Re: Topband: Impressive demonstration of one dB of signal strength improvement
Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening All, I believe this references the original W3AFM series of QST articles in 1966? If so ... try this link please: http://www.rfcafe.com/references/qst/station-design-dx-september-1966-qst.htm 73 de Billy, AA4NU > > On August 21, 2019 at 11:38 AM K9FD wrote: > > > > Martin I am sorry I do not know when that article was published, I have > > moved QTH and > > gave away all my old QSTs. Will try and find it in the on-line > > archives, but think you have > > to be a member to read those archives. Perhaps someone knows where > > else it could be > > found. > > 73 Merv k9FD > > > > > What QST? Would be a copy available? > > > > > > 73, > > > Martin, OK1RR > > > > > > Dne 21. 08. 19 v 18:24 K9FD napsal(a): > > >> An excellent article is in an old QST called "station design for DX" > > >> It mentions that 1 DB improvement in the station will provide a whole > > >> new layer of DX signals. Very true. > > >> > > >> In the average station you can easily find several DB that can be > > >> gained. > > >> If your into DX think of all your missing. > > >> > > >> I always have to laugh when the statement is made "I can work all I > > >> can hear" > > >> > > >> that says it all, its what your not hearing is the problem. > > >> > > >> 73 Merv K9FD > > >> > > >>> These recordings are an impressive demonstration of the benefit of > > >>> one dB of signal strength improvement in a weak signal situation. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Click on the links on this website: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> www.ab7e.com/weak_signal/mdd.html > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 73 > > >>> Frank > > >>> W3LPL > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> - Original Message - > > >>> > > >>> From: "David Gilbert" > > >>> To: elecr...@mailman.qth.net > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 7:02:21 AM > > >>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 Coax size requirements > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> That's not a universally true statement. > > >>> > > >>> Several years ago I was trying to decide which antenna to buy, and my > > >>> choice came down to two antennas that were 2 db apart. I created some > > >>> audio files by recording typical band noise and then overlaying them > > >>> with recorded CW messages at various strengths. The difference between > > >>> 1 dB above the noise level and 2 dB above the noise level can make the > > >>> difference between no copy and copy. The files and testing methodology > > >>> can be found here: > > >>> > > >>> http://www.ab7e.com/weak_signal/mdd.html > > >>> > > >>> If you're ragchewing it doesn't matter, but if you're trying to make a > > >>> contact and your signal is at the level of the mud it does. > > >>> > > >>> 73, > > >>> Dave AB7E > > >>> > > >>> On 8/20/2019 9:18 PM, Jim Danehy wrote: > > ONE DB loss is the LEAST DETECTABLE amount a human can detect. > > Hardly if not impossible to notice. > > > > Jim > > W9VNE/VA3VNE > > >>> _ > > >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > > >>> Reflector > > >> > > >> _ > > >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > > >> Reflector > > > > > > _ > > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > > > Reflector > > > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 160: Digital only DXCC needed
Kevin, You are certainly welcome (as long as Tree allows ...) to post your views and opinions as anyone else. However, I don't agree with many of your statements as they do not represent my views or experiences. So please hold off on the "WE = everyone" bit please as I don't recall asking or giving permission for others to speak for me. QSL OM? A week ago folks were trying to shame others as to "Oh NO FT8 can't run automatically". (Wink Wink Nod Say No More). Reality is that dirty little secret is actually well known. Too late to control/prevent it. And as to the ARRL rule ... how would anyone know if they did or are working a real person on FT8, again too late now to control/prevent it. Along the line of what Jeff, K1ZM posted that upset Mike. Within the RTTY side there has been much concern as to the FCC (and with ARRL support?) changing the rules to allow even more unattended, encrypted communications. Much of that support seems to come from marine (think really non-amateur) ship/boat owners using ham bands as their way of communicating who knows what. And so now there are two fundamentally opposed camps on that possibility. Sure seems to be some similarity between that mode and FT8/FT? ... if so, are we about to see the 'battles of the robots' QRM on the bands? Right now there are posts on the CQ Contest forum as to FT4 being set to use 7047 .. roughly in the middle of the 40 CW band. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out next, hopefully in a positive way. Jerry, K4SAV once again is looking for verifiable information. Past posts on Top Band seems to indicate small changes as of ~1 dB might be enough to make/not make the QSO. What is the real repeatable difference on FTx? (and when if will FT4 make an appearance on the other bands ...) As others noted, the fad mode (it's how many years old?) no doubt has drawn much attention and activity for the short term. Seeing overall data and not just a limited view might (key word) moderate some of the excitement? So far we are seeing subjective pluses and minuses as to the risk and rewards. Where I do agree 100% with you is the W6AM book is an excellent shack item. B-) Recall my two concerns ... damage the hobby destroy personal relationships Billy, AA4NU > On August 6, 2019 at 2:00 PM kol...@rcn.com wrote: > > > "I said already last year. FT 8 and K1JT will kill our hobby. It takes away > all efforts, challenge and personal touch." > > Read the W6AM book, get the West Coast DX bulletin compilation book and dig > back to your efforts in the '60s and '70s (if you were around). Even without > FT8, DXing is mega easier in the 21 Century than before. The "efforts, > challenge and personal touch" has been eroding for the last 30 years or so > and we GOT OVER IT! So why is FT8 suddenly the tipping point? It's just a > continuation of what was already going on for decades as technology unfolds. > > "I saw yesterday 2 Hams saying,they will sell their equipment and go QRT for > ever in our hobby." > > Must not be very committed hams. Or old and tired... > > "The ONLY possible hope, is ,if ARRL change the rules,and NOT include this FT > 8 in mixed band dxcc:s. Make a special FT 8 award. That might help." > > Personally, I have no objection to this. But THIS is the move that will save > ham radio??? > > "And that dx-expeditions will be ONLY CW/SSB/RY 75 % and may be FT 8 25 > %.Fair ?" > > Why shouldn't the DXpeditioners and the Ham Radio "marketplace" decide? BTW, > whenever I have operated from DX QTH's, except for Phone DX contests, I work > CW. Personal preference. > > "I am happy ,I was active 1960 up to this day,and have had so much > fun,,,BEFORE" > > This actually makes me sad to read. I say, be happy and operate how you > prefer, let the others go their way. I try to never let what others choose to > do ruin my fun! > > I can be a cynical old coot, but I am still optimistic that Ham Radio will > continue to bring enjoyment to all who discover it whatever their interests. > I see young folks at the local Record Store still buying Vinyl records, > likewise I suspect some young folks will fall in love with CW and SSB (if we > let them). > > 73, Kevin K3OX > > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 160
the secretary mentions something to the main op about the band conditions. The visiting ham asks, "But who is running the station, and turning all those big antennas I saw when I drove here today, and deciding who/what to work?" The reply is something like, "Oh, there is no need to do that today, as we have our computers and everything is automated, no need to do all the hard work now." "No more losing sleep, tower work, no more worry about missing the DX, and so on .." The story comes to a quick conclusion ... and while I can't recall exactly what the closing text of the article was at this moment, I do suspect similar thoughts are going thru the minds of many on this forum as to what that visiting ham thought as he drove away. If the new mode is going to succeed and add long term value, great, let us be careful. If the new mode is going to damage* and destroy* over time, let us be even more careful. (By damage* and destroy* I mean the damage the hobby and destroy personal relationships). Have a great weekend, Billy, AA4NU > On August 2, 2019 at 6:57 PM Cecil wrote: > > > And I disagree with your declaration that Gary was incorrect. His position, > and mine are based on the original intent and design of the software > writers...not how some are modifying and misusing the software. The awards > system is also based on the original intent and design of the software. > > You manually start a CQ sequence that can run unanswered for 15 minutes...but > if answered and “answer first” is selected an auto sequence of trading signal > reports ensues until the QSO is successfully completed or fails at which time > the process stops until the operator starts the process again. It won’t start > again on its own unless the operator starts it. > > If it functions any differently it’s either been modified or is being > manipulated by a macro...neither of which was part of the software writers > intent or design...period! > > Do I doubt the software has been modified to function unattended...no not at > all. I think two examples have been presented. > > Is that grounds for exempting FT8 contacts from the awards systems for all > operators...no. It’s not the solution. Same could be done with any of the > digital modes and probably has been. > > I really think at this point for many, any excuse to exempt FT8 is a good > excuse...and if that’s where we are that’s a whole different set of > problems... > > Cecil > K5DL > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 2, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Billy Cox wrote: > > > > No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to > > go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts. > > > > Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not > > cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ... > > > > No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this. > > > > This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the > > face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy. > > > > So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated, > > what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work. > > > > (And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW) > > > > Billy, AA4NU > > > >> On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > >> > >> > >> So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat? No. > >> > >> By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their > >> programs at the last board meeting. This means that the operator must > >> be instigating the contacts. > >> > >> Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created > >> a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts. It was not very clever but it > >> was done. > >> > >> The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once > >> the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can > >> walk away for about 30 seconds. I am pretty certain that this could > >> also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already. > >> > >> So how many people are fully automated? 10, 100? 1000?How many > >> people uses power over their licensing? 10, 100, 1000? Both get you > >> booted from ARRL programs. Why is one ok and the other is not? Just > >> curious. > >> > >> What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right? Nearly everyone > >> other
Re: Topband: 160
No Mike, the reality is Gary was incorrect and there is no need to go negative toward others who disagree as done in recent posts. Read the details Mike, watch the video ... it's AUTOMATED. It's not cheating (per say) or is it? That's another interesting thought ... No need to wave your hands and create straw argument again on this. This is not about just another mode ... this is about changing the face of the hobby, and 'gutting' what others may still enjoy. So, now that the reality is the mode can and is being automated, what is the next step? As to the ARRL ban ... oh, yea that will work. (And yes Tree and a few others experimented with this years ago on CW) Billy, AA4NU > On August 2, 2019 at 6:10 PM W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote: > > > So does this mean that everyone uses this cheat? No. > > By the way the ARRL has banned automatic unattended contacts from their > programs at the last board meeting. This means that the operator must > be instigating the contacts. > > Curiously many many many years ago, a fellow by the call of N6TR created > a "robot" that made Sweepstakes contacts. It was not very clever but it > was done. > > The only reason you can walk away with the stock program is that once > the qso starts the remaining sequences are indeed automated. So you can > walk away for about 30 seconds. I am pretty certain that this could > also be done with RTTY if it hasn't been already. > > So how many people are fully automated? 10, 100? 1000? How many > people uses power over their licensing? 10, 100, 1000? Both get you > booted from ARRL programs. Why is one ok and the other is not? Just > curious. > > What percent of ARRL participants are doing it right? Nearly everyone > other than the few outliers. If we can get a list of these automated > callsigns we could easily create a black list and not work them. > > I am appalled that people would attempt to strong arm DX peditions from > using a completely legal mode that nets more contacts. Amazing sick! > > W0MU > > On 8/2/2019 4:55 PM, Billy Cox wrote: > > Good Afternoon All, > > > > Gary, then explain this please? > > > > From http://edtk.de/ > > > > Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are > > logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls > > CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for > > about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again. - Run mode should > > always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq" > > > > Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q > > > > Thanks, > > > > Billy, AA4NU > > > > > >> On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to > >> initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening > >> in case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes > >> were intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended > >> operation. PLEASE, know of what you speak instead of parroting what > >> ignorant cynics tell you. They have no life and nothing better to do than > >> bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to > >> understand. Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to > >> look as foolish as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their > >> rubbish. I work with FT8 and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 > >> amongst others) and am a WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I know the JT > >> packages quite intimately and what's being propagated just ain't so (urban > >> legend?). Get a life! > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Gary, K7EK > >> > >> Sent from BlueMail > >> > >> On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, Cecil wrote: > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> . Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and > >>> come back after some other activity and see how many new countries and > >>> QSOs that the computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where > >>> operators must remain engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that > >>> such Computer-generated contacts should have a separate category in the > >>> current award systems s
