Like anyone would be interested, but I reviewed the data again.
Optimum attenuation occurs when cascaded stubs are place 1/4 wl apart (or odd
multiples thereof) *at the REJECT frequency*.
Optimum SWR bandwidth *at the pass frequency* occurs when pass stubs are 1/4
wl apart at the pass frequency.
Optimum harmonic suppression, if the source favors a low Z load at the
harmonic's frequency, occurs when the first reject stub is 1/4 wl away from
the source at the reject frequency. This is the usual case, and varies with
the PA's internal layout more than anything else.
Optimum harmonic suppression, if the source favors a high Z load at the
harmonic's frequency, occurs when the first stub is right at the output port.
This is a rare case.
I can't find any exceptions to these general statements.
73 Tom
>From Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@avana.net> Sun Mar 31 17:16:16 1996
From: Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@avana.net> (Ed Tanton N4XY)
Subject: More Power
References: <960330232747_458904982@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <315EBDE0.4552@avana.net>
Chas: I think you have summed it very well: it does come down to the
individual and his willingness to abide by the rules or not. What I have
been trying to say is just that. Many hams COULD exceed the limit but
most CHOOSE not to because it is not that big a deal (in terms of signal
strength) and it is illegal. I hope they are the majority. One final
thing: let's not forget that SOME stations DO need the extra plate
dissapation for RTTY and Slow Scan. Anyway, thanks for adding your
excellent comments. 73
--
Ed Tanton N4XY (770) 971-0436 Marietta, GA
email: n4xy@avana.net URL: Coming Soon
>From Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@avana.net> Sun Mar 31 18:07:26 1996
From: Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@avana.net> (Ed Tanton N4XY)
Subject: More Power, the real rule
References: <960331113512_260512607@mail02.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <315EC9DD.2552@avana.net>
I'm sure Tom that we both look like a couple of cats spitting back and
forth... I should have restrained myself when I let loose. The answer to
your question however, is that no, of course not: many people
intentionally exceed the speed limit who would never consider running a
stop sign or a red light. And no doubt most hams who run excessive power
would never falsify a contest report. That is NOT the point.
Laws and rules are relatively black and white issues. The arbitrary
breaking of them is not always that easily discerned. Bonnie & Clyde
Barrow were 'black & white' in their actions. They broke the law, they
meant to. They chose to do the things they did, and their choosing
implied a position relative to their own rights vs the rights of their
fellow man.
The guy that steals a 'loaf of bread' to feed his family certainly broke
the law, but look at the reason, and it isn't so black and white.
I suggest to you that the planned, intentional disregard for the FCC's
regulations on power is also a considered choice by the individual and
directly relates to the rest of us. That consideration for the rest of
us is nil. "The hell with everyone else, I'm more important." It DOES
seem to logically follow that disregard in one area might well extend to
another.
As far as my own personal actions are concerned, I have always flattered
myself that by reducing power whenever reasonable I'm "doing the right
thing." And that by making that choice I not only serve the idea of the
laws governing power, but also please myself-privately-at the same time.
Always has seemed like a good idea at the time, and seems even more so
now. 73
--
Ed Tanton N4XY (770) 971-0436 Marietta, GA
email: n4xy@avana.net URL: Coming Soon
>From MEC <danmec@inet.uni-c.dk> Sun Mar 31 23:10:07 1996
From: MEC <danmec@inet.uni-c.dk> (MEC)
Subject: TopBand: Matching 160 meter Inv. L antenna
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604010143.A3887-0100000@inet.uni-c.dk>
I am using an inverted L myself, abt 52 meters long. Have a 500 PF
cpacitor in series. fairly flat in 1820-1840 kHz band, which is the
interesting part for me.
Only 10 elevated radials of various lengths, longest abt 22 meters.
