Topband: Sloper EZNEC file wanted
Hi Topbander, some time ago there were offered EZNEC data for Alpha-Delta Twin-wire LowBand Sloper DX-A (160/80/40). I had a copy but lost them and can't find the source. Any hint where I can find these EZNEC data file ? Thank You and 73 de Thomas, DL1AMQ --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes
IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a narrow band mode such as the superior JT9 mode. Unfortunately, below 1810 is never going to fly because of the lack of access below 1810 in many countries. Further, JT65 although wider than JT9 is certainly less than 200 Hz and should not be a concern to users of other narrow bandwidth modes. What is really a concern is the demands by wideband data advocates for priority access to *at least 15%* of every amateur band in spectrum coordinated in all three ITU regions. See: http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html Applied to 160 meters, that would wipe out 1810 to 1840. On 80 meters that would wipe out the entire CW/RTTY band from the top of the extra CW allocation, on 40 meters again it would monopolize the band from the top of the Extra CW allocation to well into the foreign phone band. On 20, 17, 15, and 12 it would wipe out the entire spectrum currently used for RTTY/PSK/JT plus most of the non-extra class CW area and on 10 it would use up the entire CW/data band well into the beacon band. Even though the comment period is officially over on RM-11708, it is far more important to continue to tell the FCC No on 11708 than worry what ARRL may suggest in terms of an unenforceable band plan. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 3/3/2014 1:57 PM, Mike Waters wrote: Since there has been recent discussions on this reflector about JT65 on 1838, I thought I would pass this on. IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a narrow band mode such as the superior JT9 mode. As W8JI recently pointed out, insufficient sideband suppression (and IMD products of improperly adjusted rigs) of JT65 signals --becoming more and more common on 1838-- winds up in the area where weak signal DX is common. Furthermore, Joe Taylor himself --the author of JT65 and JT9-- has stated in no uncertain terms that the JT9 mode is superior to the far wider JT65 mode for MF and lower HF weak signal communications. JT65 is for EME and upper HF. I suggest that this be discussed here for a week or so before anyone submits comments to the ARRL. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com -- Forwarded message -- From: ARRL Web site memberl...@www.arrl.org Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM Subject: ARLB007 ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes ... At the January 2014 ARRL Board of Directors meeting, a resolution was passed which asked for member feedback and input pertaining to the increasing popularity of data modes. The information gathered by this investigation is to be used by the HF Band Planning Committee of the Board as a means to suggest ways to use our spectrum efficiently so that these data modes may compatibly coexist with each other. As per the resolution, the ARRL Board of Directors is now reaching out to the membership and requesting cogent input and thoughtful feedback on matters specific to digital mode operation on the HF bands. The feedback may include, but is not limited to, the recent proposal the ARRL made to the FCC, RM 11708, regarding the elimination of the symbol rate restrictions currently in effect. A FAQ on RM 11708 can be found on the web at, http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq . The Board of Directors believes that member input in the decision making process is both valuable and important as well as fostering a more transparent organization. It is to this end that we open this dialogue. Comments must be received no later than March 31, 2014 to be included in the Committee's report to the Board at the July 2014 ARRL Board of Directors meeting. Please e-mail your comments to: hf-digital-bandplann...@arrl.org Concerned members may also contact their Division Director by mail, telephone or in person with any relevant information. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes
Thank you. I forgot that in Region 1 (essentially Europe, Asia, Africa), 160m starts at 1810. Here's a couple of thoughts for discussion: - Since two-thirds of the world --including North and South America-- starts at 1800, why not consider region-specific band plans? Is digital popular in other places? - How about 1840 to ~1845 for digital in lieu of --or even in addition to-- below 1810? As for bandwidth, here's what K1JT says about the significant bandwidth advantages of JT9 vs. JT65: JT65 was designed for EME ... in contrast, JT9 is optimized for HF and lower frequencies. JT9 is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65A while using less than 10% of the bandwidth. ... A 2 kHz slice of spectrum is essentially full when occupied by ten JT65 signals. As many as 100 JT9 signals can fit into the same space, without overlap. --From http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV li...@subich.com wrote: IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a narrow band mode such as the superior JT9 mode. Unfortunately, below 1810 is never going to fly because of the lack of access below 1810 in many countries. Further, JT65 although wider than JT9 is certainly less than 200 Hz and should not be a concern to users of other narrow bandwidth modes. ... _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes
Mike, - Since two-thirds of the world --including North and South America-- starts at 1800, why not consider region-specific band plans? Is digital popular in other places? Put it this way - if you want region specific band plans and the need for significant split operation when working across regions - are you willing to subject CW or SSB to those split requirements? Why single out digital? Is digital popular in other places? There is perhaps as much or more JT mode activity outside the US than inside the US. As for bandwidth, here's what K1JT says about the significant bandwidth advantages of JT9 vs. JT65: In understand Joe's point. However, JT65 was in regular use long before he brought forward JT9. At HF JT65 activity still outnumbers JT9 by from four to 10 to one depending on the day/band and there are several European based, HF optimized JT65 applications that do not support JT9. I seriously doubt that an American bandplan is going to change any minds elsewhere - particularly if that bandplan is designed to make room for wideband data modes. - How about 1840 to ~1845 for digital in lieu of --or even in addition to-- below 1810? How do you expect to move the SSB clods who camp on 1843 with their distortion boxes wide open? Even if they moved you could be sure it won't be any farther than 1845 which will still wipe out activity between 1841 and 1845. It's been 35 years and there's still a lot of SSB below 1843. As one who along with W8JI proposed a regulatory wall protecting narrow band modes from wideband interference in the early 1980's I have to ask how has ARRL's torpedoing of those efforts worked out? 