Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
There is no question about vertical vs horizontal and also time of NVIS vs low angle prop. The question started about whether the L was the same as a T. Its not. However, ad Mark states, having 2 antennas is the solution, both doing what they are designed to do, well. I do this on 80 as well with a horizontal bi-directional beam designed for low angle radiation to Europe off of a steep ridge. It works. Bit to the SW its simply a 3,5 dbd gain at 65ft. A cloud warmer to a large extent. I also have vertical slopers to the SW and NW and they kick tail to West Coast and Pacific vs the beam. Years ago, I had a low dipole on 160M. I am planning to re-install one for the same reasons. It worked really well around New England. It came down to put up a second tower many years ago and didn’t go back up. Ed N1UR From: Mpridesti [mailto:mpride...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 8:17 AM To: Richard (Rick) Karlquist Cc: Don Kirk; Mike Waters; Ed Sawyer; topband Subject: Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis Interesting topic Rick To your comment regarding close in signals on 160, have some thoughts here: Agree on the 40 and 80 stuff. I use a low inverted Vee for local contacts. Typically I can barely hear the locals on my vertical system (80). Very dramatic difference in signal level. On 160, I have also have a low inverted Vee (65 ft) and a 4 square of inverted L elements. It is very apparent the inverted L array does carry horizontal (high angle) polarization as it works well with both low and high angle stuff. I still find the close by stations are sometimes better on the inverted Vee (100 miles) but vertical system is not too far behind. My conclusion is the same effect we see on 80 (vertical vs. horizontal) is nearly the same as 160 except because my vertical system still has some high angle takeoff, the difference is not as pronounced. Certainly confirms the top L portion generates a fair amount of high angle. It’s the best I can do at this place. Just one man’s story. Regards, Mark, K1RX 603-231-8965 On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:13 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote: On 3/1/2020 7:44 PM, Don Kirk wrote: Hi Rick, My first example is why NVIS can be useful. I often can't hear stations 150 miles away on 160 meters using my TX vertical, but they are booming in on my pennant that has a much better response to higher angle signals (I could definitely generate more points in a 160 meter contest if I had the option to switch to an NVIS TX antenna at times). We can deal with fading, phase cancellation at times, etc. in our hobby, but in the AM broadcast industry they want to preserve signal and audio quality as much as possible all of the time so it's really a different situation. 73, Don (wd8dsb) OK, Don, that's a fair argument. I should be able to do some simple tests on the BCB comparing my car radio with a whip to a pocket radio with a ferrite rod antenna. The ferrite rod antenna is omnidirectional wrt to elevation on account of symmetry. At sunset, the SF Bay Area stations reduce power and become hard to hear 70 miles away here in Sacramento county on the car radio. My Sangean radio should pull these in a lot better. I will do some A/B'ing. I completely agree that for 80 and 40 meter contests, vertical miss out on all the close in stations. I have 80 and 40 meter cloud warmers for SS, etc. I'm just not so sure that this happens on 160 meters. Rick N6RK _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
Mike and others. All you have to do is model it to see the result. The more horizontal component of an L, the lower the max gain of the low angle vertical portion. If you counter that with worse and worse ground losses, absorbing the low angle vertical radiation, you can make the numbers do whatever you want. That’s the only way I can see to get to the described data that K2AV is describing. The fact that it is all sitting on a tiny FCP ground system on his link speaks volumes as to why his data looks like it does. But it is not comparable certainly to my system nor many others. 73 Ed N1UR From: Mike Waters [mailto:mikew...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 3:10 PM To: Ed Sawyer Cc: Guy Olinger K2AV; topband Subject: Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis Hi Ed, I can appreciate your line of thinking. However, I am 99% certain that he --and others-- published what he said here well before he came up with his FCP design. Also, other technical gurus here have long stated the same thing. Also, his original site crashed, and I don't believe the FCP stuff was there until later. But that's a moot point. I don't use an FCP, since I have room for elevated resonant radials here. But it's a great compromise for those on postage-stamp size city lots. :-) I just saw your other message as I was typing this reply. You have a higher degree than I have. Perhaps others will comment on this. I hope so. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 1:58 PM Ed Sawyer wrote: No attack intended. But his website is titled Folded Counter Poise. And that compromise ground system has a lot to do with his data. I don’t have a folded counterpoise under my 160M Ts. ON4UN’s book is far more instructive generically about a T vs an inverted L under efficient ground systems. You might look to read it. _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
No attack intended. But his website is titled Folded Counter Poise. And that compromise ground system has a lot to do with his data. I don’t have a folded counterpoise under my 160M Ts. ON4UN’s book is far more instructive generically about a T vs an inverted L under efficient ground systems. You might look to read it. 73 Ed N1UR From: Mike Waters [mailto:mikew...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 2:47 PM To: Ed Sawyer Cc: Guy Olinger K2AV; topband Subject: Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis Ed, Shame on you for attacking Guy. He knows much more and has far more accurate info about this subject that you and I combined. Many of us have learned that when Guy posts information here, it is as technically accurate as it comes. This has absolutely nothing to do with his folded counterpoise. You are very much mistaken, sir. Respectfully, Mike W0BTU On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 12:26 PM Ed Sawyer wrote: Guy. Its interesting reading. But it makes A LOT of assumptions tied to your promotion of the folded counter poise. ... _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
Guy. Its interesting reading. But it makes A LOT of assumptions tied to your promotion of the folded counter poise. If, in fact, you have invested in a significant ground screen under the vertical feed, you actually WANT the lower angle radiation near the ground. And if there is no “trade” as to the height and location of the T vs the vertical, you don’t “lose power in the pattern” by having a T. I agree with you that as a compromise antenna, the L has a lot of real world advantages putting energy in a number of directions more favorably than the Top loaded vertical (T or otherwise). But if you are looking for the comparable efficiency of a full size ¼ wave vertical with 50 – 70% of the height, and you only want pure vertical radiation pattern, there is no comparison between an L and a T with the same vertical height and a good ground radial system. I never knew there was a Folded Counterpoise Society before. Thanks for sharing. Ed N1UR From: Guy Olinger K2AV [mailto:k2av@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 12:56 PM To: Ed Sawyer Cc: TopBand List Subject: Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis Have to disagree on the no-use-for the horizontal leg. It fills in the doughnut hole in the high angle radiation, which in contests is very good for keeping others from planting on your run frequency. Also there are high angle path opportunities that are gradually becoming more recognized. PLUS, the horizontal section does not remove power from the vertical wire. In front of the vertical, the direction with the horizontal pulling away from the bend in the opposite direction, there is a good deal of net field reduction at the ground. This power, not lost in the ground, is instead left in the pattern. This is discussed in k2av.com with illustrations. Click on "Design an Inverted L", then down at the paragraph "Vertical WIre part of the L" and following. Also the radiation of the horizontal wire off its end quadrants is vertically polarized, not horizontal. Not desired energy off the horizontal wire is a gross oversimplification, that has stuck around for entirely too long. 73, Guy K2AV On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:38 PM Ed Sawyer wrote: Mike, I am not sure where you find your information, but ALL of the radiation of a T top vertical is vertically polarized assuming the T section is balanced. The whole point of the T is that the horizontal portions of the radiation cancel themselves out because they are 180 degs out of phase. Providing loading but not distorting the vertical pattern and not using that wasted horizontal energy. An inverted L, while simple, is exactly the opposite. A portion of the energy is in the vertical section and a portion in the horizontal section. On 160M, whatever the length is of the horizontal section, its not desired energy for DX work. Although it may actually be helpful as a more all-around antenna for local and DX work for this reason. The smaller the ratio of horizontal to vertical, the less this compromise exists. However very few stations that say they are using an inverted L on 160 have 100ft plus of it vertical. Much more typical is 50 - 75 ft. And the horizontal portion is usually longer, sometime a lot longer, than the vertical portion. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
