*Message:
From: V.LONG.SA@OCGRV02
To: >INTERNET:cq-contest@tgv.com at OCF_INFORM
cc: >INTERNET:K8UNV@ZOOMNET.NET at OCF_INFORM
cc: >INTERNET:NW8F@ZOOMNET.NET at OCF_INFORM
*cc: V.LONG.SA
Subject: FD ops
Contents:
I know to some contesters this little weekend event is not a good
subject on here. So just give me a few minutes and I'll be off here.
Any Central Ohio Field Day ops out there? If you are looking for a
place to operate come on out to WD8E's Field Day event. Its actually
the Licking County Contest Group.
The location is 1010 Blacks Road, Hebron Ohio, for further directions
call Scott AA8SM at (614) 344-8501 or (614) 321-7166.
We are in need of CW ops, and we can use some good SSB ops.
Here's a run down of the stations:
HF SSB: Kenwood TS440S, Mosley 53B at 56 ft, G5RV (40/80).
HF CW : Yaesu FT-890AT, Mosley CL33 at 40 ft, G5RV and 160 dipole.
VHF : Yaesu FT-767GX, Yagis, (2/6m and 150w on both bands)
SAT : Yaesu FT-736
There will be a dinner after FD.
73 and thanks for reading this!
Scott AA8SM
>From Tim Coad" <Tim_Coad@smtp.svl.trw.com Fri Apr 26 19:08:12 1996
From: Tim Coad" <Tim_Coad@smtp.svl.trw.com (Tim Coad)
Subject: JST-245
Message-ID: <n1381605413.6796@smtp.svl.trw.com>
Subject: Time:11:07 AM
Anybody know who sells this (contest) radio?
Anybody have one that likes it?
Tim - NU6S
>From nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) Fri Apr 26 19:27:25 1996
From: nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Subject: Rain Static
Message-ID: <1381597295-77796265@BANJO.EASY.COM>
|If the static is caused by the charged particles striking, or just being
|near, the antenna elements, then why does the lower antenna in a stack
|seem relatively immune to the static? I have a Cushcraft 2 el 40 about 9 ft
||above a TH7, which is about 40 ft above the lower TH7. The Cushcraft does not
||"protect" the upper TH7 from noise, but the lower TH7 is MUCH quieter.
I can't explain that Barry, but I have a 40-2CD and a TH7 each on their own
well-separated towers. The TH7 is much less susceptible to static discharge
from rain and from storms several miles away. The 40-2CD tower is about
25ft higher, but I doubt that explains it. The TH7 is just consistently
less susceptible.
John, NT5C.
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Fri Apr 26 19:36:49 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Tucker and 14.195
Message-ID: <199604261836.LAA08923@desiree.teleport.com>
>I think I finally realized what's going on here.
>
>All the frustrated frequency cops (having nothing to do without sunspots
>and DXpeditions) are here bitching and moaning about Reflector rules,
>violations, etc.
>
>Let's now follow the analogy - The DX station (or guys hitting the F1
>key) has control of the frequency. He doesn't need help telling everyone
>what they should do. Same here - If Trey doesn't like what is said, he
>will address the issue. All the other net controls/frequency cops don't
>need to help!
I guess the above message makes you a "cop" cop. And this one makes me a
'"cop" cop' cop. Where is dr. Bafoofnik when you need him?
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
Aloha, OR
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Fri Apr 26 19:37:02 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: (Fwd from K0KR via NQ0I) Guywire Anchor Posts
Message-ID: <199604261837.LAA09022@desiree.teleport.com>
>The reflector has been rich with valuable commentary on guy anchor posts.
>
>
>For the most part, the comments have been anecdotal, in the
>vein of "this is what has worked for me." Few comments have been
>truly analytical or quantitative in nature. This is not necessarily a bad
>thing. Many of us prefer seat-of-the-pants overkill to having to engage
>in what might be a tedious (and perhaps expensive) rigorous, quantitative
>evaluation of the relevant mechanics. We want to avoid unreasonable
>hazards. All the same, we want to erect some metal and get on the air,
>sooner rather than later.
>
>The comments on the reflector reveal quite a spectrum of experience with
>elevated anchors. Successes, though, appear to outweigh failures by a
>substantial margin.
