Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: overposting

To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: overposting
From: "Craig Clark" <jcclark@radiusnorth.net>
Reply-to: k1qx@arrl.net
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:16:38 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Can we stop over posting like I have done. I get the digest and this drives
me crazy.

Ok. I have taken another swig of coffee and am calmer. :-)

Please?

73 Craig



-----Original Message-----
From: topband-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of topband-request@contesting.com
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 02:33 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 83, Issue 27

Send Topband mailing list submissions to
        topband@contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        topband-request@contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
        topband-owner@contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. ASCII diagram Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper A TEST
      (Mike & Coreen Smith)
   2. Re: good condx (srikanth murthy)
   3. Re: First JA !. . .NB report. (Art)
   4. Re: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper BEST antenna here -
      howcan that be? A TEST (Guy Olinger K2AV)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:41:56 -0400
From: "Mike & Coreen Smith" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: Topband: ASCII diagram Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper A TEST
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <01b701ca5fea$bf948c90$6501a8c0@II>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

______long 30' 6m yagis 48/64'
      |
      |
___|___                ^
     ||| 48'            / TEE  \ (tophat wires @ 45?) Top @ 55' hung in a 
tree.
     |||               /     |          \
     |||              /      |            \
     |||             /       |             \
 /   |||24'\ <A-D,DX-A twin sloper
/    |||       \            |
/    |||          \       /
     |||             \  /
     |||             / \
     |||((coil))_ /     \
-----------------------------------24 radials, only connected to TEE 
antenna, 60-130' long (varies). The vertical portion is around 60? vertical 
(ie: slightly more upright than 45?)  TEE vertical matched with a 5-10uH 
coil for near perfect SWR 1800-1860 2.1:1 resonant on 1823kcs


Hard to draw a 3-D diagram in ASCII.....the T and the sloper are around 20' 
apart and don't really "cross" like in the diagram.

The sloper actually stretches out much farther than my ASCII art shows. It's

nearly horizontal !

For tonight. I have unhooked the A-D DX-A and shorted the coax's PL-259 
together.
I am running just the T vertical 55' up, and 55' per side on the 2 sloping 
tophat wires @ 45? down towards the ground.

EU's been audible for an hour and a half before SS. . . .

Mike ve9aa

Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
NB
Canada
E6L 1T1
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Subich, W4TV
  To: 'Mike & Coreen Smith'
  Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 4:22 PM
  Subject: RE: Topband: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper BEST antenna 
here -howcan that be? A TEST



  Mike,

  > sEE MY COMMENTS BELOW
  >   Where is your T bottom with respect to the tower,
  >
  >   INCHES AWAY FROM BASE OF TOWER.

  The T (vertical) is very heavily coupled to the tower and
  sloper if they are that close - particularly if the sloper
  is shorted to the tower when not used.  The sloper/tower
  is effectively a vertical on its side (sloper is the
  vertical, the tower is the "ground").  The two antennas
  are so closely coupled that you could even consider them
  a single antenna.

  >    how many and kind of radials do you have below the T,
  >    A COUPLE DOZEN 1/8->1/4 WL RADIALS
  >
  >    is there a direct connection to the tower, and does the
  > tower base have radials?
  >
  >   BASE OF TOWER SUNK INTO HUGE BLOCK OF CONCRETE.  NOT
  > GROUNDED TO RADIAL SYSTEM.

  You would be far better to attach wires (one = "L", two =
  "T") to the top of your mast (or attach them just below
  the top yagi) and shunt feed the tower.  Connect the
  radials to the base of the tower and add as many more
  as you can.