Mike, I am not sure where you find your information, but ALL of the radiation of a T top vertical is vertically polarized assuming the T section is balanced. The whole point of the T is that the horizontal portions of the radiation cancel themselves out because they are 180 degs out of phase. Providing loading but not distorting the vertical pattern and not using that wasted horizontal energy. An inverted L, while simple, is exactly the opposite. A portion of the energy is in the vertical section and a portion in the horizontal section. On 160M, whatever the length is of the horizontal section, its not desired energy for DX work. Although it may actually be helpful as a more all-around antenna for local and DX work for this reason. The smaller the ratio of horizontal to vertical, the less this compromise exists. However very few stations that say they are using an inverted L on 160 have 100ft plus of it vertical. Much more typical is 50 - 75 ft. And the horizontal portion is usually longer, sometime a lot longer, than the vertical portion. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
"The discussion has involved horizontally polarized Yagis. Perhaps use a vertical 8 circle array on 40m! LOL And keep your T-Top! " Bob, W7RH Bob, Someone else will have to do that effort. I only model things that are relevant to my station. I have no problem sharing the results though. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: T Top Verticals and yagis
Frank had brought up the interaction of certain T top loading wires and the possible interaction with yagis. I played around with modelling on this and found that just as Frank said, there is interaction of T top wires and yagis. One thing I found was that if the wire is in the front pattern of the yagi it is much more influenced if the wire is the front 1/3 portion rather than the sides and back of the yagi. I didn't find meaningful distortion in the back area 200 ft away but closer than that and approaching the front, and there was definite distortion. Interesting topic Frank. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: AA0RS result CQ160 SSB
AA0RS was a real alligator out this way. Myself and others calling and not able to hear. He eventually called me after I kicked on the amp for the last 90 mins of my participation. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T-loaded vertical
Rick said it better. Thanks Rick. The T has been a great performer for me in 4 different locations over the years. I swear by it for 55 - 70 ft vertical sections. Ed N1UR -Original Message- From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist [mailto:rich...@karlquist.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 3:04 PM To: Ed Sawyer; donov...@starpower.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: T-loaded vertical On 2/19/2020 11:50 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: > I have personally found that for Ts that are only 70 ft vertical, like mine, > the ground losses of the long topped L are not as desirable as the cancelled > out horizontal lobes of the T. If the T were say 90 ft of vertical, I don’t > think the T adds as much value. > Ed N1UR > > When you model an inverted L, the driving point resistance goes up when you lengthen the top. This it appears that you decreased ground losses and your efficiency goes up. However, if model vertical polarized radiation vs input power, you find that your effective efficiency actually goes down. Extending the inverted L top out to where you have a 1/4 wavelength of wire seems very elegant. The antenna reaches resonance at 1830 and you get a low VSWR without using a tuner. If you model that vs a T vertical, there is no comparison. The T wins. Rick N6RK _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: T-loaded vertical
Frank, You will have me grabbing my EZNEC tonight and playing around. In my case my tops are around 60 ft long and they are thankfully perpendicular to my 20M yagi and about 120 ft away. However if I beam west on my 40M yagi. I am 100 ft away and parallel to the wire. I need to take a look at that. It gets me thinking about the reverse. Could it “enhance” a direction if properly designed? My back T is 250ft even further so almost 400 ft from either tower. Same T design. I have personally found that for Ts that are only 70 ft vertical, like mine, the ground losses of the long topped L are not as desirable as the cancelled out horizontal lobes of the T. If the T were say 90 ft of vertical, I don’t think the T adds as much value. Ed N1UR From: donov...@starpower.net [mailto:donov...@starpower.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:13 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: T-loaded vertical Hi Ed, The affect of the T-vertical on a nearby HF Yagi is easily modeled in EZNEC or your favorite antenna modelling program. You'll be surprised by the results if the horizontal top is +/- 15% of resonance on 40 or 20 meters, for example. HF Yagi performance degradation occurs within ten (yes, ten) wavelengths, but its especially severe within a few wavelengths (wavelengths in terms of the HF Yagi, not 160 meter wavelengths). There's no magic distance beyond which parasitic effects no longer occur. If any conductor carries RF current, its magnitude and phase enters into the determination of the radiation pattern of the antenna system, even if that conductor is ten wavelengths away from the main radiator. Ask any AM broadcast antenna engineer about this... (if you can still find one). Maybe K3LR... For many hams, installing a nearby second tower sets back their station performance. Why? Because the antennas on the second tower degrade the performance of antennas on the first tower and visa-versa. Exactly the same situation occurs when a parasitic element -- in this case the flat top of a T-vertical -- is installed within several wavelengths of HF Yagis (wavelengths in terms of the HF Yagis, not 160 meter wavelengths). We learn from our mistakes... I've made exactly the same mistakes with T-verticals, multiple towers with HF Yagis for the same band, and HF Yagi booms that are resonant within an HF band (e.g., when I installed a 72 foot boom 20 meter Yagi a few hundred feet from a 40 meter Yagi on another tower). For example, I have 20 meter Yagis on two towers spaced 300 feet apart. The Yagis on the rear tower are badly degraded when pointing into the the 20 meter Yagis 300 feet in front of it. They work perfectly well when pointed at least +/- 30 degrees away from the 20M Yagis 300 feet in front. HF Yagi performance degradation is insignificant when an HF Yagi points away from the horizontal top of a T-vertical. But when the Yagi is turned so its the 3 dB beamwidth intercepts the horizontal top of a T-vertical, all hell breaks loose with: - significantly degraded HF Yagi front-to-back ratio, - additional sidelobes, - splitting of the main beam of the HF Yagi into two or more lobes, - reduced gain The bottom line: If you care about the performance of your HF Yagis, select the length of the horizontal section of a T-vertical so its not within +/- 15% of resonance on any HF band you care about. 40 to 60 feet lengths do not interfere with any HF band other than 30 meters. Or use an inverted-L rather than a T-vertical and you'll have no problem at all, and -- from practical on the air performance -- an inverted-L is imperceptibly worse than a T-vertical. I no longer have any T-verticals... 73 Frank W3LPL _ From: "Ed Sawyer" To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 6:13:02 PM Subject: Re: Topband: T-loaded vertical The answer to the top loading is that the top is essentially the same as if it was an L on the antenna - just with the connection point moved to the center. I would add maybe 5 ft on either side of the top to that equation and see what it looks like when you install. And, like other verticals. If it gives you a good SWR right off the bat, then your ground losses are too high. It ideally wants to be around 20 Ohms. I can't get mine down past 30 Ohms because of the really poor ground in Vermont. I started with 24 and kept adding 6 radials (1/4 wave) at a time until I saw no difference with the feed point impedance adding the next 6. That had me end at 48 radials per T on a 2 el phased array. I was surprised by Frank's comments. I would get 50 - 75 feet away - but "hundreds of feet away" would seem too far to have a parasitic element have effect on a yagi. Especially a 10, 15, or 20M yagi. I guess it would be easily modelled to see. Ed N1UR __
Re: Topband: T-loaded vertical
The answer to the top loading is that the top is essentially the same as if it was an L on the antenna - just with the connection point moved to the center. I would add maybe 5 ft on either side of the top to that equation and see what it looks like when you install. And, like other verticals. If it gives you a good SWR right off the bat, then your ground losses are too high. It ideally wants to be around 20 Ohms. I can't get mine down past 30 Ohms because of the really poor ground in Vermont. I started with 24 and kept adding 6 radials (1/4 wave) at a time until I saw no difference with the feed point impedance adding the next 6. That had me end at 48 radials per T on a 2 el phased array. I was surprised by Frank's comments. I would get 50 - 75 feet away - but "hundreds of feet away" would seem too far to have a parasitic element have effect on a yagi. Especially a 10, 15, or 20M yagi. I guess it would be easily modelled to see. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: CQ WW 160 CW - SK..