Everyone wants to talk about their successes and nobody wants to talk about
their failures. I wouldn't take much comfort in hearing stories about
successes outweighing failures. I would expect that, even if half of the
systems failed.
On the other hand, if only 1 percent of the systems failed, it would be a
terrible track record. What if 1 percent of the highrise buildings in the
country fell down?
>I am the last person who would be inclined to overlook probable failure
>modes. But some of the comments express a concern over possible failures
>that I myself have not known to occur. I'd be interested, therefore, in
>more information about actual failures. This might better inform us about
>where, on the basis of experience, problems are likely to arise, and
>better prepare us to avoid them.
I personally think there is a GREAT DEAL more to be learned by analyzing the
failures than the sucesses but it is tough to get people with failures to
come forward and discuss them. It is sort of like asking them to tell you
the details of why they got fired from their last job . . .
>I am curious, for example, about the basis for a few of the comments
>posted in recent days:
>
>>> Do use galvenized Steel I-Beams, rather than tubular, due to
>>> breaking strength.
>
>Does this imply that tubular steel pipe of proper characteristics has so
>low a breaking strength as to render it the weak link in the chain, that
>is, that the pipe may be predicted to fail before the guy-wire material
>itself? I assume that by "breaking strength" the writer means not the
>*tensile* strength of good steel pipe (which one might assume to be far
>greater than the tensile strength of even EHS cable) but, rather, that the
>pipe might bend where it enters the concrete, and fracture at that point.
>Has anyone seen this happen? If so, how high was the pipe out of the
>ground, and what kind of pipe was used?
A class in second year college mechnanical engineering will show you that
the cross-sectional shape of the material used in a bending application like
elevated guy posts makes a huge difference in its ability to resist bending.
The same amount of steel in the shape of an I beam will resist bending much
better than in the shape of a tube. Also, there are two ways to orient the
I beam relative to the bending stress and that makes a difference, too.
>>> Do go as deep as possible. (100' tower, I'd go minimum of 10 feet!)
>
>One must grant, I am sure, that the needed depth for a secure anchor is a
>function of, among other variables, the nature of the soil, the load
>presented by the tower and antennas, and the height of the anchor point
>above ground. I know of several large installations (150'+) in
>severe-wind environments that have survived for decades with anchors no
>more than five feet deep. I hasten to add, though, that those
>installations are in stable, rocky soil, and the above-ground height of
>the anchor is no more than five feet. What is the deepest anchor anyone
>has seen pivot in the ground? What kind of soil was involved? What were
>the other operative factors?
I saw a "pivoted" elevated anchor at a series of tower failures at W7RM a
number of years ago. I have no idea how deep it was or what sort of a
concrete block was on the bottom.
>>It's important that whatever you use as a "post", should have some sort
>>of plate or rods tied in at the bottom so that it has no chance of
>>pulling out of the block of concrete.
>
>I have been assured by people whose knowledge and judgment I trust that
>the adhesion of properly prepared and cured concrete to a large-diameter
>steel pipe that is imbedded deeply enough in the concrete is an amazingly
>great adhesion indeed. This should obviate any material advantage to
>attaching bottom fins or plates to the post. Is my information unsound?
>Does anyone here know of an instance in which a pipe pulled out of the
>concrete itself? If so, what length of pipe was imbedded in the concrete?
If you back-guy an elevated anchor post with a steep power company earth
anchor, the guy post tends to be in compression rather than tension and
tension on the guy wires would tend to push the guy post down into the
concrete rather than pull it out.
>I am afraid, by the way, that the rigor of the specifications provided by
>some of the tower and hardware manufacturers themselves is not as great as
>we might prefer. Some of the data supplied by a popular tower
>manufacturer does not withstand scrutiny. Beware of placing unquestioning
>faith in the catalogues and data sheets.
Now here is where you can help me. Is it Rohn you are talking about? You
asked people to get specific about failures. I want you to get specific
about this anonymous tower company and exactly what pages in their catalog
you suspect are not to be trusted and why. I am a Rohn dealer and I want to
give the very best advice I can to my customers to help prevent failures.
My experience has been the the data provided by the Rohn Company tends to be
very conservative and very much on the "safe side". I think it is extremely
"rigorous". If you feel uncomfortable putting the info on the reflector for
all to see, send me a private E-mail.
