Re: Topband: 160 power

[Dale Putnam]

and he might have to wait for his WAS.. unless he fixes his rx issues.


Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln

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

Re: Topband: 160 power

[Rob Atkinson]

>I would suggest you work on your receive capability first.
>There's nothing more obvious (and embarrassing) then to
>have people calling you that you can't hear.


It doesn't embarrass me at all.  Once you have done all you can to
improve your rx within reason, then run all the power you can.  If the
other station can't put a signal into my QTH I can copy then that's
his problem.

The new reality is many locations have noise floors that are many many
dB higher than 40 or 50 years ago.  After antennas, a major solution
is power.  If a ham doesn't want to go QRO he has a problem, not me.

I will not let not hearing someone keep me off 160.


73

Rob
K5UJ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 power

[daraymond]

Mike. . .I would suggest you work on your receive capability first.  There's 
nothing more obvious (and embarrassing) then to have people calling you that 
you can't hear.  Beefing up your transmit capability is easily done and can 
come later.  BTW, a good TX array can also significantly help your RX 
capability.


73. . . Dave, W0FLS

-Original Message- 
From: Mike via Topband

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:16 PM
To: rstea...@hotmail.com
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 power

I don't disagree.  I guess my main point is that the lack of Rx/Tx
"balance" in my station is so obvious that the improvement in Rx is by far 
the

most important.  Once I improve my "ears" with the Rx array it will be
interesting to see what I would need to do next, and whether further 
expenditure
of $ should go toward expansion of Rx or Tx capability.  If better Tx is 
the

next step, then I'm sure 1500W will help; but I'd be interested in finding
out whether going to a better Tx ant is next. If you look at cost/db then
the  amp is the winner I think.  I would have to go to a phased vertical
array  to significantly improve the Tx antenna.  I have the real estate, but 
I

suspect cost may be a significant factor. Don't know what it is about Top
Band  but it seems to require just a bit more of everything (skill, 
excellent

receiver, antennas, station design, etc) to be successful.  Hope I'm still
improving all of the above well into old age.

I have noticed quite a bit more 160m activity this winter and dxpeditions
seem to be concentrating more on 80 and 160.  I expected to get 5 or  10 new
ones on 160m this winter and just make DXCC but have 22 new  ones. Even if
conditions aren't actually significantly  improved perhaps the anticipation
of same has markedly increased  activity.  Either way I'm having a great
time.

Mike KD8RQE


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

Re: Topband: 160 power

[Mike via Topband]

I don't disagree.  I guess my main point is that the lack of Rx/Tx  
"balance" in my station is so obvious that the improvement in Rx is by far the  
most important.  Once I improve my "ears" with the Rx array it will be  
interesting to see what I would need to do next, and whether further 
expenditure  
of $ should go toward expansion of Rx or Tx capability.  If better Tx is  the 
next step, then I'm sure 1500W will help; but I'd be interested in finding  
out whether going to a better Tx ant is next. If you look at cost/db then 
the  amp is the winner I think.  I would have to go to a phased vertical 
array  to significantly improve the Tx antenna.  I have the real estate, but  I 
suspect cost may be a significant factor. Don't know what it is about Top 
Band  but it seems to require just a bit more of everything (skill, excellent  
receiver, antennas, station design, etc) to be successful.  Hope I'm still  
improving all of the above well into old age.
 
I have noticed quite a bit more 160m activity this winter and dxpeditions  
seem to be concentrating more on 80 and 160.  I expected to get 5 or  10 new 
ones on 160m this winter and just make DXCC but have 22 new  ones. Even if 
conditions aren't actually significantly  improved perhaps the anticipation 
of same has markedly increased  activity.  Either way I'm having a great 
time.
 
Mike KD8RQE
 
 
In a message dated 3/22/2017 11:55:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rstea...@hotmail.com writes:




Mike says:
I wonder if 1500W would make a difference  when I can hear  better.  I doubt
it.

What?  Mike,  1500 watts is 5 db more signal than you have now.  If you can 
hear  better, such that you aren't getting out well enough why would you 
think 5 db  more wouldn't benefit you?  5 db is HUGE.  You have down lots and  
lots of radials, to make your transmitting antenna more efficient.  Yes,  
by all means 5 db more transmit signal will be ...   wait, I  already 
said that.

Rick  K2XT
_
Topband  Reflector Archives -  http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: 160 power

[Rick Stealey]

Mike says:
I wonder if 1500W would make a difference when I can hear  better.  I doubt
it.

What?  Mike, 1500 watts is 5 db more signal than you have now.  If you can hear 
better, such that you aren't getting out well enough why would you think 5 db 
more wouldn't benefit you?  5 db is HUGE.  You have down lots and lots of 
radials, to make your transmitting antenna more efficient.  Yes, by all means 5 
db more transmit signal will be ...   wait, I already said that.

Rick  K2XT
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 Power

[lmlangenf...@tds.net]

CORRECTION: 32 eighth-wave radials (FWIW).


- Original Message -
From: lmlangenf...@tds.net
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 11:43:54 AM
Subject: Re: 160 Power

My $0.02.

I have added DXCC ## 96-101 so far this season, running 100W into simple wire 
antennas throughout (most recently, a "Lazy L" with 32 quarter-wave radials).  
It took awhile to get this far, and took some patience/determination from my 
upper-midwest (read: "Black Hole") QTH.  But, clearly, it's do-able. There are 
always circumstances where weak propagation or the DX station's receive 
capabilities/noise level will simply not yield a QSO at 100W.  But, for the 
most part, the only times I felt truly disadvantaged were in big and aggressive 
pileups (where, admittedly, 100W simply can't compete).

I can't argue that QRO can be a huge advantage on 160.  At the same time, we 
shouldn't discourage anybody that might want or have to venture onto the band 
barefoot.  You can have good DX success with 100W if you're willing to be 
persistent and invest the time. If you're the instant-gratification type, 
though, forget it.

Candidly, I feel far more disadvantged by my current lack of a good set of 
receive antennas. Often I find myself sitting on my hands while a big pileup is 
calling and working DX I can barely copy (or can't hear at all). You can't work 
'em if you can't hear 'em. 

Good luck to all still working toward #100.  I can tell you it that feels 
pretty darned good to finally arrive.

73,

Mark -- WA9ETW
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 Power

[lmlangenf...@tds.net]

My $0.02.

I have added DXCC ## 96-101 so far this season, running 100W into simple wire 
antennas throughout (most recently, a "Lazy L" with 32 quarter-wave radials).  
It took awhile to get this far, and took some patience/determination from my 
upper-midwest (read: "Black Hole") QTH.  But, clearly, it's do-able. There are 
always circumstances where weak propagation or the DX station's receive 
capabilities/noise level will simply not yield a QSO at 100W.  But, for the 
most part, the only times I felt truly disadvantaged were in big and aggressive 
pileups (where, admittedly, 100W simply can't compete).

I can't argue that QRO can be a huge advantage on 160.  At the same time, we 
shouldn't discourage anybody that might want or have to venture onto the band 
barefoot.  You can have good DX success with 100W if you're willing to be 
persistent and invest the time. If you're the instant-gratification type, 
though, forget it.

Candidly, I feel far more disadvantged by my current lack of a good set of 
receive antennas. Often I find myself sitting on my hands while a big pileup is 
calling and working DX I can barely copy (or can't hear at all). You can't work 
'em if you can't hear 'em. 

Good luck to all still working toward #100.  I can tell you it that feels 
pretty darned good to finally arrive.

73,

Mark -- WA9ETW
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 Power

[vu2gsm via Topband]

I fully agree with John. I have been running 100 watts in to a dipole on 160 
and all I am raising is electricity bill from years. Unless you have decent 
power on TB no use warming the chair.
73
vu2gsm
Kanti


> On Mar 21, 2017, at 05:42, John Harden, D.M.D.  wrote:
> 
> If you want to work the rare ones on Top Band low power is pointless... You 
> are simply banging your head against the wall... It takes maximum power, 
> great receiving antennas and a good transmitting antenna. I really starting 
> hearing well when I began using a rotary FLAG at 95 feet in DIVERSITY RECEIVE 
> with a Hi-Z 8 Array...
> 
> 73,
> 
> 
> John, W4NU
> 
> K4JAG (1959 to 1998)
> 
> 
>> On 3/20/2017 12:25 PM, rick darwicki via Topband wrote:
>> In contests I call a lot of guys barefoot first and kick on the amp as 
>> needed. Problem is usually a guy running full power can be heard out here 
>> but has an S-8 noise level and can't hear 100W..Yes you can work a lot of DX 
>> with low power, but as an ex-QRP club member I learned life if too short, 9 
>> to go for DXCC on 160 and sweating it.
>> 5U and TU can't hear me thru the pile up but I'll bet they can copy if there 
>> was nobody else on.
>> Tried JT65 and it seems CW work also work when it works.Bottom line is you 
>> typically need power on the low bands to overcome the other guys noise. Rick 
>> N6PE==
>> There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   From: "topband-requ...@contesting.com" 
>>  To: topband@contesting.com
>>  Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:11 AM
>>  Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 171, Issue 17
>>Send Topband mailing list submissions to
>> topband@contesting.com
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> topband-requ...@contesting.com
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> topband-ow...@contesting.com
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>   1. Digital modes on TB and power required (Jim Jim)
>>   2. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (wb6r...@mac.com)
>>   3. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (HAROLD SMITH JR)
>>   4. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (Mike Waters)
>>   5. Re: JT65 Power and bandwidth (Rob Atkinson)
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: Jim Jim 
>> To: List-Topband 
>> Subject: Topband: Digital modes on TB and power required
>> Message-ID: <1176951029.186017.1489972452...@connect.xfinity.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> 
>> Guys,
>> 
>> First of all in many cases the reason we need really high power on any mode 
>> is because other hams on the band are using it and they cover us up... so it 
>> is mine is bigger than yours.  Now to be fair that is not always the case I 
>> know but it happens far too much.  Since we are in the years of the bottom 
>> of the solar cycle we actually may need more power.  Also you can not 
>> compare doing meteor scatter or EME work with HF work.  There you absolutely 
>> need power unless you have stacked 18 element beams or something.  But I 
>> have seen very very few instances when 50 watts wont get the job done EVEN 
>> on 160M.  and NO I don't run my RX with a wide open front end I have an IC 
>> 7300 and I trim my RX and TX filters to a reasonable width based on the mode 
>> I am running.  Common sense (and good engineering principals) teach you if 
>> you cut the RX bandwidth the signal goes up in strength. You have only to 
>> try that with CW to learn that.and for those of you that don't 
>> understand the princ
 i
> p
>>  al of RX front end overload try having a neighbor 4 miles away as the crow 
>> files who is trying to call the same DX you are wanting to work he can be 
>> half a kHz away and still give you problems even with a good RX. Now you 
>> guys with the really big antennas can mitigate some of this but us little 
>> pistols have only once choice ... wait until you neighbor is done.  And to 
>> be neighborly both my neighbor and I do just that.  Something to also 
>> consider when you run any digital mode even RTTY and you do it through a 
>> sound card you should not be drawing ANY.. not even a little ALC and if you 
>> do you not only will make it hard for others to copy you but you could 
>> easily cause all kinds of splatter on the band, you have only to listen to 
>> some to the signal on 40 and 20 meters to see this.
>> 
>> I am not saying any of this to flame or inflame anyone it is simply the way 
>> it is. High power is 

Topband: 160 POWER

[JAYB1943]

I sure agree with John, W4NU...I have been working on 160 DXCC with 80 watts 
and an inverted-L for 20 years and only managed 65 countries. Just bought a 
600 watt amp 3 months ago, worked country #99 yesterday and expect to work 
#100 this week !! The received noise levels at so many stations around the 
world require a lot of RF to get above it. I also run JT9/JT65 on 160 which 
sure helps getting thru under poor conditions. I have QRP DXCC on the 3 
upper bands; it’s WAAAYY different on TB.
   GL all – c u on 160 JT9/JT65 – Jay NY2NY (ex-K2OVS) 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 Power

[John Harden, D.M.D.]

If you want to work the rare ones on Top Band low power is pointless... 
You are simply banging your head against the wall... It takes maximum 
power, great receiving antennas and a good transmitting antenna. I 
really starting hearing well when I began using a rotary FLAG at 95 feet 
in DIVERSITY RECEIVE with a Hi-Z 8 Array...


73,


John, W4NU

K4JAG (1959 to 1998)


On 3/20/2017 12:25 PM, rick darwicki via Topband wrote:

In contests I call a lot of guys barefoot first and kick on the amp as needed. 
Problem is usually a guy running full power can be heard out here but has an 
S-8 noise level and can't hear 100W..Yes you can work a lot of DX with low 
power, but as an ex-QRP club member I learned life if too short, 9 to go for 
DXCC on 160 and sweating it.
5U and TU can't hear me thru the pile up but I'll bet they can copy if there 
was nobody else on.
Tried JT65 and it seems CW work also work when it works.Bottom line is you 
typically need power on the low bands to overcome the other guys noise. Rick 
N6PE==
There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky




   From: "topband-requ...@contesting.com" 
  To: topband@contesting.com
  Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:11 AM
  Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 171, Issue 17

Send Topband mailing list submissions to

 topband@contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 topband-requ...@contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
 topband-ow...@contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Digital modes on TB and power required (Jim Jim)
   2. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (wb6r...@mac.com)
   3. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (HAROLD SMITH JR)
   4. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (Mike Waters)
   5. Re: JT65 Power and bandwidth (Rob Atkinson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Jim 
To: List-Topband 
Subject: Topband: Digital modes on TB and power required
Message-ID: <1176951029.186017.1489972452...@connect.xfinity.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Guys,

First of all in many cases the reason we need really high power on any mode is 
because other hams on the band are using it and they cover us up... so it is 
mine is bigger than yours.  Now to be fair that is not always the case I know 
but it happens far too much.  Since we are in the years of the bottom of the 
solar cycle we actually may need more power.  Also you can not compare doing 
meteor scatter or EME work with HF work.  There you absolutely need power 
unless you have stacked 18 element beams or something.  But I have seen very 
very few instances when 50 watts wont get the job done EVEN on 160M.  and NO I 
don't run my RX with a wide open front end I have an IC 7300 and I trim my RX 
and TX filters to a reasonable width based on the mode I am running.  Common 
sense (and good engineering principals) teach you if you cut the RX bandwidth 
the signal goes up in strength. You have only to try that with CW to learn 
that.and for those of you that don't understand the princi

p

  al of RX front end overload try having a neighbor 4 miles away as the crow 
files who is trying to call the same DX you are wanting to work he can be half 
a kHz away and still give you problems even with a good RX. Now you guys with 
the really big antennas can mitigate some of this but us little pistols have 
only once choice ... wait until you neighbor is done.  And to be neighborly 
both my neighbor and I do just that.  Something to also consider when you run 
any digital mode even RTTY and you do it through a sound card you should not be 
drawing ANY.. not even a little ALC and if you do you not only will make it 
hard for others to copy you but you could easily cause all kinds of splatter on 
the band, you have only to listen to some to the signal on 40 and 20 meters to 
see this.

I am not saying any of this to flame or inflame anyone it is simply the way it 
is. High power is RARELY necessary on the lower bands.


Doubt me?  Set your transceiver up on WSPR and set it to 20w  and find out.  
When TB was open I was heard all over the world with that power .. and yes even 
VK.  If all of this is not convincing then follow the FCC rules .. use only the 
power necessary to do that job


Oh by the way many of these digital modes are high duty cycle and could do 
damage to your transceiver.