Working sub-audible signals form JA to Zone 2 comes to mind. Or exploring daylight paths that don’t support audible signals. They are all interesting and achievements in their own right, they just need to be distinguished and separate in my opinion. But such is one man's opinion. Ed N1UR -Original Message- From: Cecil [mailto:chac...@cableone.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:32 PM To: Ed Sawyer Cc: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW 160 CW - SK.. Still taking pokes at the FT8 ops. What would constitute an exceptional achievement on FT8? That’s like telling CW guys that their achievements aren’t really noteworthy compared to how the Sideband guys have done it. Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Feb 12, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote: > > ”Although when someone announces an incredible achievement on top band that > could only be achieved using FT8, we need to be sure that it is not glossed > over that it doesn't make it necessarily a great lifetime achievement vs the > way others were doing it. It isn't.” > > > > Ed N1UR > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: CQ WW 160 CW - SK..
I have to differ somewhat with the comment that Topband Reflector should not be used to discuss suspect cheating on 160M. Where else can someone's concern that "that just doesn't sound/look/smell right" come to? Its possible that others observed the same thing on the band and maybe it actually wasn't cheating even though originally suspected. This IS the place where such conversations should occur. Going on and on about generic cheating or digital concerns, I agree is not helpful. Although when someone announces an incredible achievement on top band that could only be achieved using FT8, we need to be sure that it is not glossed over that it doesn't make it necessarily a great lifetime achievement vs the way others were doing it. It isn't. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: CQ WW Observations
There has been a number of varying comments about last weekend's contest. I thought some might be interested in my observations. I entered the contest using 100 W Low Power driving a 2 el phased T top vertical array with 45 radials below each element. The station is located in Vermont, about 150 miles from the coast in W1. Friday was seriously "not good" to Europe from this QTH. 80% of the EU stations CQing in my face as I am calling. A handful of EU callers to CQs. Many of those were spot chasing from skimmer and could really hear me (multiple ? and repeats on the exchange). Saturday to start the contest I went from 2130 - 2300Z low power. It was "a little better" calling EU stations but nor significantly. I had 10 stations I had put up on the band map to try again. I decided to go high power for the second night - a 13db increase in signal. I went back and called the 10 EU stations on the band map. I worked 5. Got ??? a few times from 2. And had 3 still CQ in my face. About 1 hour later, while CQing, EU finally opened up here. I put about 100 - 10 pointers in the log in the next 90 minutes - which saw the rate meter hit 150 an hour a number of times. Those are always fun. What would that 90 mins have been low power? Not sure. The point is, the conditions were not "fabulous" everywhere. Saturday night from 01 - 05Z was great. Other than that, not so much, from here. The TopBand goddess is a fickle mistress. Makes the band fun. Enjoy the great stuff when you have it. Just don't assume everyone is saying the same thing at the same time. On Topband that is almost never the case. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX CW Activity Night - Clarification
Roger. Thank you for promoting this. With this week being US Thanksgiving holiday, you may see less activity on tonight. A LOT of us are off work and doing family things. Thanks for the Q last weekend. 73 Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Why is ZONE 2 so Rare in JAPAN???
As JFK said "not because its easy but because its hard". Making it easy by "decoding inaudible signals" should give no true 160M fan pleasure. The whole point of learning the prop and building the transmit and receive arrays and placing stations near the coast etc etc etc is BECAUSE its hard. A Zone 2 160M DXpedition for CQ 160 CW would be a far better place and time to try and work Asia, in my opinion. Zone 2 to Asia should stay hard, otherwise whats the pleasure? I worked BY long path on 80M for my one and only zone 24 on 80M. Have never worked it on 160M. I hope to someday. But will skip the "sub audible" attempts to make that happen. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Beverage Length vs F/B or (RDF?)
I can't speak to switchable bi-directional arrays but I can speak to my 900ft terminated beverage (450 Ohm resistor to a ground rod with 2 - 1 / 4 wave radials per band). It has 20db plus front to back ratio on 40 - 160M. The gain is sometime not much more than half an S unit to one S unit vs my bi-directional 600 ft beverage (un-terminated), but the front to back comparison is literally shocking sometimes. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 160 is alive!
Tom. I had the same thing going here but thankfully the project was finished a couple of weeks ago and this weekend is my “get it back to where it was” weekend. But still, I had one of my 2 T top verticals available and just was not on this morning. Thanks to Tree’s nudge, I am not going to do that again! Ed N1UR From: Thomas Hoyer [mailto:thoy...@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 3:30 PM To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: 160 is alive! Figures Only need a couple more countries for DXCC and my TB antenna is down for the next couple months due to a construction project going on in the yard. The contractor didn't want to "work around" the guy lines on the vertical - which really were in his way - so I took the vertical down temporarily. Of course this construction project was supposed to be done in June and they just got started two weeks ago. Hopefully I'll be back on by mid December and there will be some good DX left over (CW only for me). Need to run a bunch of new radials as the excavation has torn up about 25% of them. Tom W3TA -Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2019 1:13 pm Subject: Re: Topband: 160 is alive! Yes it is. And all on CW. I am sorry I was not able to be on this morning. 73 Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband <http://www.contesting.com/_topband> - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 160 is alive!
Yes it is. And all on CW. I am sorry I was not able to be on this morning. 73 Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Drones for antenna installation?
Actually Gary, if you added the weight to the front of the arrow as I describe, it drops right through all the branches no problem, but has accuracy. Trust me, I know. I have missed a shot or 2, cleared many trees, and it still drops right to the ground. Without the weight, I used to lose arrows all the time. 73 Ed N1UR Message: 10 Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2019 18:45:35 -0400 From: "Gary Smith" To: Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Drones for antenna installation? Message-ID: <5d6c4a0f.24531.1fe...@gary.ka1j.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Ed, The reason I now only use the spud is I have no single easy tree to get over, it's a forest I have to shoot into, and the arrow is too light to bring itself down through the branches with a fishing line attached. I first used slingshots & the lead weight was hard to find in the woods. Then I tried arrows where I was having them hang in the branches. The spud weighs about a pound and it drops right through the branches, never hangs up. If someone is shooting over a stand-alone tree, an arrow or slingshot would likely be perfect. 73, Gary KA1J _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Drones for antenna installation?
