I always receive with what gives the best signal to noise. Last night it
happened to be the SW 1100' beverage. A lot less signal but when there is
no noise and a little signal then copy is much easier. Ra6ax was q5 with qsb
that would take him out at around 0100z.
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 owner-topband@contesting.com wrote:
> Howdy
>
> I am gonna stick my neck out here to add my 2 cents to this one.
>
> I use 4SQ arrays almost exclusively for RX both here in NY and on Cape Cod -
> on both 80 and 160M. I will be happy to make recordings of the incredible
> difference in intelligibility I am observing when compared against 1000 foot
> beverages. While the background noise level is indeed LOUDER on the 4SQ, so
> too is the signal and my ears seem to work best with MORE signal in there - I
> seem to be able to "filter out" the QRN pretty well just be backing off the
> RF gain and concentrating harder!
>
> 160M is a funny band - and 80 sometimes is as well.
>
> Each situation may be different though - so you just GOTTA GO WITH WHAT WORKS
> BEST FOR YOU!! And, don't be afraid to try ALMOST ANYTHING! Slinkies, low
> dipoles, snakes - 65 feet of wire just laying in the grass........ at times,
> all of these antennas have produced qso's which would not have been possible
> without many antennas to choose from! I learned this one BTW from G3SZA who
> once had a 1/4 acre lot in the UK at the bottom of the biggest hole I ever
> saw!
>
> Dave lived in a duplex attached townhome setup at the time and his QTH
> literally looked like a GIANT steam shovel had scooped out all the earth for
> a 1/4 mile in all directions surrounding his QTH. His home was at the exact
> bottom of this hole in the earth!
>
> Having heard his enormous signal for many years on 160M, I was literally
> STUNNED by what I encountered upon arrival. And, most of his listening
> antennas were just bits of wire - I think he had one "long" beverage - maybe
> 400 feet long running along a low fence parallelling an adjacent railroad
> track bed...
>
> If Dave could make THAT PLACE work to the tune of over 240 countries on 160m,
> then I would have to think that just about ANYTHING is possible - given
> persistence and a good set of ears!
>
> One more thread I have been following:
>
> Dipole vs Vertical - I find a high inverted vee dipole (130 feet or HIGHER)
> can, at times, be a real producer - 160M often goes HIGH ANGLE as noted by
> Don G3XTT. Again, you gotta have both covered well if you really wish to
> optimize your XMIT potential under rapidly changing angles of
> takeoff/arrival.
>
> Again, it is a matter of resources and personal choice - but given the
> option, I always use BOTH - here in NY and on Cape Cod as well.
>
> Now, PSE, I do not want to get trashed with questions about theory this and
> theory that - on either thread - I really don't wish to engage in those types
> of discussions - If I understood what was happening here I would gladly share
> it as well - I am only reporting what I know based on my situation - take it
> for what it is worth - and hope it helps out for some out there!
>
> 73 jeff
>
> K1ZM@aol.com
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
> Submissions: topband@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
Pat Collins
-.-. --.- - . ... - - --- .--. -... .- -. -.. -.. . -.- ---.. .-.. .-.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|