Herb, I don't disagree, especially with the Carib because I have so little
sailing experience in those waters. I am a PAC Sailor, when I am able. Even
in the Navy, I only did a single Med Cruise before switching to the Pacific for
all further sea duty assignments. So I am most familiar with t
All. herein lies THE major problem with putting the digital guys elsewhere.
JT-65 (and others of that ilk) are NOT ragchew modes. They are really only
useful for award chasing since what is sent is pretty much limited to calls,
locations and signal strengths. The guys using these modes (t
Brad,
*I* say GOOD, let them kill AM broadcast and give the band to US. we
will put it to good use he he he he. Plus, since so many people have AM
broadcast receivers, it will be like automatic advertising for Amateur
Radio.. and that rumors of ham radio's demise, as a hobby,
ion and the low angle inputs are a lesser part of
> the total reception. Receiving antennas fix that.
>
> I think the bigger problem with horizontal antennas on 160 is that next to no
> one really has the room for them.
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Mike Ar
Same here, guys. Please do reply here and if someone "already knows
everything," they need not even read the thread, right? LOL. I have heard,
but don't know if it is a common mode of propagation or if it is very rare,
like LDEs on 15.. They do happen, but it is as rare as hen's teeth. I
Tom (and James),
I am well aware that my comments concerning the 5/8ths wave was based upon
subjective/anecdotal evidence. I am in a science (Astrophysics) by
profession. I do know the difference. HOWEVER, I cannot completely throw
out the simple fact that when I altered my 20 meter omni a
insulator??
>
> Maybe a shunt feed might be possible?
> Charlie, K4OTV
> -----Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike
> Armstrong
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:25 PM
> To: Charlie Cunningham
> Cc: ZR; ; Shoppa, T
a 1/4 wave GP has certainly been done and used
> commercially at VHF. The "skirt" can also be replaced with a shorted 1/4
> wave phasing line.
>
> Well, Tom's tower is probably tall enough - but how in heck would we get the
> verticals far enough away from the tower??
eur-radio.com/Detail.bok?no=26
>
> 73, Tony K4QE
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote:
>> Carl and Charlie,
>> I am not sure it would even be close to practical or even doable, but I
>> remember seeing an old book on verticals written by a prior
Carl and Charlie,
I am not sure it would even be close to practical or even doable, but I
remember seeing an old book on verticals written by a prior Navy Captain, I
believe. He had a very interesting design for what WE would, today, call a
collinear that was 3/4 wave length tall on 20 meters..
e: http://www.w8ji.com/VHF%20mobile%20vertical.htm
>> He is comparing mobile antennas but it looks like the 5/8 wave can be 2 db
>> better than the 1/4 wave.
>> Looking at the radiation angle graphs it shows the 5/8 has more gain at
>> lower radiation angles in par
al on
> rural terra firma.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dogs on
>> 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success
>>
why the difference is
> pretty plain, and points to why such a difference vs. a 160m vertical on
> rural terra firma.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote:
>> Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dog
Oh Tom, I FULLY agree that it would be VERY difficult and not very practical,
especially considering we are talking 160.. In fact, the price/performance
ratio simply wouldn't be worth it, in my own humble opinion. no doubt about
that.
There are certainly better ways to get ALOT more g
Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom.. 5/8ths are dogs on 160?
Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success with a
ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stationed in Hawaii. I was rather
space limited, so I could only go up and a tower mounted beam w
Tom,
Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by
"comet" or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements
used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far as the design theory (and practical
application) goes, I have a reasonable amount of schoo
Tom and all,
If I am reading the question correctly, aren't we talking about something that
is done at VHF/UHF with great regularity? Stacked vertical elements, stacked
vertically polarized beams and all manner of stacked vertical "anything" are
done there all of the time to avoid cross polariz
Tom and all,
After spending 25 years in the military (Navy specifically), I can say, with a
fair amount of authority, that the antennas used by them are often used for
much different purposes than what people on this forum use them for. he he
he. Never would a scenario arise where 1.8mhz DX
Let us hope they don't decide to use the 160 meter band proper for their
experiments. This may be a good chance to speak to the researchers and remind
them that our band space is occupado.. Unless, of course, the researcher(s)
happen to be amateur radio ops.
:) :)
Mike AB7ZU
Kuhi no ka l
Rick and all,
That is exactly right. It is a very wideband vertical. If you look at the
vertical radiation pattern at various frequencies throughout its range, you
will note that it is a low angle radiator (just like a normal vertical) and
that at some freqs it is a bit higher angle radiator..
Mike, sorry buddy. It is reserved for us (now retired) military folk...
The "night is my friend." As is water and a few other things that make me
harder to spot. LOL LOL.