Interesting discussion on shooting antenna wires in trees. I have used a bow and arrow for 25 years. Cheap practice bow (good for trees up to 100ft) and practice arrows with an open tip. I fill the tip with a few nuts (ie nuts and bolts nuts) and tape the end shut which gives just a bit of weight to the arrow - nose down. This hampers the distance capability a bit but still allows clearing of a 100 ft tree. And then the arrow drops like a stone through the tree branches. I have not lost an arrow in many many years. I have developed pretty darned good accuracy over the years. So while drone is cool, the need is not there, and the loss of an occasional $2 arrow is a non-issue compared to a $200 - $750 drone. I am always surprised that people don't use the bow and arrow more. Spud guns and slingshots seem to be more popular. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: FYI Robot contacts "outlawed" by ARRL
Actually, I think this topic is very relevant to the "fringe bands" like 160M and 6M. The way I read the purposely non-detailed direction from the board "contemporaneous direct initiation by the operator on both sides of the contact.". With the known software in mind, that would look to say that as long as you click on the callsign to be worked, it counts, even if it got worked hours later while you slept. But after it is worked, the next callsign has to have been clicked. Which could be the next on the stack of calls of what you saw before you went to bed. So I don't see anything preventing someone from seeing and clicking on half a dozen calls before bedtime and waking up with all or many of them worked. Since 160M is a nighttime band and often the peak is in the middle of the night local time for EU or AF, it's a very relevant 160M DX topic. Is this okay? I don't think so. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: 160
Folks, for me, the real issue is the lack of people coming on CW on 160M for DXpeditions. Lets be honest, many people don't like the struggle of Qs on 160 like we do. And many are not great at CW. By using FT8 on 160, they can "satisfy" topbanders while they operate on another band at the same time - routinely done all the time now by the way. Is that automated? Don't really care personally. The problem is they just don't show up on CW. Increasingly, for the whole DXpedition. So that has added an additional element to 160 DXing for me - prop, competition, and praying they get on CW. I made the choice early on - not using FT8 and kidding myself that is somehow me working the station - plus honestly, its not fun. Might be satisfying to see the counter go green, but if you compare it to sex, I think it will make sense. If your robot does it, is it the same? Enough said. It really doesn't even matter about the award discussion. If DXpeditions are not operating 160 on CW, who cares? For me, its trashed 160M DXIng. And I am sure I am not alone. You will find me on the bands working whoever is left. But the quest for 160M countries is over for me. Sad but done. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: BOG height
Isn't BOG still a beverage just with more ground coupling loss because its literally "on the ground"? So the typical answer on beverages seems to be that 4 - 10 ft above the ground is low enough to eliminate the undesired noise but high enough to reduce the losses from being too low to the ground. A BOG is a beverage with higher than desired losses. But if its long enough, pointed in the right direction, and your ground conductivity is accommodating, its less of a trade than the reverse of those items. I have had a few unplanned BOGs that were discovered as "on the ground" because of some supports falling down. I could immediately hear the difference, but they still worked. Would they be usable if that was my only option? Sure. Just not as good as the same wire at 6 - 8 ft. I use 650 - 1000 ft terminated beverages and they are quite amazing. My ground condition is lossy and I don't have much local noise to null out. Its pretty much all atmospheric noise. Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Summer Update & a Surprise
I reached the same pivot point that Jeff did this year but choose the other path. I have left DXing from a band perspective. FT8 is not enjoyable to me and doing something not enjoyable to build totals is not a good use of time for me. I am looking for 9BWAZ and ATNO counters on modes now only. Hoping that there will remain some remaining activity on the fringe bands to make that pursuit still enjoyable. Unfortunately, with all due respect to Jeff, the decisions made on 6M are exactly why 160 CW WILL be killed and those looking at their growing FT8 band totals can look in the mirror and thank themselves for insuring it. Don't let 160M become exactly 6M by just joining in and then bemoaning its demise on CW. Thankfully, CW and SSB contesting is thriving and continues to be a fantastic experience for me. I am focusing my radio time on those areas and keeping my eye on 9BWAZ and my few remaining mode ATNO opportunities. Lots of fun ahead to try and work about my remaining 10 zones on 160M and 4 zones on 80M. Now is the time at the low end of the cycle. I don't say anything negative to people making choices different than mine. But don't kid yourselves on how your own choices are affecting the outcome. THEY ARE! Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: RFI on TB
I use beverage "almost" all the time for receive on 160M. However, there are times, clearly a minority, when listening on my phased array of 2 verticals is better. When conditions are super quiet in the winter and signals are weak from a very distant station. Don't rule out your Transmit antenna all the time. 73 Ed N1UR _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Beet Antenna Choice?
Personally, I think that there will be no vertically polarized solution to 3 crank up towers so close to each other. Its actually hard to imagine any of the bands not having a problem based on what is described. If it were me, I would go with an inverted V at 106 ft and make sure the legs are a clean 45 degrees off the top. Personally, I have used loaded legs on an inverted vee with success and that increases the efficiency since the ends are now much higher above the ground. A trade of coil loss to ground loss. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Phased verticals..Summary
I am not sure why people responded privately on this topic. But here is my reply: All methods can be used. The "hard phase reversal" with equal lengths of coax works (in my experience) however it makes the DC component "shorted" and can mess up switching options. The properly cut 180 deg additional phase lag coax works better (especially if its low loss coax) since there is no DC short introduced, The "phase box" works, and is a necessity in my opinion for anything but 180 and in phase solutions, but is not a simple build - test project to work as designed. My 160M phased T top verticals have simple switching for - both in phase - both 180 out of phase - and just the rear antenna (which is not fully omni directional because of passive interaction). All switched with a simple relay box I made. That gives enough patterns to play with to find one that works in most situations. The 180 out of phase is "end fire" towards EU. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Beverage Antenna Tuning
I find that my 600 to 1000 ft terminated beverages are quite capable. Clearly, if someone doesn't the room, then other options need to be explored. But the front to back ratio and SNR of my 1000 ft beverage to Europe is nothing short of amazing when it comes to hearing. Even with 1.5kW on 80 and 160M, I sometimes hear surprise in the voice of the EU station calling me that I can actually hear them Q5. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX Activity Night
Roger. My guess is that it is considered "season over" by most of the boys. I rarely get on 160M after early April unless there is a specific DXpedition on. I don't think I am alone. In some cases, people even lose antenna options for the summer due to coexisting with farmers and other activities. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Straws in the wind, continued or, "Where's the DX?"
KA1J stated "this is a licensed sport, I see it in some ways like fishing which is also a licensed sport; some catch and keep, some catch and release, some pay big bucks to fly to way out of the way places that most can't afford to do, to get the big fish, some fish the docks. Some like to go on Charter boats, some fish off the shore. Some get famous for fishing (River Monsters) and others compete in an even field to see whose skill is better. Some use a trot line, some use nets, some spear, some remove the barbs from the hooks, some try to get their families involved and some go fishing to get away from their families, and so on, and so on. Each of us has our idea of what Ham Radio should be. Some keep it to themselves, some feel the need to vent but one thing is for sure, we like finding other hams that think as we do. Some of us feel if someone sees things differently, then they are some kind of threat to what we hold sacred, anything negative in the woodpile is the beginning of the end. To me, each of us is competing against ourselves and anything else is like spitting into the wind. If I spent every penny I own on ham equipment, there will be so many more that have far more money than that available as chump change. Any contest I enter, no matter how well I did, someone in my call area could have done better if they had better location, equipment or time into it. All I can do is compete against me and then it is fun. If someone uses CW and hates FT8 or RTTY, whatever the mode and I use FT8, we're not competing against each other, but some see it as a threat to what they see as the brass ring. All my antennas are wire, how can I compete with stacked monobanders? My 160 is a sloper and at max, 50' tall, how can I compete with a full size 4 Square or better? I can't. Nor do I find any value in comparing what I have to do to make a Q compared to what they have to do to make the same contact. I'm happy for them, they're having fun and so am I so everyone wins. DXCC, I need one more for Honor Roll. It's my game against me, not me against some station that makes contacts easier than me. In that light; It's futile to complain about a mode someone else uses in getting the same award because its easier for them not doing it my way. Their award has a value to them and it's not up to me or within my power to assign worth just because I don't like their mode. I personally prefer CW, enjoy RTTY but RTTY is to me pretty much like FT8. One can argue that RTTY with N1MM+, MMTTY and a pan-adapter still require some playing with to make the Q but if the software were out there to do it as automatically as FT8 and make quicker Q's... you can bet your bottom dollar it would be the new contest mode the moment it's released. Bottom line is: If it is a popular mode it is not going away and nobody disliking it will make any difference in the final outcome." This was not the original point of Jeff's (VY2ZM) post actually. The point was that the DX to be worked was no longer available because they were on FT8. So its not a matter of preference, it's a matter of is the DX even there to be worked on the mode you desire. Specific to fringe bands like 160M and 10M and 6M, I can see this becoming a problem on DXpeditions if there is not an "expert on the team" that enjoys those bands. Plus if you are trying to "make big numbers" it could be more Q productive to have the robot working 160, 10, and 6 and have the human operators work the other bands. It looks to me like VHF contesting is about to be decimated for the CW/SSB op in favor of robots working each other on FT8. I am glad I am not into VHF contesting. So a personal choice is one thing. But having the choice removed is another. My original point was that if those (like me) don't like the trend, we should make choices not to join it, otherwise we shouldn't be surprised if the trend continues. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 7Q7EI on 160
Thanks for that link. I think that this will be a recurring theme going forward. 160M is hard. That what makes it fun for many of us. Is it still fun if FT8 is used? Is it more fun to use FT8 than wait for "the next one" and hope it comes? I think we are all making these decisions. How does the FT8 decision differ from using a remote receiver? Or a remote station to bridge a gap? It doesn't. All are using technology enabled by the net or software written to bridge the RF gap of making the circuit with the traditional mode like CW. We will all make our own decisions on that. My original point is that if we take the early gratification route of "getting in the log", however that is done, we can't then get upset if less and less traditional mode exists in the hard environment like 160M. Personally, for me only, its not worth making those compromises to what I enjoy, to just log the band fill. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: My personal thinking
As I said in the post - "in my opinion". You are most free to disagree with it. Other people's opinions should never be disturbing when no personal attack is made. And none was. Regardless of the above. Very sorry if my opinion offended anyone. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Straws in the Wind ....A 160m Dx'ing Sea Change is Upon us!
My thoughts on FT8: - How is it actually a Q from our normal perspective? The comments Jeff made on the fact that 2 operators (on both sides of the circuit) could see evidence of each other for 20 minutes before the "computers" finally made the connection - is proof that the operator is not making the QSO. - There is a floating robot in the Pacific making FT8 QSOs with people right now - unattended. - 3Z9DX has stated that they will leave an FT8 station going 24/7 (which means unattended) on T31. - Are these what we want to count as QSOs? What about in contests - FT8 is already infiltrating VHF contests. Should they be considered valid contest Qs - while you sleep? - I agree with Jeff and others that for people that that consider topband a PTA to operate and/or are not CW operators - 160M looks like the perfect place to drop a robot and go concentrate on something else. But isn't this a slippery slope? What about 10M/12M since the sunspots are low. Or 80M because the static crashes in the tropics are terrible - etc. Before you know it the whole DXpedition is an FT8 robot while the "crew" is lounging about the pool with the XYL/YLs. - If we continue to facilitate such nonsense, they we deserve what we get in my opinion. If we decide that the band counter is so important we don't care how we have to get it, then its time to look in the mirror folks. - On the other hand, maybe some people are happier with the computer doing the heavy lifting of digging out the QSO. Personally, count me out of that list. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 9M0W - 160M
Jeff, great write-up. Thank you. I never heard 9M0W on either 80 or 160 on any of the days and listened many of the SS and SR both long and short path. Using beverages and the YX array since noise wasn't bad here over that time. Worked 9M0W on 40M for a new band. Never heard on 30 - 10 either. Oh well. I though people might want to hear a few notes about my trip to Layang - Layang literally 10 years ago as 9M6/N1UR. My wife Christine (KB1PQN) were there for a week from March 14 - 23 2008. Pretty identical conditions actually. We also had challenges getting the antennas to the right places vs feed line length and location and noise. I didn't attempt 160M because conditions were so bad and we were only running 100W. I did have a loaded vertical up on 80M and worked the West coast of NA and some of the stronger stations in Europe. We were welcomed by the staff at the resort however they should have been better prepared for our arrival given the notice they had but were not and ended up scrambling to accommodate. Generator issues occurred all week as a fact of life. We had no problems thankfully on the flight over. It was the weekly flight using an Otter. Very weight limited and we had everything in 2 golf case carriers and 2 large suitcases. We paid quite a bit for extra weight each way - around $400 as I remember. We actually stayed at that fantastic Shangri-La but it was during the Currency Crisis of Asia - Pacific and the hotel was begging for business. Probably paid $125 a night or something like that. It was amazing for a night before and after the trip. I found out from one of the military that the reason the Dive Resort does not open before the week you went is for fear of a Typhoon during the Oct - Feb period. There is no way to evacuate everyone quickly and the height of the island is less than 1 meter above ASL. A storm surge could be devastating. So there may never be a good common darkness to East Coast USA time from Layang Laynag. Christine and I made 8,500 Qs that week - which was combined with some R & R and snorkeling. 100W and just 3 simple vertical and arrays. Thanks for all of your efforts despite "no joy" on top band from this end. 73 Ed N1UR ex (9M6/N1UR and XX9TEP) _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: topband qrm from industries
I have not heard of long distance solar array QRM on the HF bands. I have a few moderate sized ones with a mile or 2 from me and I hear nothing from them (very low noise QTH). Very close in (less than 1 - 2000ft) might be a very different story. I would be interested to hear of other topbanders observations. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Working dupes on a band
The FT8 QSOs may be "proper" for a computer. Just not for a human. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
I worked VU2GSM on 80M a couple of weeks ago. He was 559 and very copyable on my N/S 800 ft beverage. Yes, he did come right back to me. But I didn't think much of it. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: VU2GSM webSDR use
Paul, You should check the rules on that WiFi linked beverage. In CQ WW for instance, its not allowed. All RX and TX antennas have to be connected by wires. Some contests - like CQ 160 - allow your set up within the rules. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: My beverage only hears static?
I think the first question is - whats you steady noise level with your TX antenna? Maybe S5 is a 30db improvement. If not, in my experience - steady state noise is either a local point source close to the antenna (is there anything along the path or within a few hundred feet of the end? Houses, light poles, etc?) The other is bad coax system picking up coupled noise. The easiest way to get to the bottom of that is to use a radio that can be brought right to the beverage feed (off the transformer). Whats the actual SWR at that point with a known good coax jumper? Then whats the noise with a radio at that point? Vs in the shack? Also, what is the noise floor during the day vs the night? Let us know the results of these. Here my beverages (with preamp off) have S1 noise on 160 typically vs S6-7 on the TX verticals on a typical evening. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 181, Issue 5
Bob, Thanks for your Topband efforts from HS. Still a needed zone for me (and I am sure many) on topband. In fact one of just a couple I still need on 80M. The path to Vermont is a tough one. I only heard you once, sometime over the holiday time, despite many times looking for you once spotted. Using 800 ft long terminated beverages here with preamps as possible with noise floor. Hoping for better polar path conditions over the next 2 - 3 years. 73 and Thank you! Ed N1UR Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 03:53:18 + (UTC) From: Bob Kupps To: TopBand List Subject: Topband: HS0ZIA Message-ID: <1740963086.794674.1515124398...@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi HS0ZIA is now CL until May. I logged 294 unique calls in the last 6 weeks of part time activity (I do not live at the station) on 160m outside of any contest activity and those who seem to want another QSO every day, mostly in EU and AS. I spent most of the SP test listening for the big stations but the only NA I was able to hear or work this year was located in western USA using a full size 8 circle TX array. The HiZ monoband 8 circle RX array here appears to be working very well but I hope to improve our RX capability in the propagated tropical QRN soon with 2 HWF arrays that I will try to phase with each other as well as work in diversity with the HiZ 8 circle using the fabulous Flex 6700 RX. Hopefully low band conditions will improve as we approach the bottom of the solar cycle and we can QSO more NA stations on topband this coming fall... 73 Bob HS0ZIA _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM
The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode sounds. There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M antenna "isn't working the way it used to". But then hit the tuner button and call it a day. This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on autonomous vehicles. When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on highways). Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans. And because IT is the one needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for it. For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10 "channels" it requires for future growth. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
You should ask that question on the FT8 users group actually. There is an interest group that is wanting to use the frequency for a short time. When you get there (or can you tell your computer) and there is already activity - can you QSY to 30M? Why is it that the FT8 interest group takes precedence over the contesting group actually? If you think that 1838 - 1941 will remain QRM from for the 160M contest So if not me, it will be one of the other 1000 participants globally that are happy to use the found clear frequency. Sounds like you have an agenda Greg. 73 Ed N1UR -Original Message- From: Greg [mailto:n...@windstream.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:44 PM To: sawye...@earthlink.net Subject: RE: Topband: FT8 qrm Just because you have the right to be on a frequency, if you know another interest group wants to use it and it has become that group's normal operating segment -- whether by gentleman's agreement or band plan, then why do you feel the need to use that space? Just selfish I guess. No one questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other options that don't create a conflict. FT8 is no more flawed than CW. If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency, you won't be able to copy either. Does that make CW a flawed mode? I'm not advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense. It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world seems to be getting less hospitable all the time. Unfortunate. 73, Greg-N4CC -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "gentleman" is respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated. No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license. If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency. By the way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M. If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my opinion. I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a complete waste of time and abandoning it. I hear 3Y is going to try it - that should be hilarious. I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right since June. Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "gentleman" is respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated. No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license. If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency. By the way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M. If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my opinion. I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a complete waste of time and abandoning it. I hear 3Y is going to try it - that should be hilarious. I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right since June. Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
