George, Your station sounded really good this morning under rough conditions here. There were storms rolling through just out to my W and NW creating lots of lightening static and crashes. Your 160 signal was a bit stronger than the 80m signal, albeit, buy the time we worked on 80m the storms had worked their way closer, and it was very difficult to get consistent copy on each transmission. Rapid QSB was another factor. It was a much easier copy on you on 160, although it took about a half hour of calling you off and on before you heard my call. Storm static here on 160 with the occasional crashes was a constant S5-6. Your signal strength was just at or slightly over S6 and pretty much 100% copy when I finally started hearing you. Excellent RX ears out there to have heard my LP/low antenna signal! Thanks for the top band and 80m Qs. New entity on those two bands. Much appreciated. Now it's time for some sleep tonight!
73 and GL DX Gene, N9TF > On 08/14/2024 3:49 PM CDT GEORGE WALLNER <aa...@atlanticbb.net> wrote: > > > We have been improving our 160 m set up every day. We have added more ground > wires that connect the TX antenna base to the water and have built a very > effective RX antenna. Now we can comfortable hear most callers. > Last night we got on 160 first around 0530. There were a few NA, callers. > Most had 100% QSB: going from 5 CPY to nothing in seconds. Got back on TB > around 0830. Signals were much steadier with a slow but continuous stream of > NA callers. TS noise started up around 0900 and got steadily stronger all > night. (This noise comes from T storms in the Solomons, Papua and Indonesia, > reaching us after their SS. It gets progressively worse as the night > progresses. > > We are at the 1000 TB QSO mark. Given the fact the Aug is about the worst > time of the year for 160, this is OK. There would be many more in the log if > callers used better tactics: > 1. Send your call twice. We need narrow filter settings because of the noise > (we are on the Equator). Unless you are "tail-gating" it takes time for us > to tune the RX to the caller's frequency. Often we only get the last few > letters of the call ... and then wait. If we CQ again, another caller will > jump in and the first caller will lose the Q. This happens a lot. If you are > tail-gating -- calling on the last Q-s frequency -- once is enough! > 2. There are callers who are not hearing us. We keep on replying with no > result. Probably most people listening on our TX frq can hear this taking > place. Sure, QSB and QRM will often make two or three attempts necessary. > But there have been some to whom I have replied to dozens of times over many > hours. They are just causing QRM and wasting their time as they will not > make into the log by accident. > 3. Insurance QSO-s are perfectly justified. But they make no sense the > third, fourth -- and sometimes the sixth time. If we are not busy, a dupe > call is welcome as it reassures us that the band is still open. But when > there is a pile up, a third insurance Q just takes someone else's Q. > 4. JA-s tend to have this habit (not all, TKS). It springs from good > intentions, but... When calling they send their call only once. We often > catch only part of it, just like in point 1. But once we reply with the > correct call. they then come back sending their call three times. This gets > us to the next point: > 5. The ideal sequence is: CQ N5J UP -- N4xx N4xx --- N4xx 5NN -- 5NN TU -- > TU. Sending the call ahead of the 5NN can create doubt under difficult RX > conditions. Sending 5NN is really a confirmation that tells the operator > that the callsign is correct. The TU further confirms that the QSO is good > and can go into the log. Less is more! > 6. For NA callers: JA callers have an all-water path to us and are often > louder. They start coming in after 1000 Z, some with astonishingly strong > signals. Plan you time accordingly: waiting for your SR-bump may not be > worth it if it puts you in competition with stronger (and numerous) signals. > 7. Actual signal reports are very welcome. (Even the 339 ones.) They help us > adjust to the conditions. > > We will keep coming on around 0500 for a short time -- there is a tiny > chance of working EU. And then come on again around 0830 ahead of NA SR. > During the next few nights we will also work FT8 F/H. It seems that > SuperFox, which has been very effective on other bands, it not as good under > poor conditions on TB. Hence F/H. > > TKS for all the calls and GL, > George, > N5J > > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 11:40:34 -0400 WW3S wrote: > >A couple of mornings ago, they were ESP, maybe 339 when sending UP, for > >maybe 90 seconds or so…..this morning I got in the shack around 0900z and > >they were 449/559 with peaks to 579 or so, I worked them easily with an inv > >l and 1000w or so from NW PA…..tu George and team for the new one !!! They > >were in there solid until my SR….. > > > > > >Sent from my iPad > > > > > >>On Aug 14, 2024, at 10:57 AM, Ron Spencer via Topband > >><topband@contesting.com> wrote: > >>Was listening last night (8/14) to N5J pound out CQs on 1828.5. Hats off to > >>the folks operating for their patience and dedication to 160. The rate, at > >>least while I was listening, was pretty low. Certainly not what most > >>dxpeditions are after. But George and crew continue to spend quality time > >>working hard to pull out Qs in this very noisy time for 160. THANK you to > >>all the ops for 160 and all the other bands too. WELL DONE!!! > >>Ron > >>N4XD (portable 5 in DM64 right now) > >>Sent using https://www.zoho.com/mail/_________________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
