It looks to me like VHF contesting is about to be decimated for the CW/SSB op in favor of robots working each other on FT8. I am glad I am not into VHF contesting. FT8 is not "robots working each ot
-12 to -17 dB on FT8 (or any of the other "JT modes") is signal to noise + QRM in a 2500 Hz bandwidth. "0 dB" in 'JT speak' is +22 dB S/N for CW assuming a 100 Hz bandwidth (using the convention of t
Nothing? What you measure should have no practical impact on performance. 73, ... Joe, W4TV I measured the SWR in my beverage antenna; the SWR fluctuates between 1.5 and 3 in a range of 1.8 to 7 MHz
If you don't need twisted pair for the signaling lines, look at multiwire sprinkler cables. The big box stores list them in 18/4, 18/5, 18/7, and 18/10 in 500 ft rolls. Should be available from the s
That gain value is in the neighborhood of what a Waller Flag does. However, the Waller Flag is a dual loop that trades off signal for pattern. The LOG simply throws away signal due to attenuation of
Vertical arrays are mono band. You need one for 160 , another for 80, and if you want 40 and 30 two more. Also they needs a lot of phasing cables and a large real state area far from constructions.
Getting to six would result in a smaller top hat but may not be worth the mechanical hassle. If the mast has traditional three way guying, the mechanical hassle for a six wire top hat may not be that
Rick and Bob, Thanks for such swift replies. Looks like I should try to reinforce the 3/8 tubing (its pretty short) with a wood dowel or perhaps with smaller or larger aluminum tubing. Unless you wa
1) move then ends of the top loading wires further out (flatter) 2) use a 4:1 auto-transformer at the feed point - your antenna analyzer says the real impedance is about 15 Ohms. A 4:1 auto-transform
With towers spaced 1/16 wavelength, they will almost certainly all be coupled to each other. The coupling will be greatest when they are nearest to resonance. Your "tower #3" is probably very close t
The section joints should be adequately conductive given the surface area. The big questions would be an adequate connection at the top and conductivity through the "launcher." My other option is an
On 2018-10-12 7:10 PM, MrToby wrote: You dont have to lower them but you need to short them to ground to make them electrically invisible No, with 1/4 wave elements you must *open* the feed point - d
The DXCC standings list is generated automatically from the DXCC records (not LotW). OK1YQ (OK1RD) has been "cheating" DXCC for decades - primarily with fake *cards* presumably approved by a friendly
The checker does not know the total. That number is only in the DXCC records at ARRL. 73, ... Joe, W4TV How can they (checker ) not pay attention to this result ( 339 ! ) ? Nick, UY0ZG Joe Subich, W4
I think a more practical "Station Location and Boundary, <b)" rule would be to have the RX and TX located in either "in the same grid square" or "within 100 KM" and of course within the same DXCC Ent
This (remote receivers in multiple locations) is specifically what the rules are meant to prevent. rankly there is no justification for the multiple remote receiver operations ... one might as well m
With no antennas. I have not been seriously active on low bands in the 20 years I've been here precisely because of the increasing prevalence of the multiple remote receiver/remote station operations
I'm assuming the center pin is the 6 pin and the 1-5 either go counter or clockwise. The center pin is pin 6 however, the other five are not numbered sequentially due to backward compatibility with n
No, that is a correct statement. Signal reports in WSJT-X for FT8, JT65 and JT9 are *all* measured *with regard to the noise in 2500 Hz*. Note that the tone filters in WSJT-X are on the order of less
Is the definition of "noise floor" being changed for FT8? WSJT-X (and WSJT before that) defines noise as the integrated value of noise (noise power) across the 2500 Hz (approximately based on the rec