I worked G4IIY at about 03Z on Sunday morning. Ian was one of the most consistent signals CQing and heard from my end (nice job Ian). However - no one from EU was strong. A few of the Carib and Zone 33 stations were strong some of the time but even then not frequently. I worked EI9E around the same time as G4IIY but EI9E was not quite as strong and if he was CQing frequently then he wasn't heard a lot here. Many EU stations were at the noise level on the end of my phased 1000 ft beverages to EU. They clearly could not hear the USA well. I worked a total of 15 EU stations in this contest. It ranks as one of the top 5 worst CQ WW 160/80/40 conditions in memory (since 1997 for me). See you all on for a bit in ARRL 160. 73 Ed N1UR (2 el phased array and 1.5kw from Vermont) _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Beverage construction
I have found that a common source of noise on beverage systems is the need to use the small F type connectors and the crappy F type coax that is often on the jumpers as well as just converting it all to the final input to your receiver. Try the simplest but clean and checked coax directly from the beverage to the receiver first to see if there is any noise. Then add in the elements that might be present on the normal way into the shack and through any items along the way. I had a high pass broadcast filter that was the cause of noise at one point. A beverage with no preamp should be MUCH quieter than your transmit antenna on 80. In my case it's a 6 S unit drop. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Relocation to mountainous area
Central Vermont (my QTH) has just about the worst conductivity soil in the US. Glacial till on top of Granite. One of the USs largest and oldest Granite mines is only 5 miles from my QTH and is visible across the valley when I am on the tower. Having lived in W5 (Houston area), I know how wonderful packed clay can be for good conductivity. I have a 2 el T top phased array (70 ft vertical elements). Each has about 50 radials on the ground. 75% are ¼ wave and the balance are the length they could be given the terrain and obstructions. I used the method of continuing to lay radials as long as the last 4 8 radials reduced the input impedance to closer to ideal. If the measurement doesnt change much after laying 4 8 radials, you are reaching diminishing returns. The difference between 8 radials and 32 radials is inspiring enough to keep laying radials. They work well. How much better would they work with Clay conductivity out 5 wavelengths? No idea. They do not work as well as W1KM Salt March thats for sure. I cannot comment on the HiZ receive array. But I have long, terminated beverages that work very well and are known performers for poor conductivity soil if you have the room. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Digital modes on TB and power required
I can't speak to JT65 as I have never used it. But on CW, I used 100 - 200W only for 10 years. T top vertical with 40 radials under and really crappy soil. Beverages in many directions. I was able to work 140 Countries and 30 zones. I now have a 1.5kW amp and phased verticals and am working on 200 countries and the rest of the zones. Its breaking the pileups on the long haul stuff that looks to be virtually impossible without an amp. But DXCC is not impossible. While W1 is a great DX contest location, having lived in W5, W4, W8 and W7, I can tell you that it DXCC is no easier in W1. In fact it was far easier in W5 and W7 than in W1. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT-1000MP
I agree with others on the IPO on 160 - 40 which defeats the "Tuned" preamp. I personally don't default to attenuation of any value. It depends on the noise level and the bandwidth. On CW (which is the most common on 160) and a fairly narrow bandwidth, I often use no attenuation whatsoever with my terminated beverages and have worked many DX stations which would not be heard if 18dB of attenuation were selected. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 2 element vertical for 80m with 1/8wavelength
I can't speak to verticals spaced that tightly but I can speak to dipoles spaced that tightly. I have 2 phased half wave dipoles spaced 1/8 apart and fed 180 degs out of phase. I get nice gain (looks like a solid S unit or ~5db as expected from on the air tests). But the bandwidth has to be managed. The 2:1 BW is no more than 125khz. No issue on CW when I use my CW stub setting but a definite issue going from 3850 down to 3600 in an SSB contest. And additionally, the impedance is very difficult to match. I have used open wire line feeders and found the 50 Ohm matching point to tap off - I believe about 3/8 wave down the feed line for each element. The impedance changes significantly as you shift frequency. I have opted to use a remote tuner at the connection point of the 2 feeders to get full band SSB coverage which works slick. The verticals will present different impedances than the dipoles, but I would think the complexity of the 1/8 wave separation and phasing would be a similar bronco to ride. By the way it's a "kick @#s" antenna to EU. I often get "loudest USA station" reports when running in a SSB DX contest. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: VK0EK confirmation
Personally, I don't agree that the occasional wisdom obtained from Jim's posts is worth being subjected to the unprofessional attitude and comments that all of us are subjected to on the many forums that he appears. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Half slopers ???
Are we talking half slopers or quarter wave slopers here. I have a 70 ft tower and had very poor performance with quarter wave slopers on either band (80/160). On 80 I tried a resonant roughly 65 ft wire with the shield bonded to the tower at the top. For 160 added a loading coil near the bottom. Very poor for me. Soil is very poor ground conductivity here in VT. I now use half wave sloping dipoles in 3 directions on 80M (70 ft long with center spaced loading coils fed in the middle) and they work FB! I have many times in contests worked a guy first call on one and gotten a ??? on the other. I see an S unit difference on the different directions. I think for 160M, your only chance with a 50 ft tower is to try and shunt feed it with a full tower length shunt drop wire and tuning system at the bottom of the shunt. It could work well from CO if you are near the ocean and have decent conductivity soil. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?
It is common practice in the CQ WW 160M Contest for CQing on the NA and EU side to occur in the 1810 - 1825 range. I was doing so twice in the contest last weekend. It was pretty much every 3khz CQing in the range both Friday and Saturday nights including NA and EU CQing stations. For the last 5 or 6 years, as far as I can remember, this has been the case. I had a number of EU stations call me Friday night between 23 and 00Z plus well over 100 NA callers. I was on 1811. I had dinner then came back and heard no one in the region of 1811 around 0130Z. I started CQing. I was immediately told that an ET was below me on CW (in SSB). So I stopped, listened, heard the ET7L station listening up. Stopped and worked him on CW in about 3 calls for a new zone on 160 (ya!) and then went and CQ'd somewhere else. I swept by that pileup over an hour later and it was still clear of SSB - so whatever was being attempted was working. ZF2AM was down CQing around 1806 and there were 3 or 4 other CQing stations within 1810 - 1800. I never CQ down there because EU can't call you. There are really only 3 contests heavy with SSB on 160. ARRL DX SSB, CQ WW SSB, and CQ WW 160 SSB. WPX is zero, FD is essentially zero, and IARU is essentially zero. Maybe NAQP? Not sure, don't really do those. Is this really a problem? I don't think so. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Demo of the value of one dB
K1DG stated: "A couple of years ago I did a quick analysis and discovered he was right! The control case was N1UR, who operated the CQWW contest many years in the low power category, then turned on an amplifier and raised his score about 75%, or about 6% per dB! Same op, same QTH, same antennas, just 12dB more signal." As the control case, I can add some color. Its true, other than rewiring baluns for high power and replacing marginal coax and connectors that could take 1.5kW, there was virtually no difference between the 2013 - 2014 season and the 2014 - 2015 season except the addition of a 1.5kW amp. I did run 150W in the ARRL DX contests but only 100W in CQ WW. The BIG difference is on 160 with power - a game changer. On 80, its helpful but much less of a game changer. With the exception of the fringe contacts like JA or PY on 75 SSB in CQ WW, then it's the difference big time. On 40M SSB, it's a game changer to hold a run frequency - which I could not do for long with Low Power. For 15 and 10M, its only a game changer on the noise floor. And the average speed getting in and out of big piles. It always amazed me though how many piles I could crack with low power. I have often played with 100W vs 200W on 160 (I have an FT1000MP Mk V). There are MANY times that 200W makes the Q (sometimes with ease) and the 100W is barely a question mark. For reference, the antenna farm here: 10M - 8el EU, 4 el south, 4 el turn 15M - 8 el EU, 3 el south, 6 el turn 20M - 4/4 EU and turn and 3 el south 40 - 3 el turn and 2 el south 80 - 2 el wire beam plus slopers 160 - 2 el vert phased array EU and omni positions Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Antenna Tuners
I have been successfully using the MFJ-998RT successfully on a 2 el 80M phased wire array. The 2 el wire beam has great performance but is very narrow banded (about 100khz) so I decided to try this tuner mounted on the tower at the feed point of the connection to the 2 phasing cables. It works successfully. I have it set up with a switchable 12V power line to be able to reset it from the shack in case it locks up. What I like about this unit is that it will NOT tune with more than 200W so if it goes into tune mode while running high power, it simply shuts down and waits for power to be removed and then exciter power retunes it and away you go again. It's a race by the millisecond to see whether my amp clicks off or the MFJ does in that case. I have not tried it on any other band but have been very impressed with it at 1.5kW on 80M in a complex tuning scenario with the phased wire beam. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: W8JI is bailing out of this reflector?