  73,

     ... Joe, W4TV


  >
  >   Guy.
  >
  >
  >   On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Mike & Coreen Smith
  > <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
  > wrote:
  >
  >     OK, on a lark, I am going to try something.  I just
  > unhooked my A-D twin
  >     drooper, err, I mean sloper from the
  >     switchbox, then took a chunk of wire and shorted it out @
  > the PL-259 end
  > at
  >     the base of the tower.
  >
  >     The SWR on my T-vertical changed dramatically. (for the
  > better).  There
  > must
  >     have been a lot of interaction, either through the
  > switchbox itself, or
  > just
  >     proximity??
  >
  >     I'll leave it unhooked for a day or two and see how I
  > make out with no
  >     reference antenna at all.
  >
  >     I'll be the 30/S9 signal on the band tonight.......(hee hee)
  >
  >     Thanks for all the emails.  If this fails or produces
  > mixed results, I
  > may
  >     modify the antenna swaitch back to original if I can
  > remember what I did
  > to
  >     begin with(?) or put a new remote switch in
  > there........or do as a
  > couple
  >     suggested and mount an inverted VEE up near the top of my
  > tower (44'),
  >     however that's really a last resort....I don't want a
  > cloud burner.
  >
  >     Another option I guess , is to lay out 100 more radials.
  > Do-able, but
  >     wouldn't look forward to it ;-)
  >
  >     Mike VE9AA
  >
  >     Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
  >     699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
  >     NB
  >     Canada
  >     E6L 1T1
  >      ----- Original Message -----
  >      From: Kenneth D. Grimm, K4XL
  >      To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
  >      Cc: 'Mike & Coreen Smith' ; topband@contesting.com
  >      Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:49 AM
  >      Subject: Re: Topband: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper
  > BEST antenna
  > here -
  >     howcan that be?
  >
  >
  >      Mike,
  >
  >      The procedure described by Wes below is exactly the
  > approach I would
  >      take.  If you do this, I'm betting that you are left
  > with #1 below,
  >      since you said you previously had your antennas over
  > "soggy ground."
  >      Rocky and soggy are significantly different.
  >      Good luck with your gremlin chasing.
  >
  >      73,
  >      Ken - K4XL
  >
  >      Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:
  >      > Mike:
  >      >
  >      > 1. Maybe the type of rocky ground is the reason.
  >      > 2. Take down all the other wires and check the L (or
  > T) by itself,
  > still
  >      > using switchbox.
  >      > 3. Take out the switchbox and just feed the antenna
  > directly (still
  > by
  >      > itself, no other wires)
  >      > 4. If things are still bad then the problem probably
  > has something to
  > do
  >      > with your location.
  >      >
  >      >
  >      > ------------------ Wes Attaway (N5WA) ------------------
  >      > 1138 Waters Edge Circle - Shreveport, LA 71106
  >      >     318-797-4972 (office) - 318-393-3289 (cell)
  >      >         Computer Consulting and Forensics
  >      > -------------- EnCase Certified Examiner ---------------
  >      >
  >      >
  >      > -----Original Message-----
  >      > From: topband-bounces@contesting.com
  >     [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com]
  >      > On Behalf Of Mike & Coreen Smith
  >      > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 6:44 AM
  >      > To: topband@contesting.com
  >      > Subject: Topband: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper
  > BEST antenna
  > here -
  >      > howcan that be?
  >      >
  >      > Sorry for the long and rambling post. . . .
  >      >
  >      > OK gang, I know antennas "fairly" well, but this has me
  > stumped...really
  >      > REALLY stumped. I've beat myself up over this for 2
  > yrs. straight.  I
  >     just
  >      > can't get it.  I am (almost) ready to rip everything
  > down and start
  > from
  >      > scratch)
  >      >
  >      > I posed a ~similar~ question last year and have tried
  > some different
  >     things,
  >      >
  >      > but I'm losing my patience with the wire here (hi)
  >      >
  >      > BACKGROUND:
  >      > At my old QTH, I ran an inverted L...5/16thWL and fed
  > with a 800pF
  > cap
  >     in
  >      > series.  A dozen to two dozen 1/4wl radials(depending
  > on how many got
  >     broken
  >      >
  >      > in the summer)over soggy ground.  It meandered up
  > 50-ish or so feet
  > with
  >     the
  >      >
  >      > remaining 117' up/down/over/under trees --even the tip
  > sloped back
  >     towards
  >      > the ground 20' or more.....and it ROCKED....I mean, I
  > wasn't any
  > VE1ZZ
  >     or
  >      > anything but I felt I was upper middle crust of the
  > W1/VE1 pileup.  I
  >     also
  >      > had the exact same tower and exact same Alpha Delta
  > DX-A twin sloper
  > up
  >     (for
  >      >
  >      > reference) and it s*cked...really bad.  Easily several
  > S units below
  >      > anything else on 40-80-160m
  >      >
  >      > NOWADAYS:
  >      > Fast forward to new QTH...same 48' DElhi self
  > supporting tower set in
  >      > concrete....same 2 long 6m yagis on tower
  > (48/64')....same lil'
  > sloper
  >      > mounted @ 24' off side of tower....