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
Aloha, OR
>From Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008 <steve@austin.ibm.com> Fri Apr 26
>21:00:13 1996
From: Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008 <steve@austin.ibm.com> (Steve Runyon WQ5G
512-838-7008)
Subject: Ground Rods Made Easy
Message-ID: <9604261900.AA30851@runyon.austin.ibm.com>
Regarding the trick Mike, AD4VS, mentioned:
I have successfully used a similar gadget to remove some broken-off
fence posts and the concrete blob at the bottom. Works Great!!
I was moaning about how much work it was to dig up the concrete bases
so that I could replace some fence posts snapped off during a major
storm here, and a relative dug this gadget out of his shed. It was
steel rather than copper: a hose fitting, short piece of steel pipe, a
90 degree elbow, and another piece of steel pipe about 5 feet long.
This wasn't sand either, but hard black Texas dirt. I was amazed at how
quickly the water cut through the dirt - after about 10 minutes work
I had a trench all the way around the post and was easily able to pry
the concrete base up with a pry bar. I removed 8 posts this way in a
couple of hours!
Anyway, thought this info could come in handy for someone trying to
remove concete from the ground (guy posts for elevated guys, etc)...
the trick can be used for a lot more than sinking ground rods!
73 de Steve
>From Ward Silver <hwardsil@wolfenet.com> Fri Apr 26 20:19:36 1996
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@wolfenet.com> (Ward Silver)
Subject: Rain Static
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.93.960426121753.4988E-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Could be that the upper antennas act as a "grid" of sorts to drain some of
the charge away from the raindrops before they fall on the lower one.
i.e., the lower antenna is in a lower-potential zone than the upper.
Could also be that your upper antenna "sees" more noise sources. Probably
a combination of the two.
73, Ward N0AX
>From R. Torsten Clay" <torsten@mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu Fri Apr 26 20:20:50
>1996
From: R. Torsten Clay" <torsten@mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu (R. Torsten Clay)
Subject: need to share room at Dayton
Message-ID: <199604261920.AA17044@mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu>
Hi,
I'm going to be at Dayton this year, and need somewhere to stay
Friday and Saturday nights. If anyone needs an extra roommate, let me know.
(I'm also willing to bring a sleeping bag and borrow floor space!)
Tor
n4ogw@uiuc.edu
>From jesposit@sctcorp.com (Joe Esposito) Fri Apr 26 20:21:00 1996
From: jesposit@sctcorp.com (Joe Esposito) (Joe Esposito)
Subject: My Novice Days
Message-ID: <m0uCt5T-0000PvC@sctladm.sctcorp.com>
I first discovered ham radio at age 12 when I found some local hams on
160 while playing with my grandfather's Wards Airline AM/FM/SW console
radio. Having been somewhat accustomed to QSLing SWBC stations, I
tried to send an SWL card to one of the stations (K2AVN) that I heard
that day. I sent it without a street address. The mailman in the
neighboring town recognized the ham call sign and took the card to a
ham he knew (K2CSS) who replied to my SWL card.
Over the next three years I worked hard to learn the CW and theory
necessary for a novice license. My parents bought me a Hallicrafters
5R10A. This was a predecessor to the S-40 series and didn't have a
BFO. I used to have an old AC-DC AMBC receiver sitting next to the
5R10A and would beat the IFs to obtain a note while copying W1AW.
Needless to say, it was quite unstable. One of my elmers (W2EYG)
loaned me a SW-54 so I could get my code speed up. Finally, in the
winter of 1956, he gave me the novice test. I was licensed as KN2YJL
on 5 FEB 57.
I only remained a novice for 5 months when I upgraded to General. I
never had a really nice station. I built my own CW rig for 80 and 40 (
and later 160). Anoth local provided me with a Millen exciter 90800
(6L6 and 807) but I never got it to work. As time went on I went
through an S-85, an HQ-110, a Globe Chief 90, a Globe Scout 680, and
finally a Gonset G-76. That rig lasted me for many years.
My first contests were QSO parties which were a lot of fun. DXing bug
bit in 1958-59 when I discoved 10 meters. I used a 3 element wire beam
thumbtacked to the sloping wooden ceiling of my bedroom. It served me
well for many months.
I hope you didn't find this too boring but Like the others, I felt the
need to reminisce.
73,
Joe, K2YJL/M
(also held WA2LOK, WA2PXC, WB4AJA, VK2EJA)
|