Personally, I did not observe commentary deserving of someone leaving a reflector that they have enjoyed for 20 years. I do believe that Tom got tweaked by hearing opinions on RHR which questioned whether its ethically used or potentially had liability for use of his station and didn't like it. Sounds like he may be have some second thoughts about joining into that fray. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: strange propagation
A very interesting interpretation of the FCC regs by a former FCC official. Whether a liability lawyer would agree with him is debatable in my opinion. Just like a bartender can be liable for serving drinks to an obviously drunk person who then goes off and kills someone in a driving accident, so would station owners who stand by and hear of illegal use of their equipment and "relinquished" station license on a repeat basis. In my opinion. I have no issue with "Remote Ham Radio" as a company nor the technology use for the purposes. Unlike others, my DXCC is not affected by shortcuts others take to achieve it. I know what I do for mine and sleep well at night. However - I don't believe that the liability of allowing internet users to use our stations is "settled law". And some people may be in for a surprise. And before Lou says I called it illegal, Ididn't. I said the LIABILITY of your equipment being repeatedly used to break the law has NOT been settled in my opinion. The test case will certainly not be my station. Be careful if its yours. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: strange propagation
Thankfully, this is not the case. The FCC rules are quite clear on this issue. From Section 107 of Part 97 FCC rules: “(a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator is a different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons are equally responsible for proper operation of the station. (b) The station licensee must designate the station control operator. The FCC will presume that the station licensee is also the control operator, unless documentation to the contrary is in the station records. (c) The station licensee must make the station and the station records available for inspection upon request by an FCC representative. N1UR From: Ed Sawyer [mailto:sawye...@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:05 AM To: 'Louis Parascondola'; 'topband@contesting.com' Subject: RE: Topband: strange propagation It would be hard to believe that the control operator is outside the US, beyond the FCC jurisdiction, and no one in the US is responsible. If that is the case, its pretty scary in my opinion. 73 Ed N1UR From: Louis Parascondola [mailto:gudguy...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 3:28 AM To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation I can't be 100% sure but I think this will all wash down to the fact that stations are no longer licensed and the control operator is fully responsible. And I do believe that is the case. RHR has lawyers on retainer and I'm sure this has been legally looked at. I can get the ruling they go by. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: 'Louis Parascondola' ; topband Sent: Fri, Jan 15, 2016 02:58 AM Subject: RE: Topband: strange propagation Correct, but if he doesn’t, its actually the primary responsibility of the control operator/station owner to shut down the station to prevent further illegal transmissions. Ed N1UR From: Louis Parascondola [mailto:gudguy...@aol.com <mailto:gudguy...@aol.com?> ] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:53 AM To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation It is the same thing as if he was here physically, he must use his call with a / w2 or whatever. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying (ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of transmissions made from their station. I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder, would shut these games down in a hurry. I wonder if the RHR station owners that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these circumstances. I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter at some point and the game will quickly change. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: strange propagation
It would be hard to believe that the control operator is outside the US, beyond the FCC jurisdiction, and no one in the US is responsible. If that is the case, its pretty scary in my opinion. 73 Ed N1UR From: Louis Parascondola [mailto:gudguy...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 3:28 AM To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation I can't be 100% sure but I think this will all wash down to the fact that stations are no longer licensed and the control operator is fully responsible. And I do believe that is the case. RHR has lawyers on retainer and I'm sure this has been legally looked at. I can get the ruling they go by. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message----- From: Ed Sawyer To: 'Louis Parascondola' ; topband Sent: Fri, Jan 15, 2016 02:58 AM Subject: RE: Topband: strange propagation Correct, but if he doesn’t, its actually the primary responsibility of the control operator/station owner to shut down the station to prevent further illegal transmissions. Ed N1UR From: Louis Parascondola [mailto:gudguy...@aol.com <mailto:gudguy...@aol.com?> ] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:53 AM To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation It is the same thing as if he was here physically, he must use his call with a / w2 or whatever. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying (ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of transmissions made from their station. I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder, would shut these games down in a hurry. I wonder if the RHR station owners that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these circumstances. I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter at some point and the game will quickly change. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: strange propagation
Correct, but if he doesn’t, its actually the primary responsibility of the control operator/station owner to shut down the station to prevent further illegal transmissions. Ed N1UR From: Louis Parascondola [mailto:gudguy...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:53 AM To: sawye...@earthlink.net; topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation It is the same thing as if he was here physically, he must use his call with a / w2 or whatever. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Ed Sawyer To: topband Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying (ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of transmissions made from their station. I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder, would shut these games down in a hurry. I wonder if the RHR station owners that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these circumstances. I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter at some point and the game will quickly change. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: strange propagation
In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying (ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC would consider the station owner the control operator and therefore responsible for the proper IDing of transmissions made from their station. I would think a few fines issued by the FCC to the remote station holder, would shut these games down in a hurry. I wonder if the RHR station owners that are being leased out by individuals realize their liability in these circumstances. I think some people will be shocked with a certified letter at some point and the game will quickly change. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Strange propagation
I am sure that this is someone remoting. Nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. They can legally use their own call assuming they are licensed to be where they are, which isn't hard on 160M. And its no different than someone operating from their second home which many ops do. Its just way more efficient. But isn't that our world today. Good news is that is activity on the bands and someone using the radio to DX. How can we complain with that? It seems non-trivial to me as to how to maintain these remote stations. I seem to frequently be going out at my place and fixing something. The other day I discovered a massive tree branch had come down and ripped out the feed and some radial connections on my "omni" vertical for 160, Luckily it didn't rip down the antenna out of the trees. Took me 2 hours to wire it all back together and be back up and running. Who does it if the station is remote? Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Received Signal Strengths
I guess that this question was pretty useless for this group. Sorry for asking. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Received Signal Strengths
The 5NN discussion brought up an interesting subject to me. Signal strengths reported on 75M SSB are funny to listen too as people seem to be in a "mines bigger than yours" competition on how many dB above S9 a signal is. Meanwhile their noise floor is probably S7 or more - what's the point? Here at N1UR, on 160, I have switchable T verticals (EU direction and Omni). I NEVER listen on them. Nighttime noise floor is typically S5 - 7 in the winter on them with static crashes well over S9 if there is storming in the east half of the US (for CW). I have done some signal strength comparisons with EU stations and Carib stations vs my beverages. Typically, on 160M, I leave the preamp off for my beverages. The received noise floor for my N/S beverage (on CW) is usually S2 - 3 and for my phased EU beverages is S0 to S1. I have found the signal strengths of the received stations to be 1 to 2 S units down on the beverage and equal or stronger on the beverage if I turn the preamp on - with usually a rise in the noise floor by a 1 or 2 S units. Interestingly, on 80M CW, I usually use the beverage preamp. The signal often comes up 3 - 4 S units and the noise only 1 to 2 S units. I often drop in some attenuation to make the noise floor "just" go away. What do others see as the difference in transmit antenna vs low noise antenna signal strengths? N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Commercial 160 antennas?