Works well for me , WHEN the band is open ! hi
73 Rag oz8roX
>From Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr@Interpath.com Sun Mar 31 22:59:48 1996
From: Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Subject: Scores WPX
Message-ID: <199604010007.TAA14546@mail-hub.interpath.net>
I will be doing scores for WPX. Do not post them here. Send them to
me direct or the 3830 reflector.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ATTACHED SUMMARYS, PUT ALL SCORES IN THE BODY OF
YOUR EMAIL, AT THE TOP IS BEST!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you,
73's Jim
**********************************************************
* Jimmy R. Floyd (Jim) Thomasville, NC *
* *
* Amateur Call: >> WA4ZXA << *
* Packet Node: >> N4ZC << *
* Internet Address: **NEW** >> floydjr@interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From w2vjn@rosenet.net (George Cutsogeorge) Wed May 1 04:49:02 1996
From: w2vjn@rosenet.net (George Cutsogeorge) (George Cutsogeorge)
Subject: *REAL* QRO
References: <B6J8mD1w165w@barf80.nshore.org>
Message-ID: <M.043096.204902.53@ppp019.rosenet.net>
At the Plasma Physics Lab, we built amplifiers using the large Eimac tubes. The
drivers were 4CX100,000As and 1 or 2 second pulses of 3 Megawatts could be
delivered for fusion experiments. The plate load impedance was 50 ohms and we
ran about 20 Kv on the plate. The output was run through 9" diameter coax
filled with inert gas. They have been operated on various frequencies from 25
to 80 MHz.
One of those babies surely could open 10 meters.
----
George Cutsogeorge, W2VJN
Umpqua, OR.
>From Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon@ve7tcp.ampr.org> Wed May 1 00:02:16
>1996
From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon@ve7tcp.ampr.org> (Lyndon Nerenberg
(VE7TCP))
Subject: Rain Static
Message-ID: <199604302302.QAA28407@ve7tcp.ampr.org>
>>>>> "K8DO" == K8DO <K8DO@aol.com> writes:
K8DO> Hmmmm.... anybody have any connections with any supply
K8DO> clerks at SAC?
Sort of :-) The Baldy Hughes radar base (part of the old DEW line)
is (was) located just a couple of miles from the VE7ZZZ site. It went
up for sale a few years ago, and a couple of the ZZZ crew put in an
unsucessful bid. It had a fairly monster sized radome, although I
doubt it would have been able to hold the 80m quad *and* all the
other stuff :-(
We did, however, manage to salvage the turntable that spun the radar
dish. Guess what's going to turn the aforementioned 80m quad? :-)
--lyndon
>From Dean Norris <dnorris@k7no.com> Wed May 1 01:46:38 1996
From: Dean Norris <dnorris@k7no.com> (Dean Norris)
Subject: *REAL* QRO
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960501004638.0068757c@mail.syspac.com>
At 03:49 5/1/96 GMT, you wrote:
>At the Plasma Physics Lab, we built amplifiers using the large Eimac tubes.
The
>drivers were 4CX100,000As and 1 or 2 second pulses of 3 Megawatts could be
>delivered for fusion experiments. The plate load impedance was 50 ohms and we
>ran about 20 Kv on the plate. The output was run through 9" diameter coax
>filled with inert gas. They have been operated on various frequencies from 25
>to 80 MHz.
>
>One of those babies surely could open 10 meters.
>----
>George Cutsogeorge, W2VJN
>Umpqua, OR.
>
I purchased one of these li'l jewels surplus for $300. had to resell tho
since I could not get it to fit in my mobile. Oh well, my 4 array 4-1000's
will have to suffice. Main problem is the darn switching power
supply...........
{$^)
C. Dean Norris
Amateur Radio Station K7NO
e-mail to dnorris@k7no.com
http://www.syspac.com/~dnorris/
>From Danny Eskenazi <k7ss@wolfenet.com> Wed May 1 02:28:03 1996
From: Danny Eskenazi <k7ss@wolfenet.com> (Danny Eskenazi)
Subject: Antenna input sought
Message-ID: <199605010128.SAA13372@wolfe.net>
hmmmm forgot all about that antenna! yeah as I recall we used the
TH6 as the counterpoise! and the vertical really liked being at 70 feet off
the ground! I think about using a trapped vert.
above a tribander from time to time....would be a nice diversity antenna AND
cover 40...but these
days a vertical is just not good enough to cut the mustard....its a GOOD
antenna, but too many
40 meter yagis in the neighborhood and youre left in the pileup dust ...
vague memory recap of the vert is generally GOOD results..(that was TWENTY
years ago..werent you about 8 years old then Brett???)