Mike AB7ZU
Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
On May 8, 2013, at 8:48, "wa5pok" wrote:
> Sorry Jim, That one
Guys, I think the explanation for why 160 (and the dx crowd on 80, too... not
necessarily the 75 meter "throw a wire in the air rag chew crowd) are more
gentlemanly (and ladies, of course) is very simple. It is REALLY simple to
explain:
To put a decent signal out on those bands takes some very
Hey guys and gals,
I have a question: I have an OCFD that is about 130 feet long, end to end. It
is Off Center Fed at a current node for 15 meters, which is the band it was
designed for. Ends up that it tunes easy on just about any band, albeit with
open wire feeders and a tuner. It works ve
Tree and all, I had to confirm my membership on the list because it said there
were too many bounces. Any idea why that might be? Everything seems to be
fine with the account and I did notice I wasn't getting the posts.. Just
not sure why. Tree, I thought you might have a clue since you a
Rik,
I think your suggestion is part of the point of this discussion. Modeling
things at higher frequencies, like 40 meters, wouldn't apply to how 160
works.. IF what we are saying is true or has merit. The only way to know
that 160 truly is different is to model at 160 :) :)
Personally,
Dang Tom. I just sent out a more wordy version of what you just said. This
is getting strange. Not sure why it hasn't been disseminated yet (my email),
but I swear I sent it just moments before your email hit my system.
You just added some fuel to my fire. Short version: I, with my rath
Guys, I am probably completely off the wall here. But given all the talk about
a 300 foot vertical not working well on 160 and a very high dipole not working
well on 160 leads me to a very unscientific "conclusion" or a possible real
hypothesis.. That super low angle radiation is NOT a good
Paul,
You took the words right out of my mouth. While I am not in a position to help
with this one, if I was I would be "all over it," in the same manner as you
guys are doing it now. THANKS to all the guys trying to localize this
interloper.
Something has to be considers, what if this noi
Tom and all,
I searched for the company name on those photos and it is a Japanese company
that makes those models and many others. The one in the pix that were put up
are fairly sophisticated and they operate "1600-3000 khz." So, apparently the
Japanese are selling them here and they are bein
Guys, there is alot more circuitry in that buoy than a simple dumb transmitter.
Maybe some of the devices are dumb transmitters, but I'd bet most of them are
more like this unit. Those fishing nets and long lines are incredibly
expensive. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find that
Tom, I was talking about ham radio, not marine radios. Someone talked about
"open" radios and that is what I was speaking to. Marine radios are another
subject altogether. The concern is that the marine guys are using AMATEUR
RADIOS to do marine business. And they are. They open the radi
I don't think anyone has mentioned the ONE VALID use for an "open" radio and
that is MARS system service. It still exists and with the advent of radios
that can transmit almost anywhere without modifying the RF circuitry, MARS ops
have moved further and further away from the freqs that are clos
Not to mention "sharing" out callsign pool? Last time I looked NM7E was/is
a ham callsign. That should DEFINITELY be illegal, especially when those
things are in a ham band. I am pretty sure we DO NOT share that band with
fishing buoys. Not absolutely positive, but pretty sure. If they
Well Tom, all I can say is that it works.. Here is more data The mast
was a wood pole about 12 feet long and the feedline was buried, so there
wouldn't be much radiation from them. There could be some from the base of the
vertical to the dirt via the feedline, but that would be all that
Jan, I am not absolutely certain, but I believe JT65HF, which is what is being
talked about here, doesn't do a deep search or nobody uses it if it does.
Again, not absolutely certain about it, since I have never used the facility if
it exists in the HF version. That is another point that shoul
Differentiating operating awards? If you are talking DXCC it has been
differentiated for years. SSB award, CW award, DIGITAL/RTTY award and MIXED.
I know this because I have them all hanging on my wall. Doing it again on 160
is going to be a hoot. If the 160 award isn't differentiated, then
Jim, this topic IS about 160, no doubt about it. I don't think anyone here has
insulted or abused anyone. We are discussing a very valid subject and it has
nothing to do with who is bigger than who. It has to do with growth of
activity on the band we all know and love.
Tom has made some val
Mike, that is QUITE true indeed. Actually, you must watch the waterfall due to
the fact that most ears would be unable, by hearing alone, to detect a
frequency shift that would cause the signal to become utterly unreadable. The
waterfall is probably the most watched thing in the digi world
Tom, actually I DID say with varying signal strengths. The difference being IF
the agc is badly pumped by a strong station and the weak station is wiped out
by the action. I can easily decode a weak station next to a strong one, as
long as the agc is being pumped by the stronger station to the
Tom,
I never said putting digimodes in the middle of the weak signal area was a good
idea, but I also know that the weak signal area is violated constantly by local
station using it. By that I mean US stations talking to US stations there. To
me, personally, I considered 160 DX to mean outsid
Tom, "on point" ... I am, almost exclusively, a CW and Digi op in that
order. I will say, anecdotally, that I have not experienced any interference
caused by one or the other to the other on 160. I admit that I am not THE most
active op on 160, but I am there a fair amount of time.
Sinc
ZR and HAROLD, I have been having issues with the tie wraps breaking in the AZ
sun. I suspect the UV is getting to them badly. The metal ones don't break,
but I can't use those for shunt feeding, of course. Can you recommend a source
for ones that don't break? It is a real pain replacing the
42 matches
Mail list logo