Guys, the point of the original posts, if you actually read it, was from someone who is balancing their limitations vs an antenna choice. If a significant portion of the radial field desired is un obtainable, then vertical antennas are not the defacto choice necessarily. As someone with 2 phased T top verticals and over 10,000 ft of radial wire on the ground, I get that. But not everyone has the interest, ability, or circumstance to install the "best" antenna. While an inverted vee at 90 ft puts a lot of signal in the wrong direction for most prop. All top banders know that there are times when it actually IS the best antenna. Not often, but with ducting conditions, sometimes. And if your ground losses are terrible through poor radial efficiency, the signal level at desired radiation angles, starts getting a lot closer than you would realize. We would do better sometimes to stop talking ideal and actually help posters when they state a question with clear compromises and limitations. In my opinion anyway. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Commercial 160 antennas?
Bill, Given the info that you have provided, it sounds like you dont have lots of room for almost anything if the room needed is radial field in certain directions from the tower. And re guying the tower is out as well. My suggestion for a simple job, is to have someone climb the tower and put a pulley and rope at the top. An inverted vee with a peak at 90 ft and the end of the antenna legs at least 50 ft off the ground will do a reasonable job for you. Alternatively, an inverted L, with 4 elevated radials at least 10 ft off the ground 15 ft is better will do pretty well with the kink of the L at 90 feet. I would align the elevated radials so that only one is needed in the difficult overbrush. Then I would measure out 125 ft of 16 AWG insulated wire, and launch the radial out of the pricker brush with a slingshot. Ed N1UR I have 2 T top verticals with tops at 80 ft and 45 ¼ wave radials under each end fire into EU and switched OMNI for everybody else. Takes up a lot of real estate but works FB. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO????
When did this become the QRP reflector? There has to be some better place for this expanding and off topic dialog than here. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: safely sharing an RX antenna
I have a pair of 900 ft parallel beverages to the NE. The feed point of the beverages is approximately 350 ft from the closest of the 2 T verticals. The T verticals pattern is directly towards the beverage array since both point NE. Obviously the beverages go away from the array to the NE. I can transmit with 1.5kW and be listening 15khz away with the preamp off on the beverage antenna and hear very well but with some interference (maybe s5 - 6). At 25 - 30khz away I can hear the noise floor while transmitting. You hear the thumping of the noise but its not increasing the meter. This is with a 250khz wide filter. The 2 radios are FT1000MPs sharing the same beverage with a 3db splitter. On SSB, the interference is worse and I have to add about 10dB of pad to the above. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 160m LP to LP DX contacts in 2015
Bob, I am not sure if you are aware that KP4KE allegations and confirmed actions are legendary. People have operated from his station and never had the same result (can't imagine why). Also, KP4KE was legendary for self spotting. He asked me to spot him one year in the ARRL DX contest and I just ignored him. I noticed later that N1UR spotted KP4KE. Hard for me to do unconnected to the internet at the time. There is not a Top bander on the planet that believes KP4KE was using 5W in many of the claimed contest operations. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: beverage layout
Are you actually talking about "switched 2 direction beverages" or 2 bi-directional beverages. A bi-directional beverage receives in 2 directions at the same time on a single wire. It is un-terminated. I have 2 of these in my beverage farm: one E/W and one N/S. A switched single direction 2 wire beverage can be switched for pattern and can be implemented with ladder line or closely spaced individual wires. K1TTT has great resources on his website for such designs, as do others. Personally, I do not find the gain differences that big between my beverage choices (although they are measurable). The GAME CHANGER is F/B ratio. I have a phased 2 wire array to EU with 2 terminated wires of approx. 950 ft in length spaced roughly 50 ft apart and running parallel. The US stations on 40 and 80M drop by 5 S units vs the bi-direction beverage running E/W. The EU station goes up by roughly an S unit. For contesting - it's a game changer. On 160M I see less F/B impact but similar 1 s Unit gain in the EU direction. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Top Hat Vertical
Same here. My T vertical for 160 is 100 ft vertical and 82 ft horizontal. That makes the antenna resonant below the band, with a feedpoint Z of 50 ohms plus some inductive reactance on 160M. I add series C to tune out the L. The same idea will certainly work on 80M. I believe that this antenna is functioning as a 3/8 wave vertical. Which is nice, but not necessary for good performance. I have a 70 ft high vertical portion with a total hat of about 45 ft (22.5 ft x 2). It resonates at 1.84Mhz with 20 Ohm impedance. It is fed against a ground rod and 45 radials mostly ¼ long. Works quite well. Ed _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Salt-Water Qth!
The best write up and data I have seen on this subject was the "team vertical" report on test done in Jamaica back about 10 or more years ago. As I recall, the vertical signal strength to low angle DX went up "dramatically" within 2 or less wavelengths of the edge of the high water mark and maybe leveled off as "fantastic" from within 0.5 wavelength. But further and further away past 2 wavelengths, the signal strengths dropped away and had very diminishing effects. I don't recall how far back before the benefits were disappointing but that article has the answers you need. Just scale it for 160 or 80M vs their 40 - 10M data. By the way, I used a vertical as 9M6/N1UR at Layang Layang island in the Spratlys in 1998. 40 and 30M performance was "amazing" but 20 - 10 was good but not great. The vertical was placed about 100 feet from the edge of the water. So it would have been just under a wavelength on 40, just over on 30, and 2 - 3 wavelengths on 20 - 10. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems
I agree with John's (KK9A) commentary but not necessarily that it needs a new category. Just add it to the assisted category. Leave the unassisted category as is. Assisted is an evolving slippery slope anyway and more of these things will emerge - no doubt. Assisted is really "technology and internet assisted" so however that manifests itself, so be it. The contest sponsors are typically resistant to adding new categories and I don't blame them. Each add has low power, high power, QRP versions and plaques and certificates and complication of reporting. Just accept assisted is assisted and like we accepted skimmer and RBN into the old definition of "packet cluster spots" so will this advancement. Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
Shouldn't this topic be dealt with at a generic level rather than CQ WW 160? The remote receiver is as valuable on 80 or 40 as it is on 160 in a contest. I agree wholeheartedly with the feeling that the use of a remote receiver should not be allowed in ANY contest in the unassisted category, let alone the 160 Contest. So why just deal with it here? To me, radiosport contesting is segregating into 2 camps. There is no reason those camps cannot co-exist to everyone's mutual benefit. There is the "maximize my score/fun potentially the easiest and fastest way possible - but regardless do everything available" camp and there is the "incremental technical improvement of an established standard - so that a baseline comparison can always be made" camp. We have generally defined the last one to be SO Unassisted and the first one to be essentially all the other categories - single op or multi op. Personally, I think that the assisted crowd needs to realize that it's a slippery slope. So once you coordinate the radio with the internet, it becomes petty to start slicing the onion finely and say that finding all my mults through RBN and DX Summit is okay but someone listening remotely is not. If you are a "technology should expand the experience" believer - then you take the good with the bad in my opinion. Let 'em do it all in the unassisted category and make that "arms race" the interconnectivity race. The unassisted category can continue in the hardware and on-site innovation arms race. Both competing amongst themselves and both benefitting from a combined "event" on competition day. Its similar to Golf (with different tees and "gentlemen's rules - vs PGA rules played at the same time) or a road race with elite runners carefully controlled vs the rest of the crowd. The event is bigger and sustainable with the 2 groups and it doesn't matter what the other group is doing as long as your group is all you are competing against. Finally, in talking to a few of the contest directors, a lot of their interest in "relaxing the rules" to allow things like assisted and remote receiving stems from the feeling that the contest organizers are required to enforce all of their rules. And of course - how can a contest organizer enforce the use of where you are listening. Virtually impossible. Maybe it is time for the competitive sect of the radiosport community to relieve the contest sponsors of that burden. We can set up our own methods of enforcement and monitoring to make the competition as fair as it can be. Thoughts? Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