Re: Topband: 160
Good Afternoon All, Gary, then explain this please? From http://edtk.de/ Start "Run Mode" In Run mode, CQs are called continuously, closed QSOs are logged automatically. After logged or timed out QSOs, the Program recalls CQ. After some unsuccessful CQ calls, the FT8 helper goes to sleep for about 2 minutes before he starts calling CQs again. - Run mode should always be operated with "Hold Tx Freq" Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJyxYi4I8Q Thanks, Billy, AA4NU > On August 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Gary - K7EK via Topband > wrote: > > > FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. An operator must be present to > initiate contacts as well as logging completed contacts, and intervening in > case of sequencing problems, which can occur frequently. The FT modes were > intentionally written by K1JT to prevent fully automatic unattended > operation. PLEASE, know of what you speak instead of parroting what > ignorant cynics tell you. They have no life and nothing better to do than > bitch and whine and moan about things they haven't taken time to understand. > Do not believe everything you are told. You will be made to look as foolish > as the cynics as you enable them and propagate their rubbish. I work with FT8 > and FT4 daily (CW too! CWOPS 997 and FISTS #3951 amongst others) and am a > WSJTX and JTDX software tester. I know the JT packages quite intimately and > what's being propagated just ain't so (urban legend?). Get a life! > > Best regards, > > Gary, K7EK > > Sent from BlueMail > > On Aug 2, 2019, 14:46, at 14:46, Cecil wrote: > > > > > >Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Alan Swinger > >wrote: > > > >> . Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and > >come back after some other activity and see how many new countries and > >QSOs that the computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where > >operators must remain engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that > >such Computer-generated contacts should have a separate category in the > >current award systems since the operators are not directly involved in > >making the QSOs . . . call it Computer-Aided Digital or something more > >clever. No argument that skill is required to set up a station to make > >FT-8 contacts, but a different set than what those of us who work DXCC, > >Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, including those towers, > >expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to get the new ones > >when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes! > >> So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor > >do I cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though > >I am unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community should not > >penalize those of us who used non-FT modes to get our hard earned > >awards by giving an unfair advantage to a new technology. We (Ham > >Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes are sufficiently > >different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a separate > >category in the award spectrum. Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ > >Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is > >separate and different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria. > >> Alan Swinger K9MBQ > >> Charlottesville, VA > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >>> From: rich_k...@gphilltop.com > >>> Sent: Aug 2, 2019 4:22 PM > >>> To: Harald Rester > >>> Cc: topband@contesting.com > >>> Subject: Re: Topband: 160 > >>> > >>> As ham radio changes there will remain at least a niche for CW, SSB, > >and > >>> RTTY and it's competitions. FT8 will supplement the bands , not > >supplant > >>> it, IMO. Do you think FT8, FT4 and whatever digital modes come along > >are > >>> the future or will something else take its place? Who knows... time > >and > >>> technology moves on. Maybe it might attract some of the Millennials > >to > >>> fill in the void by us Baby Boomers who will all too soon be making. > > > >>> Let's set a good example for them to follow. > >>> > >>> Rich K7ZV > >>> > >>> > On 2019-08-02 12:42 pm, Harald Rester wrote: > Think about the time *we all *could have been on the air, while > >staring > at our screens, typing and reading. I make QSY to the shack - Hpe > >CU! > > Harry, DH1NBE > > > > > Am 02.08.2019 um 21:26 schrieb uy0zg: > > > > > > I do not propose stopping the FT8. > > > > just compete with each other. > > > > But keep in mind - Arnold will be the first -)): > > > > > >https://www.alamy.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-terminator-2-judgment-day-1991-image66516208.html > > > > > > > > --- > > Nick, UY0ZG > > http://www.topband.in.ua > > > > W0MU Mike Fatchett писал 2019-08-02 21:52: > >> Ah so all FT8 users are cheaters. Does that mean that all > >Russian > >> hams use way more power than they should and their scores sho