73
K7SS
WARNING: Dont forget your reading the technical musings of QCAO Grand
Exhausted Poobah,
K7SS, and any relationship to actual technical intelligence is purely
coincidental.
08:06 AM 4/30/96 +0800, you wrote:
>N7ENU asked:
>
> What do y'all think of putting a vertical antenna on top of a tower that
> has a tri-band beam presently installed.
>
>I believe this is what XU6WV is running at the moment - an HF2 mounted a
>meter or so above an A3, all on a short roof tower. If I recall correctly,
>Mike got it working by setting the HF2 up all by itself with proper radials
>for tweaking the radiator & then moved the HF2 to its final position. He
>then trimmed the final radials, which obviously have to be below everything
>that rotates, until the HF2 was resonant where it was originally. The end
>result is an antenna that seems to work pretty good.
>
>K7SS years ago (nearly 20, come to think of it!) used to have a
>quarter-wave 40m vertical mounted on top of a TH6 which was perched atop a
>tall tree. I don't recall what Danny did for a counterpoise, but I believe
>it played well, too. You might want to talk to him about it.
>
>73, VS6BrettGraham bagraham@hk.super.net & vr2bg@harts.org.hk
>
>
>From DANIEL VIOLETTE <0002090328@mcimail.com> Wed May 1 05:43:00 1996
From: DANIEL VIOLETTE <0002090328@mcimail.com> (DANIEL VIOLETTE)
Subject: Fwd: Novice/Tech in DX contests
Message-ID: <13960501044331/0002090328PK2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
-- [ From: Dan Violette * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
Came across the electronic version of the letter I got from the ARRL regulatory
information regarding Novices/Techs in a DX contest. I brought this up a
couple years ago and wished I had found this a month or so ago when the
discussions started again. My problem was that the ARRL DX contest forbid
operations outside of the operator class of license (a miscellaneous rule). I
had the rule removed one year after a note to my CAC member. Then it was put
back and I asked why to the reflector and the majority said because of third
party rules. This letter disputes that interpretation. Wanted to get some
techs involved in contesting, but the rule stopped me that year.
Please, not planning on starting this issue again. Just for your files not for
comments/replies.
73, Dan KI6X <DViolette@mcimail.com>
------- FORWARD, Original message follows -------
Subject: Novice/Tech in DX contests
Subject: Novice/Tech in DX contests
Author: Tom Frenaye <0002349723@mcimail.com> at smtpgty
Last week there were several messages about how people got started in
contesting, and about how it was difficult to get Novice and Tech (and I
suppose General and Advanced) operators on-the-air contesting experience in DX
contests. Dan, KI6X, related one frustrating experience.
I thought his interpretation of the FCC rules was not quite correct and almost
answered him at the time, but in a burst of restraint I decided to pass it
along to someone who would be right. I've attached a copy of the letter sent
to KI6X today because it should be of interest to anyone wanting to get
newcomers involved in contesting, particularly with the ARRL DX Contests
coming up soon.
I don't know if the letter was sent to KI6X electronically - so my apologies
if you get this one first Dan.
Bottom line: anyone with a valid FCC license can make QSOs from your station
as long as a control operator is present.
February 8, 1994
Dan R. Violette, KI6X
1122 E. Sail Ave.
Orange, CA 92665
Dear Dan:
ARRL Vice President Tom Frenaye, K1KI, shared your recent contest reflector
comments with us for comment. I am addressing the legal issues; the CAC
issues need to be addressed separately.
First, "A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent
permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held
by the control operator." [97.105(b)]. Thus, a Technician isn't eligible to be
the control operator of the station while it is transmitting on twenty meters.
A Technician, however, is eligible to be "a control operator" of any
station. This is true even though he or she cannot act as THE control
operator at times when the station is being operated on frequencies beyond his
or her license class.
The Commission specifically acknowledged in the Part 97 rewrite proceeding
in 1989 that messages sent between amateur stations on behalf of another
amateur licensee are not third party traffic. See, the Report and Order,
Docket 88-139, 4 FCC Rcd. 4719 (1989), at paragraphs 39 and 42. The FCC, at
the League's request, concurred with the prior holding of the United
Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry, that "the passing of messages on
behalf of other licensed radio amateurs (at home and abroad) does not
contravene the prohibition against third party traffic..." FCC codified that
provision (though not clearly enough, really), at Section 97.115(a) of the
rules, saying that "The prohibition [on international third party traffic
with countries with which the United States does not have a third party
traffic agreement] does not apply to a message for any third party who is
eligible to be a control operator of the station." Notice that says "a"
control operator, not "the" control operator.
