Re: Topband: Relay bounce

[John Battin]

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Wayne Kline
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 14:02
To: Steve London; 
Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Relay bounce

Steve,
I am not sure it is contact bounce.  I look would at grounding or other issues 
that would conduct transients of the relay coils into the RF stream.
John k9dx


My frist thought is to clean the contacts ( there open frame relays)

   For changing the relays Direct replacement  difficult . The Co that makes 
them  produces them in limited runs for  Amerirtron

   GL


Wayne ,W3EA
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Steve London
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Topband
Subject: Topband: Relay bounce

I am using an Ameritron RCS-4 antenna switch to select between beverage
antennas. Recently, it has developed a bad case of relay bounce causing an
S9 spike every time I switch between antennas. Any suggestions on how to
improve this ? Since it's only used for RX antenna selection, I'm amenable
to replacing the relays with something else, although I have had issues
before with other relays due to no current going through the contacts.

Thanks and 73,
Steve, N2IC
_
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: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta than shorter versions??

[john battin]

As W8JI pointed out, it is a matter of angle. At my antenna farm a few years 
ago, I Built two "killer" beverages. Each was a pair of phased 1500 foot 
beverages ... one set on Europe and one on Japan. They were useless compared to 
the vertical array and other beverages 600 to 800 feet long. I took doen the 
European pair but left the NW pair up for two seasons. A few times it worked 
better on a couple UA0 signals. There are more times 160 is open to very high 
angles than very low ones.

John
 

> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:45:41 -0700
> From: ac...@yahoo.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta than shorter versions??
> 
> Note that for 1 kW of applied power, the maximum inverse distance field 1 
> >mile from a 5/8-wave vertical is 275 mV/m compared to 195 mV/m from a 
> >1/4-wave vertical. >The difference is 20log(275/195) = 2.99 dB, which 
> >supports the point of my 
> >post.
> Sure, over perfect ground the 5/8 wl has 3db more gain at 0 degrees 
> elevation.. 
> 
> You are talking about theoretical gain. I am talking about real world 
> experience.
> 
> Even if you have access to a location surrounded by Saltwater (like me) the 
> max gain of a real 5/8 wl vertical over 1/4 wl is going to be about 2.2 
> dB,and the elevation angle 5 degrees, the vertical beamwidth 17 degrees.
> Over Average ground - which was where we set up the two verticals in the 
> first place,
> the gain of a 5/8 wl is some 2dB less than the 1/4 wl vertical, the main lobe 
> at 15 deg, and the BW 23 deg.
> The 1/4 wl main lobe is at 26 deg with BW 42 deg!
> After having said that if I only could put up one antenna I would choose an 
> Inverted L over salt water (again).
> Niko AC6DD 
> _
> Topband Reflector
  
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Elevated Radials

[john battin]

This reminds me of an experience I had with a new antenna.  After working 
several days installing a new antenna, I attached it to an a/b switch to 
compare it with my old antenna. I was delighted, the new antenna was always 
better !!!  Then to my dismay I saw I had the switrch reversed ... oh boy... I 
changed the feeds, and continued the test.  Guess what.. the new antenna was 
still always better. 
Lesson learned  human nature and switching antennas in face of QSB.
 
