Re: Topband: future of ham radio

[JAYB1943]

My latest non “black box” project – pixs attached—see u on 475 khz (kc) 
CW...?? hihi..jay ny2ny 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: future of ham radio

[Radio KH6O]

> From: 
> Hooray Nick ? best piece of writing on this whole subject by farIn my
> 60+ years of hamming, the changes in technology is EXACTLY what has kept me
> so interested over that time...If all there was today was still AM phone and
> xtal-controlled rigs, I guess I would have looked for some more interesting
> things to do in my life.
> Thanks Nick ? 73 -Jay NY2NY-160mDXCC (25 on Dig modes)


Well, Jay, if I can't build it from scratch, then I won't operate it.
That's why I'm 100% CW.

Have fun operating your black boxes.

73,
Jeff KH6O
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: K2AV Counterpoise

[k8...@alphacomm.net]

Hi Dan,

I can see where you've reached your conclusion, but your comment that 
"Rudy seems to say..." is a good qualifier.


Let's get back to basics, say with a classic 1/4 WL vertical. The 
theoretical impedance against an in infinite ground is 36 ohms. From 
free space modeling, one quickly realizes that this is nothing more half 
of a free space dipole, which it is. Next, power being fed into the base 
is simply: P = I squared X R radiation, at resonance. Very simply, more 
current means more power. Now with any radial system, screen, or ground 
rod, or counterpoise, that current into the base HAS to come from the 
ground system. There can be NO discontinuity here...it's not 
electrically possible.


Now let's look at the ELECTRICAL length of a radial. The one given is 
that the far end is open-circuited, I think we all agree so far...That 
means that for standing wave purposes, current here must be zero (the 
wire stops!), so impedance is highest. At the antenna end of the radial, 
impedance reaches a minimum at 1/4 ELECTRICAL WL, and increases back to 
the reflected maximum at 1/2 ELECTRICAL W/L. Notice please that 
ELECTRICAL WL is extended by Vp, same as shortening a PHYSICAL piece of 
coax to make a phasing line or tuned stub. To recap this, the impedance 
presented at the antenna end of a radial varies from a minimum at 1/4 
ELECTRICAL WL to a maximum at 1/2 ELECTRICAL WL. (And multiples of these 
lengths, of course).


The error of your conclusion comes from the fact that Rudy is comparing 
equal currents INTO the radials, Which means that the POWER into the 
antenna is NOT constant. POWER is at a minimum to achieve the fixed 
current value at 1/4 WL, and goes to a maximum at 1/2 WL. A verification 
is when he increases radial length and the current maximum becomes 
greater than at the base of the antennamore power into the antenna, 
more power in the radial standing wave current peak, and more losses.


In our real world, our transmitters/amplifiers are fixed in power 
output, not infinitely variable, so as the combined vertical/ground 
system impedance goes up, current decreases. Recall, radiated power is P 
= I squared X R radiation. This obviously reaches a minimum as the 
impedance hits it's maximum, at 1/2 ELECTRICAL WL. Rudy's 
summations/conclusions reflect this.


Sorry for being so long-winded.

Brian  K8BHZ


On 10/26/2017 11:47 PM, Dan Maguire via Topband wrote:

K8BHZ wrote:

The length to avoid is nothing more than a half wavelength, which translates 
the same impedance from end to end
i.e., the high Z open end translates to a high Z antenna base end. This results 
in minimum radial current.

I'm not so sure I buy that and I don't think N6LF does either.  If you look at the 
section "An Explanation for the Dips in Ga" (Part 1, QEX pg 40) in Rudy's 
document

http://rudys.typepad.com/files/qex-mar-apr-2012.pdf

you'll find this: ["L" is the variable for radial length]


... For the same current at the feed point, with longer radials the currents 
are much higher as we go out from the base. We would expect these higher 
currents to increase both E and H-field intensities at ground level under the 
radials. ... Since the power dissipation in the soil will vary with the square 
of the field intensity, it’s pretty clear why the efficiency takes such a large 
dip when the radials are too long.


So Rudy seems to be saying that the increased loss is due to higher radial 
currents, not minimum radial currents.
    Below is a different animation, this time showing E-field intensity 
as the radial length changes. For this animation the radial height was 
10 ft so the dip occurs at ~0.45 WL (frame 9). That corresponds to the 
highest radial current and the max E-field.