Therefore, while an unlicensed person operating with a licensed control
operator, is limited to communications only with the United States stations
and with those stations located in countries with which the United States has
a third party traffic agreement. Any licensed amateur can operate any station
and participate in international communications as long as there is a control
operator on hand who is licensed to operate on the frequency being used. So,
a Technician, for example, could operate at a contest station on 20 meters and
contact any station in any country as long as there was a control operator
present who is eligible to operate on 20 meters.
I hope this helps clear the air on the legal aspects of the issue. The CAC
issues should be addressed through your Division's CAC representative. If I
can be of further assistance, please let me know. 73.
Sincerely,
John C. Hennessee, KJ4KB
Regulatory Information Specialist
ARRL
------- FORWARD, End of original message -------
>From Alejandro Angel Mejia <edam015@apolo.eafit.edu.co> Wed May 1 12:31:09
>1996
From: Alejandro Angel Mejia <edam015@apolo.eafit.edu.co> (Alejandro Angel Mejia)
Subject: K1EA Software
Message-ID: <31874B7D.374B@apolo.eafit.edu.co>
Hi OM's
Know anybody if i can download the last version of K1EA CT software from
the internet?
Thanks...de HK4QIM Alex
>From DFREY@maila.harris.com (DFREY) Wed May 1 13:05:08 1996
From: DFREY@maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <18762820@maila.harris.com>
Way to go, Paul!
Congrats on passing your general test.
>question is what's the best why to do casual ssb on 20 meters. I have
>put up an r7 (actually an r7000) and have had little luck making any
>contacts. I checked my rig and antenna and all seems fine. Localls
>hear me just fine. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Bury your microphone in the back yard and polish up your keyer. Work
on your code. Now that you are "over the hump", it will be easier.
If you pick up the mike now, you are destined to be a general forever.
Pick a goal like DXCC or WAS on 20M and go for it!
Dick
>From AA3JU George Cook <george@epix.net> Wed May 1 16:09:09 1996
From: AA3JU George Cook <george@epix.net> (AA3JU George Cook)
Subject: Champion Beer Drinkers.....
Message-ID: <199605011459.KAA10598@epix.net>
Yes Contest indeed!
I say our own Big Gun of the BrauHuas N3ADL takes the trophy and takes it in
FRC style!
At 12:24 PM 4/30/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Top contenders for the beer record.
>>
>>>> 1.n0bsh
>>>> 2.we9v
>>>> 3.ea3ny
>>>> 4.wd8ixe yes, you steve.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What I want to know is:
>>
>> 1 - Who had the best cirrhosis multiplier,
>> measured in degree of liver damage?
>>
>> 2 - Who grabbed the detox multiplier?
>>
>> 3 - Who holds the record for the Most Brain
>> Cells Damaged category?
>>
>> Just curious....
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Tom, NM1Q (tomf@neca.com)
>> Another lame attempt at CONTEST related humor....
>>
>
>Francisco, HK0BKX (may he rest in peace) used to say that the body worked
>very hard to convert sugar into alcohol, so why put through so much
>trouble? Just give it the alcohol! :-)
>
>CONTEST!
>
>Zack W9SZ
>
>
>
AA3JU george@epix.net AA3JU@W3PYF
Proudly F R C...........
"FRC When second best just isn't good enough!"
>From Gary E. Jones" <gejones@whale.st.usm.edu Wed May 1 19:32:32 1996
From: Gary E. Jones" <gejones@whale.st.usm.edu (Gary E. Jones)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960501183232.006c3ab0@whale.st.usm.edu>
This was a previous post which was returned.
