Here are some of my observations on both my local club effort and my own.
1) Noone else around here knows what CONTEST means. :) CW is twice the point va
lue
but they want to give the beam to a SSB station after I had held a freq f
or
over an hour. Then the trap dipole I hook up to is a better dummy load th
an
antenna. 1 more hour yields only 5 Q's on 40 meters.
2) Have a good plan, and a backup, and a backup to the backup. I had planned on
running a solid contest effort during FD with the local club. I was ....
dismayed to find they used commercial power, did not take it serious, and
never planned on submitting logs. Ended up having to cobble together an e
ffort
from my back yard.
3) FD is a contest. I think personally it is one of the best ones to initiate n
ew
contesters. I have been out of radio for over 10 years since I joined the
army
and went overseas 10 years ago. once I returned last year I began to get
reinterested and finally got off my behind and got the ticket back just i
n
time for WPX. Finally got enough rig to actually run a freq in time for F
D.
There was some interest generated so maybe some of the locals will start
contesting. Not a good thing as most of them are single and dont have a f
amily
to support in addition to contesting so I will probably be blown off the
charts in coming contests. :)
4) ya gots ta have a beam. All I have at home are wires, and I could tell the
difference. I am putting up a 30 foot tower and 3el tribander as soon as
I
can find the other 2 sections of tower. (30 foot plus mast is about all I
can
get away with in military housing unfortunately)
As always, have fun, and see you in the next contest.
Al - KK5ZX
____________________________________________________________________________
E-Mail: foggie@dtx.net | Snail-Mail: Allen Fogleson
| Fort Polk, La 71459
____________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by XF-Mail free of charge, and is 100% microsoft free!
For more information on remaining microsoft free try http://www.redhat.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sun Jun 23 21:59:22 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Torque compensation??
Message-ID: <199606232059.NAA28941@desiree.teleport.com>
>Am I missing something or do these two authors seem to disagree somewhat on
>the issue of mast torque compensation?
>
>
> Leeson (PHYSICAL DESIGN OF YAGI ANTENNAS; p. 6-22):
>
> It is possible to use a comination of element relocation,
>element area variation, and compensation to achieve torque
>compensation.
>
>
> Devoldere (LOW-BAND DXING; p. 13-12):
>
> The wind area of the elements and their placement on the
>boom do NOT play any role in the mast torque.....
>
>
>-------------
>Brought to you by SPARE (Society for the Preservation of Antenna Rotating
>Equipment)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>AA7BG aa7bg@3rivers.net Matt Trott
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gang,
Here is a great example of where you can use common sense to get the correct
answer.
Let's assume Devoldere is correct for a moment. Since it does not matter
where the elements are placed, according to him, let's put them all very
close together on the same end of the boom. Now let's turn the antenna so
the boom is not directly into the wind and set the brake. I say the wind
will put torque on the mast tending to rotate the boom end with no elements
on it into the wind and the boom end with all the elements on it away from
the wind, just like a weather vane.
Of course, this is an extreme example, but it shows John's simple
explanation does not hold water. Distributing the elements across the boom
reduces the weathervane effect, but the effect will not go completely away
without some effort to balance the weathervaning as Leeson suggests.
My vote goes to Leeson.
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
>From je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) Mon Jun 24 12:14:49 1996
From: je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) (Takao KUMAGAI)
Subject: 2 for 1
Message-ID: <199606241114.UAA06482@dumpty.nal.go.jp>
Hi Jim
on 96/06/21, James B. Neiger writes:
: Several of us operated from a small shack on Canton (a photo was published
: in a 1972 QST, as I recall) and one only needed to change calls to QSY to
: the other "country". I operated the 1971 CQ WW CQ test as VR1W, but also
: worked about 50 QSO's as KB6DA, and sent in logs for both operations. I
: ended-up No. 2 behind K2SIL (aka K1GQ) at KH6RS, and W1WY wrote in the CQ
: Magazine results that I might've won the contest if I hadn't taken the
: time out to go over to Canton Island for those 50 QSO's! As Casey Stengel
: would say, you can look it up.
I was a very lucky guy of those 50 QSOs.
I could remember that 25years contest QSO just like yesterday.
I was not a serious contester at that time just a DXer with tiny
pistol(Tribander with 100w). I found VR1W and tried to get him
in the pile up. One US guy got Jim bit higher and he sent
"59903 Jim KB6DA 59903 BK"
and you replied with
"r KB6DA 59931 TU VR1W TEST" or something like this.
I fortunately knew that VR1(p) and KB6 were the different country
on the same desk and learned how to work 2countries in one transmittion.
When I got the reply from Jim and sent the same report as W6 guy did.
Bingo!
I worked 2 countries in one transmittion.
Oh well, it was a good ol'day... I was JA0CUV/1 at that time.
---------
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
Internet: je1cka@nal.go.jp
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Sun Jun 23 19:46:09 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: Mendelsohn to ARRL Board
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960623184609.00684374@aloha.net>
Hi again, Steve,
Below is the text of the memo from the First Vice
President of the ARRL to the ARRL Board of Directors.
Steve is next in line to the President, Rodney Stafford,
KB6ZV.
"From: Stephen Mendelsohn / MCI ID: 253-2026
TO: Directors
Subject: The Coming Storm...or Opportunity
Recent Indications of Change. An Opportunity to Win or Lose.
In recent communications, several Board members have touched
on individual signs of what I believe is a greater truth.
An examination of several seemingly disparate signs seems to
show that they are really parts of a whole picture which, when
blended together, will form a negative picture of the future,
for ARRL and Amateur Radio, if not watched and managed. These
points include:
- Growing numbers of No-Code Licensees who are content to
enjoy VHF operation with no desire to upgrade to HF
operation and HF culture including DXing, Contesting and
working for personal achievements (WAS, DXCC, etc).
- The recent definition by the Board that the core member-
ship of the League is an HF operator.
- The slowing in the numbers of amateurs who choose to
upgrade.
- The declining numbers of ARRL membership renewals.
- The growing perception among VHF licensees who believe
that ARRL is becoming irrelevant.
Several other factors seem to be coming into focus that will
put increased pressure on our license structure and
requirements in the future. These factors include:
- The probable decision at WARC-99 to eliminate the
demonstrated knowledge of Morse Code as an
international licensing requirement for operation
below 30 MHz.
- The realization by a growing number of Code-Free licensees
that they will become the majority by 1999.
I believe that these factors will put enormous pressure on the
FCC to finally lower or eliminate the code requirement for HF
operation.
If the League's core membership is the existing HF operator,
that group will be a small minority by 1999 if current
licensing and low upgrade trends continue.
The immediate question I believe that this Board must face is
how to manage the coming debate so that the League is seen as
a Leader in the search for fair solutions.
Remember the rancor left after Incentive Licensing? I would
rather not see the League suffer this type of disgrace again.
As I stated at the beginning of this editorial, some Board
members have commented on the coming event.
Rod Stafford briefly discussed this in his recent report to
the Board (Stafford 2-96). Tom Comstock noted that the market
is moving and we are not moving with it. Dave Sumner's
editorial in the February, 1996, QST, is another piece of the
puzzle. But we, as a Board, must act quickly to face the
challenge of the quickly looming future.
I believe we need to start a national debate focusing on the
desires of the Amateur population for their future HF usage.
We need to create the perception, based on fact, that the
League is the National leader in determining what ALL amateurs
want in the way of HF spectrum usage and how they really feel
about the continued use of the Morse Code as a licensing
requirement.
Recent talks before several clubs with a total attendance of
over 400 people indicated that a reduction in the code
requirement for the General Class license would be acceptable
to over 75%. At my cabinet meeting this past weekend the
majority felt that if the League were to survive we will need
to bring the VHF No-Code licensee into our core by making
upgrading to General and above more attractive.
Attractive does not mean more contests or certificates, but a
slower code requirement with a written test more responsive to
the needs of todays operating skills than ever before.
While there will be some die-hards who state that "I had to do
it so they should have to know code at 13/20 WPM" you have
merely to ask them if they know how to crank a car engine as
their fathers did to pass a driving test and they quickly come
to see the point. They don't like it, but they do acknowledge
that times and test requirements do change.
I also believe that we will have to reach out to other
non-traditional (for the League) sectors to help focus this
debate. This may include a group from industry as we had in
the previous Code-Free license formulations.
We will have to take special care to talk with our members.
Not just write an article or two about what the Board has in
mind, but some traditional poling, the creation of focus
groups and some grass-roots work by the elected officials.
I will offer a motion to create such a steering group, or to
use the EC as a steering group at the coming meeting.
I believe that we must be seen as the leaders in this debate
and that we must not be perceived as the "Morse Code Forever"
crowd, or we will become the membership organization of less
than 10% of the future Amateur population.
The elimination of an international requirement for a
knowledge of Morse Code can be used domestically as a way to
change the image of the League among what is quickly becoming
the majority population of the Service.
Such a change will be an opportunity to win or lose for ARRL.
Lets make a League vision of the future the one all amateurs
want to sign on to.
I look forward to seeing you and discussing this in Savannah.
-73- Steve, WA2DHF"
>From seay@alaska.net (Del & Jan Seay) Mon Jun 24 01:17:31 1996
From: seay@alaska.net (Del & Jan Seay) (Del & Jan Seay)
Subject: Antenna Trolly System
References: <199606222335.QAA27731@desiree.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <31CDDE9B.4B18@alaska.net>
Stan Griffiths wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone know of any articles on using a trolley-cable system to put
> >>up a beam? We're thinking of using it for a 3-el 40 meter Yagi.
> >>
> >>Zack W9SZ
>
> KL7C developed such a system a number of years ago for use on Rohn 25. He
> used to raise and lower his 5 element 20 often as the "trolly" was
> permanently installed. Ray, KL7C, was in Anchorage at the time but I have
> lost track of him. If you can find him, I am sure he will share the details
> with you.
>
> Stan w7ni@teleport.com
It was a 4 el, Stan, as the design precludes the use of odd nuimber
of elements.
I have his drawings, and have already offerred to share with anyone
who is interested.
However - his design is for complete operation of the system, not
just "Tramming" for installation. It included the cage with rotator
installed. He would run it up, and use it. (Powered by a 3/8"
drill at the base of tower.
Thanks for bringing it up.
73 de KL7HF
>From kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) Mon Jun 24 03:21:59 1996
From: kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) (Robert E. Naumann)
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: <01BB614A.6DEC56A0@dfw-tx19-01.ix.netcom.com>
Fellow contesters;
I've read Steve's letter and it is much less troublesome than I thought =
it would be based on some reaction to it posted here.
It seems, and rightly so, that Steve is concerned about the future of =
the League. He wants to be certain that the League will meet the needs =
of the amateurs of the future (whatever that may be) and that the =
general ham community will look to the League for leadership as us OT's =
(?) have pretty much always done. Evidently, the new no-code hams are =
not as enamored with the League as us "coders" have been.
As far as CW goes, I think the handwriting is on the wall. There's just =
too damn many lazy buggers that won't learn the code but have money to =
spend on radios! I heard somewhere that money makes the world go around =
and I guess that holds true here too. =20
I think the task we must take on with great determination is to maintain =
the CW sub-bands. With a majority of no-coders, it'll be a tough =
battle.
Maybe licensing should be strictly by code or no-code. That is, Phone =
privileges for those who pass the written test and CW privileges
for those that pass both the written and code tests ? (NOT)
Maybe we should try something less drastic at first, like lower the code =
speed for the general to 9 or 10 wpm ? Maybe have 13 or 15 wpm for =
advanced ? There's no harm in that - is there ? We'd sure have a lot =
more generals.
Maybe this will make CW more attractive since the phone bands will be =
more crowded. I'm afraid that eventually the pressure will grow to give =
up the CW segments in order to allow the majority of codeless or =
slow-code types to spread out.
Let's open a discussion of this. I don't think any one of us has the =
answer yet - that will make all of us happy - including our new, no-code =
friends.
73,
Bob Naumann
KR2J@ix.netcom.com
Dallas, TX
>From 0005543629@mcimail.com (David & Barbara Leeson) Sun Jun 23 23:32:00 1996
From: 0005543629@mcimail.com (David & Barbara Leeson) (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: Torque Comp??
Message-ID: <84960623223248/0005543629DC4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Stan, W7NI, votes for my 1991 explanation of why torque compensation
seems to work. Thanks, Stan, but I think now that I got the right answer
for the wrong reason!
This is a very illuminating question. Imagine a "one-element" beam
with a symmetrical boom and one element on one end (nothing on the
other). If you put this in the wind, it will swing right around until
the element is away from the wind, right?
Well it doesn't!
And that's the point of all the hoohah about cylinders in yaw, etc.
Try this yourself. Make a bearing from a scrap board with a hole in it.
Trap it is the sunroof of your car. Make a mast, boom and single
element from PVC pipe. Place the mast in the bearing, you holding the
bottom end (a right angle handle helps you feel the torque better).
Drive carefully and see what happens. What I found is that this
unbalanced "antenna" is happy with the element at the front or at the
back, but every 90 degrees it has stable points not predicted by either
theory. I'm satisfied that the force on a cylindrical element is not in the
direction of the wind (as predicted by RS-222-C), but can be in a different
direction, perpendicular to the surface (and hence the axis) of the cylinder,
as predicted by EIA-222-E and ASCE 74. But the experiment also shows that
the "E" theory is still an over-simplification, since it can't predict the
torques that break our rotators, so it's not as useful as it might be.
I wasn't able to experiment with more balanced structures, but now that the
#60 chain has broken on my Skyneedle, I have a perfect setup for observing
antenna wind torque with a full-size antenna in a nice bearing. So far, I
can tell you that an antenna with half an element missing has lots of torque
when the wind blows. But notwithstanding the non-intuitive direction of
force on cylinders in yaw, it makes sense to me that antennas with both
element and boom symmetry have a better chance of having lower torque
BTW, the chapter on masts in my book owes a lot to the main reference, the
earlier articles by Stan, W7NI. I agree that I wouldn't waste a minute on a
pipe mast or a power winch (except maybe the unique W7RM winch that runs off
a hand-held battery drill as well as a crank).
73 de Dave, W6QHS
|