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 3/3/2014 7:37 PM, Mike Waters wrote: Thank you. I forgot that in Region 1 (essentially Europe, Asia, Africa), 160m starts at 1810. Here's a couple of thoughts for discussion: - Since two-thirds of the world --including North and South America-- starts at 1800, why not consider region-specific band plans? Is digital popular in other places? - How about 1840 to ~1845 for digital in lieu of --or even in addition to-- below 1810? As for bandwidth, here's what K1JT says about the significant bandwidth advantages of JT9 vs. JT65: JT65 was designed for EME ... in contrast, JT9 is optimized for HF and lower frequencies. JT9 is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65A while using less than 10% of the bandwidth. ... A 2 kHz slice of spectrum is essentially full when occupied by ten JT65 signals. As many as 100 JT9 signals can fit into the same space, without overlap. --From http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV li...@subich.com wrote: IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a narrow band mode such as the superior JT9 mode. Unfortunately, below 1810 is never going to fly because of the lack of access below 1810 in many countries. Further, JT65 although wider than JT9 is certainly less than 200 Hz and should not be a concern to users of other narrow bandwidth modes. ... _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: New MFJ 259C available
Another entry into the analyzer battle, the C model covers 530KHz to 230 MHz. http://www.mfjenterprises.com/MFJ-259C_Flyer.php I wonder why it didnt go down to 470 KHz which would include the coming 600M bandthe new Topband. Carl KM1H _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: New MFJ 259C available
There is a lot of CW and digital activity on 474.2 (USB). (Load wsjtx on your computer and see.) MFJ missed the boat. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Carl k...@jeremy.mv.com wrote: I wonder why it didnt go down to 470 KHz which would include the coming 600M bandthe new Topband. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: New MFJ 259C available
Nah, it will have to go to at least 136 KHz; the future Topband. Carl KM1H - Original Message - From: James Rodenkirch To: Carl ; Top Band Contesting Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:04 PM Subject: RE: Topband: New MFJ 259C available They'll be offering a 250 kHz to 500 kHZ version later, Carl, to sell ya! From: k...@jeremy.mv.com To: topband@contesting.com Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:57:22 -0500 Subject: Topband: New MFJ 259C available Another entry into the analyzer battle, the C model covers 530KHz to 230 MHz. http://www.mfjenterprises.com/MFJ-259C_Flyer.php I wonder why it didnt go down to 470 KHz which would include the coming 600M bandthe new Topband. Carl KM1H _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3705/7148 - Release Date: 03/03/14 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: BCI
I've been plagued by a problem I have finally identified but now need help in resolving. I thought it was birdies but realized it had an external component when I removed my antennas and they went away. I'm in a location where I can't put up a tower but have made extensive use of wires in trees and use my 160M Inv-L for 160, 20, 15, 12 10 meters. the 80M mostly vertical wire also serves for 80, 17, and 12 meters. I have been hearing birdies on 18 meters for a long time but recently I bought a P3 to fit the K3 and now can see much more than my alone ears noticed before. I only used CW and never listened to the signals and only bypassed them. When I had the 160M ant in line switched to 18M, I saw lines 5KHz apart on the P3. Usually I only have the 80M antenna in-line on 17M so this was a real discovery for me. Seeing that the interference was audio I listenbed on AM could hear audio which using the 80M ant narrow CW filters, I never had before. With the 160M antenna what used to be an irritation was now overwhelming interference to reception. And what I thought were birdies were the centers of the carrier on regularly spaced narrow AM signals generated in the circuitry. One station was an AM station from Puerto Rico and the other I never did listen long enough to, to hear the call but was stateside. Switching in the 80M antenna makes the lines on the P3 far less aggressive and switching to a 30M vertical, I see no lines whatsoever. I took two waterfall screenshots from the P3 and birdie1.jpg is showing 11KHz on each side of center and birdie2.jpg shows 100KHz on each side of center. Each line is 5 KHz. http://doctorgary.net/birdie1.jpg http://doctorgary.net/birdie2.jpg These are the worst on the transmit antenna but also am hearing them to a lesser extent on the HI-Z Triangular antennas as well. It seems like I should have a filter in line to block the BCB signals but then that would block 160 signals as well. I use the HI-Z for lowband work and certainly don't want to block those signals the same goes if I put a filter in the coax for my transmit antenna. Any suggestions of some kind of filter so I can get rid of these? Gary KA1J --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: New MFJ 259C available
My VNWA V2.6 factory assembled Vector Network Analyzer, designed by DG8SAQ is available for $400 incl shipping, USA only, as I upgraded to the newer version V3. 1KHz to 1300MHz, 2 port, USB powered, no cables or standards included. see www.sdr-kits.net for full specs Radcom review at http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA/RadCom_VNWA_Review.pdf Grant KZ1W On 3/3/2014 5:57 PM, Carl wrote: Another entry into the analyzer battle, the C model covers 530KHz to 230 MHz. http://www.mfjenterprises.com/MFJ-259C_Flyer.php I wonder why it didnt go down to 470 KHz which would include the coming 600M bandthe new Topband. Carl KM1H _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