Gentlemen
There has been a good deal of discussion about cable tensioning and the LOOS
>type gauge. I have been using a similar gauge on my sailboat for over 10
>years. Stan W7NI has recently discussed his interactions with the company
>and I will not try to add to his discussion, except to clarify the sailing
>issues. "Rigging" on a sailboat is a somewhat flexible stainless steel wire
>(which is usually 1 x 9 or 9 stainless wires twisted into one cable). The
>cable is not particularly flexible, about the same as guy wire line. It can
>be rolled into large rolls or loops, but is a far cry less flexible than
>"aircraft cable". I would guess that Stan is exactly correct, that there
>would need to be a different calibration chart done specifically for guy
>wire, but I would guess that guy wire is more like sailboat standing rigging
>than not. (Standing rigging are the "stays" that guy or support the mast
>fore and aft, starboard and port. A fairly recent invention has been rod
>rigging, which is essentially like steel rods used for the same purpose. The
>rod rigging has been used in some boats but is not particularly common.
>
>Cable which is more like "aircraft" would be stainless lifeline cable, and
>although I do not have my catalogs in front of me, I remember that lifeline
>cable (for the lines running fore and aft on the stanchions) may be more
>like 1 x 19 or something like that, each component wire much smaller and
>overall somewhat more flexible.
>
>I would guess that the cables are fairly stimilar, stainless steel versus
>galvanized steel, but we need to look toward an engineer to clarify that
issue.
>
> 73 "Capt. Gary" W5VSZ
>
>
>From Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@avana.net> Wed May 1 19:49:20 1996
From: Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@avana.net> (Ed Tanton N4XY)
Subject: RAC 'n Rollup 'REVIEW'
Message-ID: <3187B230.65D1@avana.net>
Hello everyone... I received my RAC n' Rollup today and immediately set
it up and tested it out. What a deal! I cannot imagine why RAC didn't
include such a program with their CD-but this program really completes
it. Biggest deal-to me-is that you no longer have to pick US/DX. THAT
ONE FEATURE is enough to justify the $10.45 (total) it cost. Labels and
printing appear to be consistent with claims. It even loads itself atop
the WIN 95 screen and waits for you. So, bottom line is: it installed
easily the 1st try, it works as claimed, and personally, I loved it.
And-for the record-no connection what-so-ever exists between me and the
author-N2CKH-except me as customer.
I thought this was relevant to most of us, hence the 'broadcast' review.
73
--
Ed Tanton N4XY (770) 971-0436 Marietta, GA
email: n4xy@avana.net URL: Coming Soon
>From DFREY@maila.harris.com (DFREY) Wed May 1 19:52:21 1996
From: DFREY@maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Subject: Re[2]: Burying the mike
Message-ID: <187c2df0@maila.harris.com>
Steve,
Hooray! At least there is one honest soul out there!
That advice was given to me 36 years ago by my dad, W3ESU.
I got two flames by recent upgrades from shack-on-a-belt class who
felt you should at least "coast a year" after all that unnatural
mental effort....
Geez!
CW to me is a simple skill as natural as talking. After all, any fool
can talk into a mike... quite a few do.
Maybe I'm not as old and crotchety as I appear.
Thanks again,
Dick, K4XU
>From David Clemons <dave@egh.com> Wed May 1 21:19:29 1996
From: David Clemons <dave@egh.com> (David Clemons)
Subject: Re[3]: Burying the mike
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605011618.A25176-0100000@newman.egh.com>
Hi,
Boy, this brings back as many old memories as the "first rigs"
discussion. Dick (K4XU) - your father and mine both had a great deal of
wisdom on this point. When I was licensed as a novice in 1962, novices
had 2 meter AM privileges. My father told me that I would not be able to
use a microphone at our family station until I upgraded to general. (He
said it was so I wouldn't turn into a CB'er...) I did upgrade within a
year and now I use SSB and CW each about equally in terms of
time/contacts. However, if I absolutely had to choose one or the other,
I would go out back and bury the mike!
73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
>From Trey Garlough <TREY@tgv.com> Wed May 1 22:44:56 1996
From: Trey Garlough <TREY@tgv.com> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Need email address for KV5V
Message-ID: <830987096.776608.TREY@tgv.com>
> To: dx@ve7tcp.ampr.org, cq-contest@tgv.com
>
> Anyone have an email address for KV5V? de Bernie
> Please don't waste ur time flaming me!
Please don't post requests for email addresses here. Learn to use the
other resources at your disposal to look up this kind of info. I also
note that your message was cross-posted to two different mailing
lists, which is also considered "impolite" in the email world.
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
|