  >      > I have tried 2 iterations of a plain inverted
  > L.....currently it's a
  > "T"
  >      > antenna. Sloping 55' or so up and 2 T's @ 55' or so
  > each sloping @
  > aprox
  >     45?
  >      >
  >      > to the ground....loads nicely with a few uH @ the base.  Seems
  > quieter
  >     than
  >      > the A-D twin.
  >      > I have tried shunt -and- series feeding my 48' tower
  > (no problem to
  > do).
  >      > They have all loaded well and I got a good SWR match
  > with a usually
  >     narrow
  >      > window 50Kcs maybe of 2.1:1 SWR of which to operate
  > in.  I have 25 or
  > so
  >      > 1/8wl to 1/4wl radials - 1" below the grass.  Ground
  > is rocky shale?
  >     sort of
  >      >
  >      > stuff.  My QTH is on a nice high ridge and I do quite
  > well on VHF and
  >     other
  >      > HF bands.
  >      >
  >      > My signal is pitiful on **all** the 160m antennas I've
  > tried....with
  > the
  >      > exception of the 1/4WL Dx-A twin sloper @ 24' !!!
  > (it's best but it
  >     barely
  >      > works)
  >      >
  >      > The little/low twin sloper off the side of the towe is
  > ALWAYS the
  >     loudest on
  >      >
  >      > the band....by usually 6dB or more........I know this
  > can't be right.
  >      >
  >      > How can this be?  I am using a 4-1 antenna switchbox
  > (Ameritron I
  > think)
  >     @
  >      > the base of the tower which the antennas all share.
  > Many years back
  > I
  >      > modified it so all antennas "floated" (instead of
  > being grounded)
  > when
  >     not
  >      > selected as I was using this as a K8UR sloper system
  > switchbox at one
  >     time.
  >      > I am pretty sure (but not 100%) that I even ran a
  > separate chunk of
  > coax
  >      > right out to an inverted L last fall in desperation.
  > I do lots of
  >     antenna
  >      > experimenting, so it's sometimes hard to remember the
  > 45th iteration
  > of
  >     a
  >      > trial I had a couple years ago, hi.
  >      >
  >      > I *DO* notice significant SWR curve changes on the
  > lil' wee sloper if
  > I
  >     make
  >      >
  >      > any mods to any of the other "REAL" 160m antennas.
  >      >
  >      > I either have interactions in the switchbox, or
  > proximity between
  >     antennas
  >      > or something that I am totally missing.  All 160m
  > antennas are quite
  >     close
  >      > (less than 20-30' away).
  >      >
  >      > Logic tells me there is no way in heck the very low
  > Alpha-Delta DX-A
  >     twin
  >      > sloper can __always__ be the best antenna to transmit
  > and receive on.
  >     YET
  >      > is is !!?  From what I see on the cluster, web and
  > hear on the air, I
  >     can
  >      > hear quite well, but DX stations normally have to be
  > 559-579 before I
  >     even
  >      > get a QRZ.....I am currently running ~750W.........
  >      >
  >      > I'm cracking up.....too much listening to
  > QRN.......sorry for the
  > long
  >     post.
  >      >
  >      > Thanks for any insight.  I am ready to put a Webster
  > Bandspanner on
  > my
  >      > mobile and go sit out in the yard and DX.
  >      > <hi>
  >      >
  >      > VE9AA Mike
  >      >
  >      > Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
  >      > 699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
  >      > NB
  >      > Canada
  >      > E6L 1T1
  >      > _______________________________________________
  >      > 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated
  > with respect. -
  > TF4M
  >      >
  >      > _______________________________________________
  >      > 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated
  > with respect. -
  > TF4M
  >      >
  > --------------------------------------------------------------
  > ----------
  >      >
  >      >
  >      > No virus found in this incoming message.
  >      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  >      > Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.53/2486 -
  > Release Date:
  >     11/07/09 02:38:00
  >      >
  >      >
  >
  >
  >      --
  >      Ken K4XL
  >      k4xl@arrl.net
  >
  >      *** BoatAnchor Manual Archive ***
  >      On the web at http://bama.sbc.edu and http://bama.edebris.com
  >      FTP site info: bama.sbc.edu login: anonymous p/w: youremailadr
  >
  >      _______________________________________________
  >      160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with
  > respect. - TF4M
  >
  >
  >
  > --------------------------------------------------------------
  > ----------------
  >
  >
  >
  >      No virus found in this incoming message.
  >      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  >      Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2485 -
  > Release Date:
  > 11/06/09
  >     19:39:00
  >     _______________________________________________
  >     160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with
  > respect. - TF4M
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > --------------------------------------------------------------
  > ----------------
  >
  >
  >
  >   No virus found in this incoming message.
  >   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  >   Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2485 - Release
  > Date: 11/06/09
  > 19:39:00
  > _______________________________________________
  > 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with
  > respect. - TF4M



