Re: Topband: QRP on 160?
Ah! So "zero power" on a K3 is not actually zero?! Good to know! Ken WA8JXM On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:46 AM Mike Furrey wrote: > I accidentally made a QRP Q on 160 ... I had just moved and set up my > station and wanted to test a feature off the air but couldn't find a dummy > load. So, I cranked the power of the K3 to zero, dropped my call, NO3M > came back with a report. That dude has some ears! > 73, Mike WA5POK > > On Monday, July 1, 2024 at 10:59:20 PM CDT, Ken WA8JXM < > wa8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For the younger crowd, 25 watts was the max power allowed in several 160m > segments (especially the opposite coast) back in the 60's and 70's. 100w > was the max anywhere in the U.S. > > When I first got on 160 in 1964, working two states away was > often considered DX for me! > > Yes, there were exceptional stations, but they were rare. > > Ken WA8JXM > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:57 PM Radio KH6O wrote: > > > Is anyone regularly using say, 25W or less on 160? > > > > -- > > 73, > > Jeff KH6O / 6 > > _ > > 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: QRP on 160?
For the younger crowd, 25 watts was the max power allowed in several 160m segments (especially the opposite coast) back in the 60's and 70's. 100w was the max anywhere in the U.S. When I first got on 160 in 1964, working two states away was often considered DX for me! Yes, there were exceptional stations, but they were rare. Ken WA8JXM On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:57 PM Radio KH6O wrote: > Is anyone regularly using say, 25W or less on 160? > > -- > 73, > Jeff KH6O / 6 > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Remotes
I agree with Mark. Can I claim a 5000 mile 2m QSO by remotely operating a station 4999 miles away that can communicate with the DX station in the same village? Ken WA8JXM On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:35 AM lmlangenfeld wrote: > The fundamental questions seem to be: What is the purpose of a DX QSO? > What does a DX contact signify?In my book, three things:(1) The ability to > assemble a station capable of making the contact;(2) An understanding of > propagation sufficient to identify and exploit the path; and(3) Sufficient > operating skill to complete the contact within the constraints of (1) and > (2).Otherwise, what's the point? Without these three things, why bother > with radio?Mark -- WA9ETWSent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Remotes
Why is it important what someone else does? Doesn't our fulfillment come from what **we** do? I admit, I'm not a competitive person. I prefer to be amazed at what I can do with my own skills, including the antenna I experiment with, Someone else blows $50,000 on an antenna and works a weak 9K2 station. Okay, bully for him, that doesn't change what I do. Some people can buy their DXCC, others earn it. I have 132 (or so) confirmed countries but that's just for me. I haven't sent it in for League approval, why should I care what Newington collects money for? Heck, back 30 or 40 years ago, I cleaned out the shack and pitched all my certificates and QSL cards, 78 countries at the time. It doesn't matter, **I** know I had done that before spotting networks or any of the modern crutches. It's a HOBBY, it's a PASTIME. YMMV. Ken WA8JXM On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tree wrote: > "*I'm still stuck in the 1970's with my Drake line.*" > > Nothing wrong with that. :-) > > Tree N6TR > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 5:45 PM Charles Morrison < > charles.morrison.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > * If you want to "fix it", petition to change DXCC to read:* > > > > * "4-digit GRID SQUARE" -or- * > > > > * "Same State" -or- * > > > > *"Same Antenna for all contacts"* > > > > * -or- "wearing the same clothes as you wore for your first confirmed > > country" * > > > > *instead of "within your country."* > > > > > > *Then the people who are whining now will still whine = * > > > > *Oh, he's on the higher peak in my grid,* > > > > *Oh, he's visiting his buddy with the 4-Square and they're having a > > pizza -&- beer party and I love pizza too. * > > > > *My old clothes dont fit any more.* > > > > *My dial-up mode is too slow for today's internet.* > > > > *I'm still stuck in the 1970's with my Drake line.* > > > > > > *DXCC RULE 9. Station Location and Boundary:* > > > > *a)* All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be > > located within the same DXCC entity. > > *c)* QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations are > > allowed to be used for DXCC credit. > > > > > > Back in the day the A.M operators complained about the SSB guys > > "slop-bucket" > > > > So much complaining... > > _ > > 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: Using 4 - 6 elevated radials in lieu of 120 buried wires
> > > One thing to bear in mind throughout any analysis of such designs for 160M > is > that the total focus of the Broadcast designs and measurements and proofs > is > energy at zero degrees elevation. Our needs benefit from low angle > radiation, > for certain, but, little attention is paid by the broadcasters and by the > modeling programs to position and shape of elevated lobes, or for that > matter, > the shape of the main lobe above zero elevation > Actually WLW, 700, Cincinnati reduced their tower height to raise their angle so that the "first hop" hit the Columbus market, about 100 miles away. I believe this was after their 500KW era. BTW, that tower is now almost 90 years old and even survived a small plane crashing into it There's a lot of interesting engineering and history with WLW. Powell Crosley was an innovator, Supposedly the half megawatt transmitter is still operational and licensed. Ken WA8JXM Ken WA8JXM. On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 2:59 AM Jim Brown wrote: > On 1/4/2024 9:53 PM, Robin wrote: > > Milt Jensen, N5IA (SK) constructed his original (circa 1990s) 160M > > station TX antenna based on a similar design I encouraged him use. He > > built a 180 ft tower with an insulator at 50 ft, Four elevated quarter > > wave radials, each made of a box of four pieces of # 12. This was on > > his "city" lot where buried radials were impossible > > > > It worked very well, We did not have the tools to make real field > > strength measurements to compare to a model, but on air performance was > > excellent > > Some thoughts about that particular installation and why it worked well, > based on my study of Rudy Severns' excellent work on the topic. > > The earth is a big resistor, and thus a lossy place for return current > to flow. Radials are intended to prevent the antenna's field, and its > return current, from seeing the earth. > > The closer they are to the earth, the greater the resistance that > couples to them. The more there are of them, the more evenly current > divides between them, and since P = I squared R, where R is the loss > coupled from the earth, when the radials are close to the earth, the > more radials we have, the less total power will be dissipated in their > combination. THAT'S why more on-ground radials are important. That is, > because power is related to I squared, but I divides by the number of > radials, the total power lost is inversely proportional to the number of > equal radials. > > Current in radials close to the ground also is affected by variations in > the conductivity under them, which caused Rudy to recommend as many > elevated radials as practical. Also to keep the currents more equal, he > recommended making them slightly shorter than resonant. And he observed > that in radials longer than a quarter wave, current increases as we move > away from the feedpoint, reaching a maxima a quarter wave from the end. > > But because Milt's radials were so high, there would have been very > little coupling to the earth, thus none of Rudy's concerns matter. AND > the higher feedpoint which is the current maxima on a quarter-wave > antenna, (and thus the higher max current point), it improves the > vertical pattern. > > BTW -- none of this thinking is new to me, it's what I learned from > studying Rudy's work -- except that the light bulb that lit up for me > was that power division concept as WHY "more is better" for on-ground > radials. > > Another thing I learned from N6BT, who we all know has worked > extensively with verticals, is that to be reasonably efficient on > topband they must be at least 20 ft above the ground. > > 73, Jim K9YC > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Using 4 - 6 elevated radials in lieu of 120 buried wires
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I have seen similar information in one of the ARRL manuals, that elevated, insulated radials are more efficient than the typical ham buried 30 or 40 radials Perhaps that originated from the information you posted. Is it okay if I post your information to a ham antennas group? Ken WA8JXM On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:58 PM Radio KH6O wrote: > Attached is an interesting research paper by Clarence Beverage. > > -- > 73, > Jeff KH6O > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