Re: Topband: Made it! 80 Years a Ham
Well done Paul, Well Done! CONGRATS! May you continue to enjoy Top Band, and all the others too for a long long time. 73 de Billy, AA4NU - Original Message - From: "PAUL M ELLIOTT" To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:34:45 AM Subject: Topband: Made it! 80 Years a Ham Made it! 19 January 2017, is the 80th anniversary of my first ham license, Class C operating privileges with W5GGV as my call. Was 14 years old at the time. A little over a year later I upgraded to Class A. Many years later the Extra Class (with no added privileges) came along. Upgraded. Some years later the FCC announced that hams with an Extra Class license who had been licensed 25 years could apply for a two -letter call, no place on the application to request of a specific call. Was assigned W5DM. First rig made from junked Atwater Kent radio parts. First antenna was a wire going out a hole in the window screen to a tree. First DX was VK2SS on 40 m CW, September 1937. (An aside. There were no phone privileges on 40 m for USA hams). The VK2SS QSL card is hung on my wall. My card to him was written on a postcard (Great Depression=no money to buy QSL cards). Been fairly active over the years, except, of course, for WW II. If interested in WW II, you can do a web search on DD 792 for a small part of my history. The first 20 or 30 years I built my transmitters (all low powered) and receivers. Operated CW only until SSB came along. Then I built a low powered phasing rig. A BC-348H receiver was made dual conversion using 85 kcs (kcs then= kHz now) IF transformers from a BC 453 receiver. Had a blast working the world with a homebuilt "cubical quad" on 20 meters. Since then mostly CW. I may have made one small contribution to ham radio. In the April 1958 issue of QST, in Technical Correspondence there was a letter from me that, I think, was the first mention in a ham publication that the formula for determining the length of a "cubical quad" antenna was not correct. Since my measurements were made using a BC 348, a grid dip oscillator, and a 100 kcs crystal oscillator. I don't know whether I was just lucky to get as close as I did or did a fairly good job with what I had. In the early 1990s started out to get 160 m WAS from a 120 x 120 foot electrically noisy city lot (SE NM) with a long ( ~3/8 wavelength) but low semi-inverted L antenna. Ground radials of varying length in one 90 degree segment. Made 160 m WAS. Then started chasing DX. Now have 189 countries confirmed on 160 m, 324 on all bands. Age, not surprisingly, has taken its toll. CW now down to 20-25 wpm-at one time it was 35-40 wpm. Finger dexterity way down-has taken me over 3 hours to type this email. Physical realities remain physical realities--I am now a disabled, crippled old man. But--- No complaints-many people are worse off than I am. Thanks to all who have had the knowledge and the kindness to help me over the years. 73 Paul W5DM _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 78th Anniversary of First Ham License
CONGRATS indeed Paul, well done there OM! 73 de Billy, AA4NU - Original Message - From: "Paul Elliott" Today I have the extremely good fortune to celebrate 78 years of being a licensed ham. On a day late in January 1937, in Kingsville TX, I came home from school and found a small envelope waiting for me. Inside was my license, dated January 19, 1937: operating privileges Class C, station call sign W5GGV. I was 14 years old at the time. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: WTB: Guy wire stuff
IIRC, the 'grips' used by power companies are NOT the same as used by tower installers? Seems like this was discussed on TowerTalk several years ago. Seems like the overall length of the 'grip' was different and ? As no one wants to do this twice or have a tower to come down, might be worth confirming the above. Hope this helps! 73 de Billy, AA4NU - Original Message - From: "Bill Wichers" To: donov...@starpower.net Cc: "Carl" , topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:37:30 PM Subject: Re: Topband: WTB: Guy wire stuff The "Big Grips" are just the ones for the larger diameter cables. I think they start at 1/2" and go up from there. It's rare to see utilities use larger than 3/8", and 1/4" is by far the most common with the telecom industry. All of the dead end / preform guy grips are rated for the breaking strength of the cable they are designed for. -Bill > -Original Message- > From: donov...@starpower.net [mailto:donov...@starpower.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:40 PM > To: Bill Wichers > Cc: Carl; topband@contesting.com > Subject: Re: Topband: WTB: Guy wire stuff > > Tower guys should use Big Grips, not the performs used by electric utilities. > You can purchase Big Grips from Texas Towers and many other suppliers > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