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2485 - Release Date: 11/06/09

19:39:00


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:17:04 -0800 (PST)
From: srikanth murthy <vu2gsm@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: good condx
To: topband@contesting.com, David Jorgensen <wd5cov@vtc.net>
Message-ID: <10735.25718.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Hi every one 

?????????????????? Please give all timings in GMT. It will help us to look
out for u guys
73
de
vu2gsm

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, David Jorgensen <wd5cov@vtc.net> wrote:

From: David Jorgensen <wd5cov@vtc.net>
Subject: Topband: good condx
To: topband@contesting.com
Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 1:22 AM

Hi everyone,
Wow great to hear all the signals on 160 the past two evenings into EU and
Asia before sunrise. 

Worked five new ones and my 34th zone since Sept 1st this year on top band!
Hope these condx continue for a while longer. The past two mornings have
logged over 50 JA stations. Thanks for the fun times.

Good DX from New Mexico/

73 Dave WD5COV
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M



      

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:40:29 -0700
From: Art <k6xt@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Topband: First JA !. . .NB report.
To: TopBand List <topband@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <4AF64BBD.8040505@arrl.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Unfortunately we can rant on about this heinous practice but it doesn't 
seem to help. As in my rant over J5C in 07. Some of the same players 
(not all, the mix changes) just keep on QRMing on. And teaching their 
acolytes how to jam. Thank goodness for superior ops such as at TX3A and 
sometimes XR0Y that they persist in the face of intentional jamming to 
make the QSO regardless! My hope is that expeditions and DXers persist 
in either going QRT or resisting the jammers to provide training to 
jamming initiates who are just following along in the footsteps of their 
instructors, or maybe actually changing one or two dedicated jammers' 
behavior.
73 Art

Mike & Coreen Smith wrote:
[Snip]

Now, what's up with the TX3A pileup? <on soapbox> He would call WO0OOO 
(ficticious callsign) and a dozen guys with calls like KH5EEE 
(ficticious callsign) would reply....I have to give them credit...they 
pretty much stuck to whatever call they had (even if a partial) until 
the QSO was made, or nothing was copied on their end....things were 
going painfully slow @ times, so I can just imagine the horrendous noise 
on their end......C'mon, let us each make our own QSO. <off soapbox>

Respectfully and with bleeding eardrums,

Mike VE9AA (FN66na)......1/4WL ? sloper @ 24' on 48' tower.........700W, 
Ic-736



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 02:33:12 -0500
From: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Topband: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper BEST antenna
        here -  howcan that be? A TEST
To: "Mike & Coreen Smith" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Message-ID:
        <46f338980911072333v2b47abc3o5bc68c90bb800d8b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Several things...

The tower and any feedlines are in play. The tower should be connected to
the radials. This would be an issue whether the vertical antenna was an L, a
T, or a folded monopole. This was worth nearly 5 db at one installation.
Feedlines and rotor cables up the tower should be at RF ground at the base.

Without the ground connection the various antennas will be connected by the
feedline shields via switches presenting strange changes if one or the other
cable is removed from the switch. Sound familiar?

Good luck.  73, Guy.

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Mike & Coreen Smith
<ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>wrote:

>
> sEE MY COMMENTS BELOW
>
> Where is your T bottom with respect to the tower,
>
> INCHES AWAY FROM BASE OF TOWER.
>
>  how many and kind of radials do you have below the T,
>  A COUPLE DOZEN 1/8->1/4 WL RADIALS
>
>  is there a direct connection to the tower, and does the tower base have
> radials?
> BASE OF TOWER SUNK INTO HUGE BLOCK OF CONCRETE.  NOT GROUNDED TO RADIAL
> SYSTEM.
>
> Guy.
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Mike & Coreen Smith
<ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>wrote:
>
>> OK, on a lark, I am going to try something.  I just unhooked my A-D twin
>> drooper, err, I mean sloper from the
>> switchbox, then took a chunk of wire and shorted it out @ the PL-259 end
>> at
>> the base of the tower.
>>
>> The SWR on my T-vertical changed dramatically. (for the better).  There
>> must
>> have been a lot of interaction, either through the switchbox itself, or
>> just
>> proximity??
>>
>> I'll leave it unhooked for a day or two and see how I make out with no
>> reference antenna at all.
>>
>> I'll be the 30/S9 signal on the band tonight.......(hee hee)
>>
>> Thanks for all the emails.  If this fails or produces mixed results, I
may
>> modify the antenna swaitch back to original if I can remember what I did
>> to
>> begin with(?) or put a new remote switch in there........or do as a
couple
>> suggested and mount an inverted VEE up near the top of my tower (44'),
>> however that's really a last resort....I don't want a cloud burner.
>>
>> Another option I guess , is to lay out 100 more radials.  Do-able, but
>> wouldn't look forward to it ;-)
>>
>> Mike VE9AA
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
>> 699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
>> NB
>> Canada
>> E6L 1T1
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Kenneth D. Grimm, K4XL
>>  To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
>>  Cc: 'Mike & Coreen Smith' ; topband@contesting.com
>>  Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:49 AM
>>  Subject: Re: Topband: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper BEST antenna here
>> -
>> howcan that be?
>>
>>
>>  Mike,
>>
>>  The procedure described by Wes below is exactly the approach I would
>>  take.  If you do this, I'm betting that you are left with #1 below,
>>  since you said you previously had your antennas over "soggy ground."
>>  Rocky and soggy are significantly different.
>>  Good luck with your gremlin chasing.
>>
>>  73,
>>  Ken - K4XL
>>
>>  Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:
>>  > Mike:
>>  >
>>  > 1. Maybe the type of rocky ground is the reason.
>>  > 2. Take down all the other wires and check the L (or T) by itself,
>> still
>>  > using switchbox.
>>  > 3. Take out the switchbox and just feed the antenna directly (still by
>>  > itself, no other wires)
>>  > 4. If things are still bad then the problem probably has something to
>> do
>>  > with your location.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > ------------------ Wes Attaway (N5WA) ------------------
>>  > 1138 Waters Edge Circle - Shreveport, LA 71106
>>  >     318-797-4972 (office) - 318-393-3289 (cell)
>>  >         Computer Consulting and Forensics
>>  > -------------- EnCase Certified Examiner ---------------
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: topband-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com]
>>  > On Behalf Of Mike & Coreen Smith
>>  > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 6:44 AM
>>  > To: topband@contesting.com
>>  > Subject: Topband: Low Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper BEST antenna here -
>>  > howcan that be?
>>  >
>>  > Sorry for the long and rambling post. . . .
>>  >
>>  > OK gang, I know antennas "fairly" well, but this has me
>> stumped...really
>>  > REALLY stumped. I've beat myself up over this for 2 yrs. straight.  I
>> just
>>  > can't get it.  I am (almost) ready to rip everything down and start
>> from
>>  > scratch)
>>  >
>>  > I posed a ~similar~ question last year and have tried some different
>> things,
>>  >
>>  > but I'm losing my patience with the wire here (hi)
>>  >
>>  > BACKGROUND:
>>  > At my old QTH, I ran an inverted L...5/16thWL and fed with a 800pF cap
>> in
>>  > series.  A dozen to two dozen 1/4wl radials(depending on how many got
>> broken
>>  >
>>  > in the summer)over soggy ground.  It meandered up 50-ish or so feet
>> with
>> the
>>  >
>>  > remaining 117' up/down/over/under trees --even the tip sloped back
>> towards
>>  > the ground 20' or more.....and it ROCKED....I mean, I wasn't any VE1ZZ
>> or
>>  > anything but I felt I was upper middle crust of the W1/VE1 pileup.  I
>> also
>>  > had the exact same tower and exact same Alpha Delta DX-A twin sloper
up
>> (for
>>  >
>>  > reference) and it s*cked...really bad.  Easily several S units below
>>  > anything else on 40-80-160m
>>  >
>>  > NOWADAYS:
>>  > Fast forward to new QTH...same 48' DElhi self supporting tower set in
>>  > concrete....same 2 long 6m yagis on tower (48/64')....same lil' sloper
>>  > mounted @ 24' off side of tower....
>>  > I have tried 2 iterations of a plain inverted L.....currently it's a
>> "T"
>>  > antenna. Sloping 55' or so up and 2 T's @ 55' or so each sloping @
>> aprox
>> 45?
>>  >
>>  > to the ground....loads nicely with a few uH @ the base.  Seems quieter
>> than
>>  > the A-D twin.
>>  > I have tried shunt -and- series feeding my 48' tower (no problem to
>> do).
>>  > They have all loaded well and I got a good SWR match with a usually
>> narrow
>>  > window 50Kcs maybe of 2.1:1 SWR of which to operate in.  I have 25 or
>> so
>>  > 1/8wl to 1/4wl radials - 1" below the grass.  Ground is rocky shale?
>> sort of
>>  >
>>  > stuff.  My QTH is on a nice high ridge and I do quite well on VHF and
>> other
>>  > HF bands.
>>  >
>>  > My signal is pitiful on **all** the 160m antennas I've tried....with
>> the
>>  > exception of the 1/4WL Dx-A twin sloper @ 24' !!! (it's best but it
>> barely
>>  > works)
>>  >
>>  > The little/low twin sloper off the side of the towe is ALWAYS the
>> loudest on
>>  >
>>  > the band....by usually 6dB or more........I know this can't be right.
>>  >
>>  > How can this be?  I am using a 4-1 antenna switchbox (Ameritron I
>> think)
>> @
>>  > the base of the tower which the antennas all share.  Many years back I
>>  > modified it so all antennas "floated" (instead of being grounded) when
>> not
>>  > selected as I was using this as a K8UR sloper system switchbox at one
>> time.
>>  > I am pretty sure (but not 100%) that I even ran a separate chunk of
>> coax
>>  > right out to an inverted L last fall in desperation.  I do lots of
>> antenna
>>  > experimenting, so it's sometimes hard to remember the 45th iteration
of
>> a
>>  > trial I had a couple years ago, hi.
>>  >
>>  > I *DO* notice significant SWR curve changes on the lil' wee sloper if
I
>> make
>>  >
>>  > any mods to any of the other "REAL" 160m antennas.
>>  >
>>  > I either have interactions in the switchbox, or proximity between
>> antennas
>>  > or something that I am totally missing.  All 160m antennas are quite
>> close
>>  > (less than 20-30' away).
>>  >
>>  > Logic tells me there is no way in heck the very low Alpha-Delta DX-A
>> twin
>>  > sloper can __always__ be the best antenna to transmit and receive on.
>> YET
>>  > is is !!?  From what I see on the cluster, web and hear on the air, I
>> can
>>  > hear quite well, but DX stations normally have to be 559-579 before I
>> even
>>  > get a QRZ.....I am currently running ~750W.........
>>  >
>>  > I'm cracking up.....too much listening to QRN.......sorry for the long
>> post.
>>  >
>>  > Thanks for any insight.  I am ready to put a Webster Bandspanner on my
>>  > mobile and go sit out in the yard and DX.
>>  > <hi>
>>  >
>>  > VE9AA Mike
>>  >
>>  > Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
>>  > 699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
>>  > NB
>>  > Canada
>>  > E6L 1T1
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. -
TF4M
>>  >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. -
TF4M
>>  >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>  > Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.53/2486 - Release Date:
>> 11/07/09 02:38:00
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Ken K4XL
>>  k4xl@arrl.net
>>
>>  *** BoatAnchor Manual Archive ***
>>  On the web at http://bama.sbc.edu and http://bama.edebris.com
>>  FTP site info: bama.sbc.edu login: anonymous p/w: youremailadr
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
>>
>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>>
>>
>>
>>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2485 - Release Date:
>> 11/06/09
>> 19:39:00
>> _______________________________________________
>> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
>>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2485 - Release Date: 11/06/09
> 19:39:00
>
>


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband


End of Topband Digest, Vol 83, Issue 27
***************************************


_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>