Dan, AC6LA



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FW: 160m Vertical Ideas?

[Ian Fugler]

Is it possible to run a 128 foot wire to the top of the 89 foot tower, then 
across to the top of the 102 foot tower?  If the towers are 35 feet apart, that 
gives you pretty much a 160m quarterwave.  As many radials at the base as you 
can manage, would be a rather good (mainly vertical) aerial.

73, Ian G4IIY

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed via 
Topband
Sent: 27 October 2017 17:27
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical Ideas?

Greetings!

Trying to figure out my scheme for 160m.  I currently have three crank up 
towers about 35’ apart from one another. One cranks up to 106’, the next to 70’ 
and third, to 89’. 

I figured I could shunt feed one of the taller towers and call it good but I’m 
concerned about interaction amongst the towers. 

Another option is to install an independent vertical about 150’ away..   This 
would minimize any interaction and would allow me to lay more/longer radials.  
I could go up about 65’ in height. 

Inv L is not really an option, as I have no tall trees nearby. 

Thoughts?  Ideas?  I welcome your feedback. 

73,

Ed NI6S 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: 160m Vertical Ideas?

[Ed via Topband]

Greetings!

Trying to figure out my scheme for 160m.  I currently have three crank up 
towers about 35’ apart from one another. One cranks up to 106’, the next to 70’ 
and third, to 89’. 

I figured I could shunt feed one of the taller towers and call it good but I’m 
concerned about interaction amongst the towers. 

Another option is to install an independent vertical about 150’ away..   This 
would minimize any interaction and would allow me to lay more/longer radials.  
I could go up about 65’ in height. 

Inv L is not really an option, as I have no tall trees nearby. 

Thoughts?  Ideas?  I welcome your feedback. 

73,

Ed NI6S 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: the future of ham radio

[JAYB1943]

Hooray Nick – best piece of writing on this whole subject by farIn my 
60+ years of hamming, the changes in technology is EXACTLY what has kept me 
so interested over that time...If all there was today was still AM phone and 
xtal-controlled rigs, I guess I would have looked for some more interesting 
things to do in my life.
Thanks Nick – 73 -Jay NY2NY-160mDXCC (25 on Dig modes)
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: More on radials

[DXer]

Hi Gary,

This is the first time I hear about the DOG. Would you have online
references about it?

I'll Google it, but if you have goods ones handy, please send them to me
privately (unless others here are interested as well).

Thanks and 73.

Vince, VA3VF

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM, kd9sv  wrote:

> About 20 years ago I did the DOG (dipole on ground) experiment) at my
> northern Indiana location.  Many others have likely done their own DOG
> tests
> but my results were that the dipole needed to be shortened by nearly 50% to
> still be resonant when lying on the grassy soil at this location.  Based on
> this data and wanting something that worked well I installed 1/4 wave
> radials for 80 meters AND also 1/4 wave for 160 meters.  I figured if the
> short ones don't get you then the long ones will. FWIW, YMMV, de gary,
> kd9sv
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: The Future of Ham Radio

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

The sad part is that most, not all, don't care if they hobby dies.  They 
are simply in it for themselves.



On 10/26/2017 11:32 PM, WT2P - CJ Johnson wrote:
(this is a non-topband related matter but I feel I must chime in -- 
mostly because if you scare away the next generation of topbanders, 
there won't be a topband)


I wish most of you (agree or disagree with the ARRL) were in 
attendance at the W9DXCC Convention this year where Tom spoke very 
powerful and thought provoking words about the "Next Generation Ham"


We as ham operators can sit around and lament all day about things 
that divide us, or you can get with the program to get new hams in.


How you work your awards or your contest operations, that's fine! I've 
won a total of *one* plaque in my ham radio "career". Yay. Woopee. 
Most of my friends are pissed at me for spending weekends in front of 
a radio (which is abstract to them) just to win wallpaper.


K1NZ who is younger than me hits the head on the nail with this post. 
If you really want to know what 20-somethings (and to be honest, 
myself and hams that grew up in the 90's) are thinking, read and 
re-read that post.


73,
WT2P

On 10/27/2017 12:03 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ wrote:

Hi all,

I apologize if this is not the place for this, but the recent FT8
discussion has gotten me to thinking. I'm one of the younger hams in the
hobby. I got my license and extra at 20 and am 26 now. I was 
semi-active on
the phone bands up until late 2015 when I moved into my current 
apartment
and put up a bunch of wire antennas. I have a G5RV, 30m dipole, and a 
160m
L. Now, I am one to admit that I'm not all that proficient at Morse, 
but I
can fudge my way through a QSO. Because of this, I have almost 
exclusively
(outside of contests) turned to digital operating. I, personally have 
that

thrill of working a new one on whatever band regardless of mode, even if
it's a JT/FT mode. I just worked my first Bahrain on 40m FT8 tonight and
cracked a beer to celebrate.

My whole reason for writing this post is because of the "You can play 
in my

sandbox only of you play my way" mentality. I am referring to the JT/FT
modes if you want to be specific. I am lucky in that I rent from my 
uncle
who doesn't care what wires I put up. On the other hand, most people 
my age
are either living with their parents or are renting from people that 
will

not let them participate in the hobby. In addition, I'm part of the vast
minority of hams who got licensed before they were 40. I'll be blunt. 
It's
going to be hard to retain teens in this hobby. Once they find 
girls/boys
and go off to college, we might as well write them off for 20 years. 
This

is an old (wo)man's hobby. It requires disposable income. I've barely
cobbled together a station myself, but I'm limping along because of 
my love

for this hobby.

I hate to say it, but this whole mindset is why the youth of today are
turned off from ham radio. Why should I pump hundreds of dollars into a
hobby if I'm going to be greeted with "You need to learn CW" "FT8 is
ruining the hobby" "You're not a real ham because you didn't pass the 
code
test." I realize that new things involve change and that change is 
scary,

but can we please welcome people into the hobby, even though that future
isn't what is comfortable? Isn't is better to be using the bands than 
for
them to be sold off and forgotten? This hobby is extremely 
multi-faceted.
Can we please not judge and harass the people that want to get 
involved? I
guess the whole reason why I wrote this post is because I'm sick of 
the "DO

IT MY WAY" mindset. Can we please just get back to having fun and ignore
the politics?

73 es gud DX,
Nick K1NZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: More on radials

[kd9sv]

About 20 years ago I did the DOG (dipole on ground) experiment) at my
northern Indiana location.  Many others have likely done their own DOG tests
but my results were that the dipole needed to be shortened by nearly 50% to
still be resonant when lying on the grassy soil at this location.  Based on
this data and wanting something that worked well I installed 1/4 wave
radials for 80 meters AND also 1/4 wave for 160 meters.  I figured if the
short ones don't get you then the long ones will. FWIW, YMMV, de gary, kd9sv

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Walker
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 9:04 AM
To: topband
Subject: Topband: More on radials

Here is my problem I am trying to solve.  This is why I was asking about
radials earlier.


   - I have a full length 1/4 - ish wire that runs over top a tall tree and
   the last 25 ft or so are horizontal
   - I can do elevated radials or lay radials on the ground
   - I'm not worried about SWR as I can dial that out later.
   - I have an 80m common feed point for a similar wire for 80M cw

The antenna does work, but I can tell by the SWR 2:1 bandwidth I have
significant ground losses now with 4 ground radials ~ 1/4 wave for each
band (80/160)

Thoughts and suggestions?

Mike va3mw
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: subject

[DXer]

I agree! This thread about asking the moderator to stop the other thread
has run its course.

I hope we won't have a thread now asking for the thread that asked for the
other thread to be terminated started.

Enjoy the nice discussion about radials.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:22 AM, MICHAEL ST ANGELO 
wrote:

>
>
> I agree! This cow is dry.
>
> The problem is not the type of mode but the internet. We're spending too
> much time ragchewing on these groups instead of tickling the ether.
>
> Turn on your radio and give a call. You don't need a contest or
> DX'pedition to operate.
>
> Mike N2MS
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Donald Moth via Topband
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:44 PM
> > To: topband@contesting.com
> > Subject: Topband: subject
> >
> > Isn't it about time to move on from FT8 to other things like DX and who
> is
> > hearing who at what time and strength. on CW or SSB. We've milked this
> to an
> > end. Only my own openion
> > Don W2MPK
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: More on radials

[Petr Ourednik]

Mike,

check it:
http://www.w0btu.com/Optimum_number_of_ground_radials_vs_radial_length.html
http://www.ok1rr.com/index.php/antennas/45-notes-on-ground-systems

73 - Petr, OK1RP
http://ok1rp.blogspot.com


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:03 PM, Michael Walker wrote:
> Here is my problem I am trying to solve.  This is why I was asking about
> radials earlier.
> 
> 
>- I have a full length 1/4 - ish wire that runs over top a tall tree
>and
>the last 25 ft or so are horizontal
>- I can do elevated radials or lay radials on the ground
>- I'm not worried about SWR as I can dial that out later.
>- I have an 80m common feed point for a similar wire for 80M cw
> 
> The antenna does work, but I can tell by the SWR 2:1 bandwidth I have
> significant ground losses now with 4 ground radials ~ 1/4 wave for each
> band (80/160)
> 
> Thoughts and suggestions?
> 
> Mike va3mw
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


-- 
73 - Petr, OK1RP
B: goo.gl/Fd2JhJ
G+: goo.gl/w3u2s9
G+: goo.gl/gP99xq
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Shortened Radial Experiments

[George Taft via Topband]

As a practical application, the "Battle Creek Special" is configured with 
shortened radicals; 30 X 60' for mni years now.   It's success is well known.
We found, that when 1/4 wvl radials were furnished, DXpeditions often did not 
have space for deployment.  And used only a few of the radials included.
73 George  W8UVZ 

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:53 PM, Mike Waters  
wrote:
 

 Elevated radials can also be run zigzag to fit them in the available space.
My 1/4 wavelength S radial was like that.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


   

|  | Virus-free. www.avg.com  |

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: FT8

[S57AD]

I know Yaesu FT707, but am not aware of FT8 :D

73,  Mirko, S57AD

2017-10-27 14:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Chartrand via Topband <
topband@contesting.com>:

> Dear moderator enough is enough!
> BTW since the discussion started, the FT8 activity has really picked up!!
> Greg - Greg
> Chartrand - W7MY Richland, WA. W7MY Home Page:
> http://webpages.charter.net/w7my/
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband




-- 
Mirko S57AD
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: FT8

[Greg Chartrand via Topband]

Dear moderator enough is enough!
BTW since the discussion started, the FT8 activity has really picked up!!
Greg - Greg Chartrand - 
W7MY Richland, WA. W7MY Home Page: http://webpages.charter.net/w7my/

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: G3YRO Just Joined !

[Roger Kennedy]

Hi All

Despite being a keen 160m DX-er for the past 45 years, I've just finally
joined this Reflector !  So I'm looking forward to reading 160m related
posts.

What made me decide to join was reading through the 160m receiver
comparisons - very interesting.  I stayed with my FT101E (with 250Hz crystal
filter) and R4A (with audio filter) for years, as I could hear all the DX
fine, even in contests.

However, about 18 months ago I decided to get something a bit more agile and
with more features.  After a lot of research and talking to previous owners,
decided on a TS930S (even over a 940 or 950). I've done several repairs and
mods, and fitted 250Hz filters in both IFs.  It's reliable now, and overall
I'm very pleased with it - I particularly like the adjustable CW offset and
audio filter - using the same pitch all the time can get tiring!

Having tried them at other people's QTHs, I've never been convinced that a
rig with DSP would be an advantage . . . and although there are possibly
slightly better rigs (FT1000MP?) they use surface mount and obsolete
processors - I wanted a rig I can repair and keep going myself. I think the
TS930S is probably the last flagship rig that fits the bill.

Never having had room for Beverages, I've just made a 160m receiving Loop
which is up in my loft. Really pleased with how this is working on DX - I
will post details later.  And apologies for this first long message!

73s Roger G3YRO

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: K2AV Counterpoise

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

This entire thread has had some really good stuff here and there on
radials. Nicely done, gentlemen and a really good discussion.

:>))  Is there a reason why it will now get buried in the archives with a
searchable subject of "Topband K2AV counterpoise" ?  ROFL. Or was this a
thread hijack back there someplace I haven't found yet.

To the discussion rather than the thread's subject line, I think a blast
from the past is in order. In 1937, they did not have our ceramic
transmitting tubes or transistors of any kind, nor antenna models, nor our
predisposed understandings of how things worked, inherited from beloved
elmers and 50 year old textbooks. But Brown, Lewis and Epstein did have a
curiosity and a sharp commercial purpose with huge potential, and from RCA
very expensive highly accurate thermocouple-based instruments just being
developed on the bleeding edge of radio, and a PAID STAFF with nothing else
on their plate. They had nothing to go on but their measurements. And as
such a few carefully measured and described oddities from the 1937 BL
study need to be folded into the discussion:

pp 773-4, Brown, Lewis and Epstein: Ground Systems, [IEEE] Journal June
1937.

[denotes conversion of units, etc. Study conducted at 3 MHz]

"When radial wires were 45 feet long [0.14 wl], the measured resistance was
practically independent of the number of wires. Evidently most of the earth
loss occurred in regions beyond the periphery of the ground system. Fig. 27
is an average curve obtained for this condition.

"When only two radial wires, separated 180 degrees, were used the
resistance was independent of wire length *** since the current vanished
from the wires within a few feet of the antenna." *** [emphasis added]

page 781, ibid.

"For each ground system, the current in the buried wires was measured as
shown in Fig 24. The value measured in a single wire was then multiplied by
the number of buried wires. The current in the wires for an antenna height
of 88 degrees and radial wires 135 feet long [0.41 wl] is shown in Fig 42.
*** We see that the current persists in 113 wires much further [0.10 wl or
32.8 feet] from the antenna than it does for a smaller number of wires."
***  [emphasis added]

As viewed in figure 42, the current remains constant for the first 0.10
wavelength or first 33 feet of the 113 0.41 wl radials.

That means there was no loss in the ground around and beneath from
dielectric loss, or direct or induced current through the ground media. The
BARE, BURIED wire kept all the current in the copper.

page 782, ibid.

"A few tests were made of the action of an earth screen at the base of the
antenna. In the first test, the ground system consisted of 113 radials
wires each 135 feet long [0.41 wl]. The ground screen consisted of a square
copper screen, nine feet on a side. Absolutely no difference in field
strength or antenna resistance could be detected when the screen was
removed and the buried ground system used alone.

[Table embedded in text]  [quote]
   Resistance  Field intensity

113 buried wires; no earth screen   1.0 1.0
15 buried wires; earth screen 1.620.785 [-2.1 dB]
15 buried wires; no earth screen3.240.555 [-5.1 dB]
[unquote]

"The second test was made using 15 buried radial wires and the earth
screen. The relative results are shown above. Thus we see that, with a
[numerically] small ground system, the earth screen furnishes a definite
improvement. However, the results obtained are not nearly as good as those
obtained with the large [113 times 0.41 wl radials] ground system. Further
when the large ground system is used, the earth screen gave no further
improvement."

The study was undertaken by the RCA Corporation, no expense spared, with
the explicit purpose to show that a very expensive tall tower was not
nearly as important as the nature and quality of radials. Secondary
purpose, get more AM transmitters on the air, to help sell more RCA radios
-- capitalism at its best (not sarcastic). There were no computers, no
models, and given the pre-WWII date, such science was in it's infancy, and
they had no reason to bend their measurements. Measurements were all they
had to guide what to do next, with no modeling to make questionable
substitutions for actual measurements.

I spent a lot of time trying to get NEC 4 to generate the radial current
patterns found in Figure 42. Never came close. The assumptions of the
various NEC ground approximation methods cannot generate anything remotely
resembling Mssrs Brown, Lewis and Epstein's ACTUAL RADIAL CURRENT
MEASUREMENTS along their buried bare radial wires.

In figure 42, the first 33 feet carry a constant current, as opposed to a
pair of 0.41 wl radials immediately dumping all current into the dirt
"since the current vanished from the wires within a few feet of the
antenna."

Measured constant current on the 113 0.41 wl radials for the first 33 feet
means that no power