John K9DX 


> From: w...@w8ji.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:00:56 -0500
> Subject: Re: Topband: Elevated Radials
> 
> > I've noted your postings re elevated radials to replace deteriorated 
> > buried
> > radial fields under broadcast towers. I'm familiar with the work and the
> > results. This work, of course was done by professional broadcast engineers
> > with significant instrumentation at their disposal. Of course, they also 
> > had
> > to measure the field intensity in the far field and file it with the FCC.
> > Their work seemed to show that, once we have installed 4 elevated 1/4 wave
> > radials we're reaching the point of "diminishing returns" and that little 
> > is
> > to be gained by increasing the number of radials beyond 4.
> >
> 
> Charlie,
> 
> We shouldn't be critical of people. People believe what they want to 
> believe, including you and all of us. Here is how it really works:
> 
> 1.) In an FCC measurement, a test signal is sent and the SLOPE of 
> attenuation in the far field is used to estimate earth conductivity.
> 
> 2.) A graph (or formula, but generally a graph) based on the measured 
> attenuation slope is used to predict the expected signal at standard 
> distances.
> 
> This creates a problem, because if we look at measurements along a line in 
> any direction, they are often all over the place at various points. The 
> engineer has to smooth the readings out and match a curve, which gives the 
> engineer considerable lattitude depending on how he does the smoothing.
> 
> Even more important, ONE measurement system over one ground that contains 
> multiple old radials of unknown condition and one set of soil conditions 
> does not mean it applies to other conditions.
> 
> By far, the most accurate way to determine a change is to do a direct 
> measurement of what we want to know in an A-B comparison with only the 
> variable we are trying to define changed. This takes out the human emotional 
> factors and other errors, and then rememmber it applies to that case.
> 
> No matter how much we want something to be true, or how much we like or 
> agree with something, this is just how it **really** works. It's human 
> nature to gravitate toward a system that takes little room and installation 
> time, doesn't cost much, and is an "it always works this way" silver bullet.
> 
> We should not pick at people and call people names who point out obvious 
> flaws and limitations in faith-based conclusions. Anyone who has objectively 
> made measurements realizes there is no single universal answer, no matter 
> how nice it would be if there actually was one.
> 
> 73 Tom 
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector
  
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: New 160M high performance receiving antenna at W3LPL

[john battin]

There would be little advantage with the loops because once the side/rear 
response is 20 or so db down,  the RDF is determined by the width of the 
forward lobe. 
John K9DX 

> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:00:13 -0800
> From: r_baka...@yahoo.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: New 160M high performance receiving antenna at W3LPL
> 
> I have been wondering if the antenna element in phased arrays could be a loop 
> rather than a vertical. My thinking is that the loop has some level of 
> directivity so phasing two of them should result in better side lobe 
> suppression compared to a vertical. Is there any merit to this thought? 
> Specifically, will I see better RDF numbers if I were to use loop elements in 
> any of the active 8 and 4 circle systems (e.g., DX Engineering, Hi-Z 
> Antennas, etc.)?
> 
> Rudy N2WQ
> _
> Topband Reflector
  
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: KLM antennas on shunt fed towers

[john battin]

There is a problem.  I had a 4 ele 40 and 5 ele 20m klm on a loaded tower. I 
had a coax balun on the 40 .. arced through the insulation where it was 
taped to the boom and the neighbors reported to me there was a fire on my 
tower. The coax was crisp. 
The 20m beam had a klm balun and it failed  not so dramatic ... but it 
failed.  I grounded the DE on both antennas at their center... made no 
difference to their performance that I could tell... and the problem was gone.  
I had to re-tune the tower because of the increased top loading.
 
John K9DX
 

> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 22:52:43 -0500
> From: ron.e.spen...@gmail.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: KLM antennas on shunt fed towers
> 
> Anyone have problems running a KLM antenna with the 4:! balun and 
> elements insulated from the boom (stock KLM config) on a shunt fed tower 
> for 160? I ask because I have a 6 element 10 on the top of my shunt fed 
> tower and now, after running a kw on 160, the antenna's swr has gone 
> over 2:1 where before it was pretty flat at about 1.2:1 or so. Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks
> Ron N4XD
> ___
> Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.
  
___
Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.

Re: Topband: Help With 80M Array

[john battin]

When you switch directions do you see any (even slight) change in the swr or 
power into the dummy load??? How far do you have to move the frequency before 
you see power increase in the dummy load??
John
K9dx
 

> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:13:09 -0500
> From: olin...@bellsouth.net
> To: wewill...@gmail.com
> CC: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Help With 80M Array
> 
> That sounds more like relays are not being gotten voltage out at the PVS
> switch unit. 1,2,3,G all have to be separate wires to the controller.
> Particularly suspicious like G may be mixed up with one of the 123 guys,
> which would keep any operating voltage from the relays. If you had to do
> any cable splicing and different wire colors on the two runs, that would be
> suspect.
> 
> 73, Guy.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Wayne Willenberg wrote:
> 
> > I recently bought a Comtek 2-element phased vertical array system for 80M.
> > Each vertical is ¼ wavelength in length and the 2 verticals are spaced ¼
> > wavelength apart.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have installed 60-- ¼ wavelength radials in a uniform and symmetrical
> > pattern around the base of the first vertical. Using my AIM 4170 analyzer,
> > I adjusted the length of the first vertical until the minimum SWR was at
> > the frequency I wanted (3.71 MHz). At that frequency, the SWR was 1.4 and
> > the series resistance at the feedpoint measured 35.7 Ohms with a series
> > reactance of 6 Ohms. (If you are curious, the resonant frequency was 3.68
> > MHz.)
> >
> >
> > Next, I assembled the second vertical, making each section and the overall
> > length the same as the first. I then erected the second vertical in a SW
> > direction of the first vertical at a distance from the first vertical of ¼
> > wavelength. I used a transit to make sure the base of the second vertical
> > was at the same elevation as the first vertical.
> >
> >
> > I then installed 60-- ¼ wavelength radials in the same manner as the first
> > vertical. Where the radials of the 2 antennas overlapped, I cut them and
> > soldered them to a 3” piece of copper strip that runs at a 90 degree angle
> > to a reference line connecting the 2 verticals.
> >
> >
> > To make sure the two verticals behaved the same way electrically, I
> > connected my AIM analyzer directly to the feed point of the antenna being
> > tested with 50 feet of coax. (The 50 feet of coax was calibrated out of
> > the measurements.) In taking these measurements, I lowered one antenna to
> > a horizontal position and measured the one vertical that was upright. I
> > then reversed the process. Next I superimposed the scans of both verticals
> > over a frequency range of 3.0 to 4.5 MHz. The traces for the SWR, Theta,
> > and the return loss only varied slightly from each other. For example, the
> > SWR of the first vertical was 1.4 and it was 1.45 for the second vertical.
> >
> >
> > Next, I located the relay box, that contains the hybrid coupler, between
> > the 2 verticals and connected the relay box to each antenna with RG-213
> > that is electrically ¼ wavelength long. I then ran RG-213 from the
> > transmitter port on the relay box back to my shack. I also ran another
> > length or RG-213 from the”50 Ohm Load” port back to a 50 Ohm dummy load in
> > my shack. (All of the RG213 I used was new.) I also ran the control line
> > from the 3-position control box in my shack to the rely box. Finally, I
> > checked the continuity of all of the wiring and also made sure the relays
> > closed or opened in response to the signal from the control box.
> >
> >
> > After all of this effort and expense, I am very disappointed in the
> > performance of the array. I can’t measure the RF output in the NE or SW
> > endfire positions to determine if I am getting any gain, but when I listen
> > to stations in Europe and switch between the NE and SW positions, I can’t
> > see or hear any change in the signal strength. So, I question whether
> > there is any front to back rejection.
> >
> >
> > I returned the relay box to the vendor. They checked it and said it was
> > working correctly.
> >
> >
> > I have used my AIM analyzer to scan the feedline at my shack when the array
> > is in an endfire position. From 3.5 to 4.0 MHz, the SWR slopes downward
> > from 2.5 to 1.5. There is no resonant point, and Theta starts at -30
> > degrees and curves upward to -5 degrees.
> >
> >
> > I increased the frequency scan range and found a distinct null in the SWR
> > at 3.4 MHz. At that frequency, Theta is 0 and the return loss is at the
> > bottom of a very deep “V” trace and measured -36dB.
> >
> > Based on these measurements, it seems to me the mutual coupling between the
> > 2 verticals has moved the minimum SWR and the resonant point of the array,
> > in an end fire configuration, to a point well below the 80M band.
> > *QUESTION
> > 1*: Am I misreading these results?
> >
> >
> > After reading and rereading the chapter in Low Band Dxing on Arrays, the
> > advice is to use

Re: Topband: Antenna analysers in close proximity to BC station

[john battin]

It seems the thread was gone off the original subject, but  and it may have 
been mentioned before  but with my arrays I used an LP-100 with a low power 
transmitter as a source. The high signal levels completely swamps out BC and 
other signals. It reads complex impedences very accurately.
John K9DX

  
___
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com

Re: Topband: METAL DETECTOR

[john battin]

You can take an AM signal generator, feed the radial against ground, and use a 
little portable AM Broadcast radio along the ground to track the wire.  It will 
work even if the wires are quite deep.
John K9DX 

> From: k...@bellsouth.net
> To: TOPBAND@CONTESTING.COM
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:54:04 -0400
> Subject: Topband: METAL DETECTOR
> 
> Has anyone had good success finding radials with a metal detector? They are 
> advertised as being able to find copper and aluminum. W8JI described his 
> method on of using a MFJ antenna analyzer connected through a transformer to 
> the radial system and then using a small receiver with a loop to track the 
> signal. That should work but I was interested in trying the metal detector 
> idea if anyone has had any success. 73 Mike K4PI
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
  
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: K9DX Antenna

[john battin]

I will be dismanteling my remote station this spring and have:
9 special beefed-up Titanex 110 foot verticals  with 160 loading coils, guy 
posts and Philystrand guys. $3000 ea
8 special beefed-up  Titanex 80 meter verticals self supporting  --- $1500 
ea.
 
John K9DX
  
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Topband: BUW ... beverage under water

[john battin]

At one point I tried a 600 foot beverage in the lake in back of the house ... 
had to submerge the feed point to keep it from recieving. Results  same  
directivity ok  signals so weak not even a submerged pre-amp could bring 
them up.
John K9dx 
> From: w...@aol.com
> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:26:40 -0500
> To: 00tlziv...@bsu.edu
> CC: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage under ice
> 
> Same scenario here with BOG. Sensitivity way down but directivity appears 
> same. I may run a new wire on top of the ice cap which is a couple feet thick 
> at this point in NNJ. Prob not solid all way thru -only about 4 inches solid 
> ice cap!
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:05, "Zivney, Terry L." <00tlziv...@bsu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > As a note about my recent posting, I listened early last night to the 
> > under-ice
> > beverages. They still show good directivity on the BC band - I can listen to
> > two different stations on the same frequency by switching beverages.
> > 
> > But, the sensitivity on the ham bands is way down. S9+ signals on
> > 40 were S1, and I couldn't hear band noise on 160 even with the rig's
> > preamp on!
> > 
> > I know this isn't exactly the "beverage on ground" BOG system, but I had
> > hoped it would work adequately. It doesn't, which is why I posted my
> > earlier question.
> > 
> > Terry Zivney, N4TZ/9
> > ___
> > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
  
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: DX Window No Long Relevant

[john battin]

The dx window is very important also here in the midwest. It is a place for dx 
to go without being CQ'ed off the frequency. I do not work US stations in the 
window, and hope that the gentlemans agreement to not CQ there will be revived 
and then replaced by contest rules. 
John K9DX 
> From: n...@cox.net
> To: w...@hotmail.com; topband@contesting.com
> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 07:45:28 -0700
> Subject: Re: Topband: DX Window No Long Relevant
> 
> John,
> If it had not been for the window I could not have worked what I have on 
> 160. I would say it had gotten me at least a dozen new ones. One year I 
> remember giving ON4UN Zone 3 in the window.
> I wish you could walk in my shoes once and do a 160 contest from out here. 
> It might enlighten you.
> 73 Hardy N7RT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John Crovelli" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:19 AM
> Subject: Topband: DX Window No Long Relevant
> 
> 
> >
> > As a courtesy, last weekend our Multi operation, as a courtesy, refrained 
> > from calling CQ in what some still consider the DX Window (1830 - 1835).
> >
> > BUT lets be realistic here, this is 2011, not 1961. Split operation, a 
> > necessary operating technique of the W1BB era is no longer necessary. 
> > Frequency allocations between ITU regions and individual countries have 
> > become more aligned. All world class radios have narrow filtering 
> > capability, etc. fully capable of handling the worst pileups.
> >
> > The need for a "window" has diminished to the point it has become 
> > irrelevant in today's world.
> >
> > Only the ARRL seems to hold onto the notion of a DX window in their 160 
> > contest rules, but they are well known for there slowness to react to 
> > current world realities.
> >
> > So I vote we assume THE 160M DX WINDOW is DEAD and move on to topics 
> > which might have significantly more value to the masses.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > John W2GD/P40W
> >
> >
> > ___
> > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK 
> 
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
  
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK