With 60 feet vertical, getting "pure" vertical polarization just won't make
any difference. Always go for the efficiency. Many people have outstanding
signals with inverted L's.
And as always, worrying about the wire above doesn't matter a hill of beans
if the counterpoise/radial field is not in
Roger D Johnson wrote:
> Over the years I have developed my own criteria for what
> constitutes a valid contact:
>
> 1. I MUST copy the call of the DX station off the air. Not from
> packet or a chat room.
>
> 2. I MUST copy my signal report off air.
>
> 3. I MUST hear the DX station roger my re
Hi,
You guys that have been asking for bias boards; Have gotten out uf the hospital
and can deliver for $18 plus sgipping.
Ed Smith W4EDS
Spencer,VA
===
__
Dear Topband Aficionados -
I could use a little help. I am currently using a 60 foot base loaded
vertical, with an 8" diameter coil made of copper tubing. I know top
loading gives much better efficiency. The problem is, my lot won't allow
the two top loading wires to be in the same plane, so t
I got some reactions on my message earlier this week I posted to this
group about 160m allocations. Most of the messages noted that the info
was not complete.
Please check
http://wiki.contesting.com/index.php/160m_frequency_allocations and if
you find something is wrong let me know.
What would
Over the years I have developed my own criteria for what constitutes
a valid contact:
1. I MUST copy the call of the DX station off the air. Not from packet
or a chat room.
2. I MUST copy my signal report off air.
3. I MUST hear the DX station roger my report.
I will admit to slippage on it
I draw the line at claiming a contact when either did not actually get it
over the air.
I draw the line at using non-over-the-air to "fix" a log, whether contest or
DXCC credit.
It is clear that there is still magic in talking to VP8ORK running 100 watts
on 160 meters. I looked at their on-line l
> George (K8QM) wrote:
All,
>
> I know it
is important to keep RX antennas like flags, pennants and K9AYs
>
as far away from TX antennas as possible. In the case of a quarter wave
> inverted L with approximately 50 feet vertical is it as
important to keep
> the RX antennas away from the hor
I know it's a different answer... but
Be careful about RF coming back in on the RX antenna to the radio, Some
radios have issues with even quite low levels (~100mW) comiing in the RX
antenna port.
the internal isolation may on the face of it appear good enough but any
residual leakage is occurri
On 15th February, Dave wrote:
"...I'm not advocating chat room confirmation, but I'm not sure what, if
any, harm is caused by this practice..."
**
I was always lukewarm, at BEST, when it came to such things as "The ON4KST
Low-Band Chat Room" (or, "How do y
On Feb 11, 2011, at 18:03:55, William Q Meeker wrote:
> The (somewhat related) DXAC report to which I referred in the posting
> has been moved or removed from the ARRL webpages. If anyone wants to
> get a copy, send email to me.
I contacted my ARRL director and he was able to have the link rep
I have observed that many of these "confirmations" are made during the
contact. I often wonder exactly how and on which band the QSO was made.
Wayne, N7NG
Jackson Hole
-Original Message-
From: topband-boun...@contesting.com
[mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Raymon
If you model the RX antennas with the TX antennas in the model, and then
without, you can see the change in RX pattern, usually with the loss of deep
nulls. Some situations you can get extreme interactions and reversal of
pattern or loss of any directionality. Better to model with your
dimensions
13 matches
Mail list logo