Jim



On the higher bands, low power generally gets the job done. But digital
folks on 160 need to rethink a few things. Ideally, we should 

Topband: 160 Power

[rick darwicki via Topband]

In contests I call a lot of guys barefoot first and kick on the amp as needed. 
Problem is usually a guy running full power can be heard out here but has an 
S-8 noise level and can't hear 100W..Yes you can work a lot of DX with low 
power, but as an ex-QRP club member I learned life if too short, 9 to go for 
DXCC on 160 and sweating it. 
5U and TU can't hear me thru the pile up but I'll bet they can copy if there 
was nobody else on.
Tried JT65 and it seems CW work also work when it works.Bottom line is you 
typically need power on the low bands to overcome the other guys noise. Rick 
N6PE==
There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky




  From: "topband-requ...@contesting.com" 
 To: topband@contesting.com 
 Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:11 AM
 Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 171, Issue 17
   
Send Topband mailing list submissions to
    topband@contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    topband-requ...@contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
    topband-ow...@contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Digital modes on TB and power required (Jim Jim)
  2. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (wb6r...@mac.com)
  3. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (HAROLD SMITH JR)
  4. Re: Digital modes on TB and power required (Mike Waters)
  5. Re: JT65 Power and bandwidth (Rob Atkinson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Jim 
To: List-Topband 
Subject: Topband: Digital modes on TB and power required
Message-ID: <1176951029.186017.1489972452...@connect.xfinity.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Guys,

First of all in many cases the reason we need really high power on any mode is 
because other hams on the band are using it and they cover us up... so it is 
mine is bigger than yours.  Now to be fair that is not always the case I know 
but it happens far too much.  Since we are in the years of the bottom of the 
solar cycle we actually may need more power.  Also you can not compare doing 
meteor scatter or EME work with HF work.  There you absolutely need power 
unless you have stacked 18 element beams or something.  But I have seen very 
very few instances when 50 watts wont get the job done EVEN on 160M.  and NO I 
don't run my RX with a wide open front end I have an IC 7300 and I trim my RX 
and TX filters to a reasonable width based on the mode I am running.  Common 
sense (and good engineering principals) teach you if you cut the RX bandwidth 
the signal goes up in strength. You have only to try that with CW to learn 
that.    and for those of you that don't understand the princip
 al of RX front end overload try having a neighbor 4 miles away as the crow 
files who is trying to call the same DX you are wanting to work he can be half 
a kHz away and still give you problems even with a good RX. Now you guys with 
the really big antennas can mitigate some of this but us little pistols have 
only once choice ... wait until you neighbor is done.  And to be neighborly 
both my neighbor and I do just that.  Something to also consider when you run 
any digital mode even RTTY and you do it through a sound card you should not be 
drawing ANY.. not even a little ALC and if you do you not only will make it 
hard for others to copy you but you could easily cause all kinds of splatter on 
the band, you have only to listen to some to the signal on 40 and 20 meters to 
see this.

I am not saying any of this to flame or inflame anyone it is simply the way it 
is. High power is RARELY necessary on the lower bands.


Doubt me?  Set your transceiver up on WSPR and set it to 20w  and find out.  
When TB was open I was heard all over the world with that power .. and yes even 
VK.  If all of this is not convincing then follow the FCC rules .. use only the 
power necessary to do that job


Oh by the way many of these digital modes are high duty cycle and could do 
damage to your transceiver. 


Jim



On the higher bands, low power generally gets the job done. But digital
folks on 160 need to rethink a few things. Ideally, we should ALL just bump
our output up to 100 watts. But that's just not gonna happen.  ?

I don't have the time right now to add more, but I hope this thread nets
some useful suggestions to minimize QRN in the 160m digital portion.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com http://www.w0btu.com/

--

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:42:18 -0700
From: wb6r...@mac.com
To: Top Band List List 
Subject: Re: Topband: