall good, it makes no sense at all to mix > incompatible modes, or especially to mix significantly different bandwidths. > > Anyone with an ounce of common "radio" sense should be able to think about > this, and understand the potential problems of allowing anything anywhere. > > 73 Tom > _ > Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives)
I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language. Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other "digital" modes of all kinds. I think perhaps Joe is objecting to the potential **bandwidth** of modes mixing with narrow modes. Many people either don't understand, or are unwilling to admit, that digital modes can occupy a wide bandwidth, and that many or most people cannot copy or recognize what is being sent on a different mode.. Modes really should be segregated by bandwidth and information type, and symbol rate is at least one way to somewhat set limits on bandwidth. I'd prefer to have plans by actual bandwidth, and by compatibility of decoding. It's wonderful that some people have solutions to their personal operating style or habits and are not bothered by some existing mode mixes. In the long term, and for the overall good, it makes no sense at all to mix incompatible modes, or especially to mix significantly different bandwidths. Anyone with an ounce of common "radio" sense should be able to think about this, and understand the potential problems of allowing anything anywhere. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTW initiatives)
On 07/24/2013 08:09 AM, Brian Machesney wrote: Joe, I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language. Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other "digital" modes of all kinds. Now, I don't like to hear even narrow-bandwidth PSK or RTTY signals when I'm operating in the "traditionally CW" portions of the bands, but I don't believe this is even primarily a question of symbol rate. When CW contest activity extends into, through and beyond the "traditionally digital" portions of the bands, I find it very difficult to pick a CW signal out of a densely-packed cluster of PSK carriers or RTTY stations. In my experience, it is not the symbol rates of the PSK and RTTY stations that cause the interference, but the ability of my brain to discriminate against the natures of modulation of those signals. I agree with you that we need to review the band plans. But to me that doesn't mean that we should allow the persistence of language which may hold back technical progress. 73 -- Brian/K1LI Hi, I have started using DSP with computer sound card software and also with dedicated hardware. Those have made it possible for me to dig weaker signals out of the noise and pick out CW signals from between those "densely packed" digital signals. It also gets rid of the neighbors' QRMing appliances stacked right next to the desired signal. I can slice the junk right off. Even with my *old* receivers - including a couple of regens. The waterfall and spectrum (panadapter) displays in the soundcard software helps identify where those signals are before I can hear them in all the din. I am finding those things to be effective tools to use against modern "rotten QRM". I frequently use a bandwidth narrower than 100 Hz yet can see where there are CW signals and dial them in. If you are not using any of those you should give then a try. The one that has been most useful for me is "Spectran". It's not to hard to figure out how to use and it works very well. Not a lot of bells and whistles to get in the way. Being *free* is a good feature, too. I do NOT use the computer to actually decode CW for me. Computers are just not good enough to do that with CW out in "the wild". YMMV. 73, Bill KU8H _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTW initiatives)
Joe, I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language. Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other "digital" modes of all kinds. Now, I don't like to hear even narrow-bandwidth PSK or RTTY signals when I'm operating in the "traditionally CW" portions of the bands, but I don't believe this is even primarily a question of symbol rate. When CW contest activity extends into, through and beyond the "traditionally digital" portions of the bands, I find it very difficult to pick a CW signal out of a densely-packed cluster of PSK carriers or RTTY stations. In my experience, it is not the symbol rates of the PSK and RTTY stations that cause the interference, but the ability of my brain to discriminate against the natures of modulation of those signals. I agree with you that we need to review the band plans. But to me that doesn't mean that we should allow the persistence of language which may hold back technical progress. 73 -- Brian/K1LI On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > > Save us from a Board of Directors that would not know Digital Operation > if it bit them on the ass. All we need is a bunch of 2.8 KHz wide > chunks of "white noise" across the entire "non-voice" spectrum. If > they want to remove the symbol rate, the bandwidth better be compatible > with that of CW (100 Hz or less) in the majority of the shared non-voice > spectrum. > > As usual, the ARRL BOD has proven how little they know about amateur > operation! > > 73, > >... Joe, W4TV _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Lightning QRN season?
Mike, The band has been open frequently in the morning to VK/ZL. Several of us are on almost every morning checking propagation with VK3ZL and others. The band is open a lot, but activity is low. I checked the log and have made contact with VK3ZL 29 days since the beginning of May with signals ranging from 339 to 579 (peaked at 569 this AM). Dan, W5XZ, may have made more qsos. Many other days signals have been present but unreadable in the noise. On the other hand, evening propagation to Europe has been the poorest I remember. Only a few contacts (G3JMJ & IV3PRK). I was traveling and missed most of the contests, so don't know about activity then. Here is the (not very long) list of dx from my log from the beginning of May. VK3ZL VK4MA PJ6/K4UEE T46C KG4RX KH6AT KH6ZM KV4FZ G3JMJ IV3PRK ZL3IX I have also heard VK3IO, OA4TT, and HK. Dick, K4IQJ .. _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Lightning QRN season?
On 07/23/2013 10:03 PM, Mike Waters wrote: I appreciate the replies and insight. Let me add some details I should have included in my original question. What I really wanted to know was, When do you think that QRN might let up a little, to the point when we might expect to have a relatively quiet night here and there? So far, we have gone many weeks with not one single evening of quiet, making DX --and most good stations on the east and west coast-- all but impossible to hear over the lightning crashes. Beverages _at both ends of the path_ helps, but that's not often the situation lately. I haven't listened on 160 every night, but ever since sometime in May (I forget exactly) I have been daily checking the Intellicast real-time lightning map at www.intellicast.com/Storm/Severe/Lightning.aspx . And there has not been a single evening on 160 since then when there was not a lot of lightning over the continental USA. I did manage to have some SSB ragchews late last night with some very strong stations in the Midwest, but the QRN never dropped below S9 even though the lightning was some distance away. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com Hi Mike, I haven't heard a lot on 160 meters mostly due to lack of activity. I listen more in the early morning hours just before and through morning twilight and sunrise. A few times the band has been astonishing quiet - checked to be sure I was on the antenna and not on the dummy load. At night I am on 80 and 40 meters (and sometimes 20) but when I try 160 there is a more QRN than in the mornings. I mostly hear the SSB ragchew nets and little CW. When the ARRL gets on they are always in here quite loud but still no other CW stations. I should be able to easily hear lower powered stations if any were on. 73, Bill KU8H _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Desktop Power Supply Brand/Noise Question
Hi all! Very nice and useful discussion! Great! Can anybody tell experience about the Antec SMPSs. Thank you all and kind regards, 73 SG/VU3TKG On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Tom W8JI wrote: >> Sorry I identified "Corcom" incorrectly. >> >> I checked a sample and the actual filters that I used were Delta >> Electronics 05DRCG5. >> > > > http://c1170156.r56.cf3.rackcdn.com/UK_DEL_05DRDG3_DS.pdf > > > That's better. That is a filter that suppresses CM and DM signals via > capacitors, but it still looks like they common core all the chokes. :( > _ > Topband Reflector -- One of those ... ... _ Topband Reflector
