Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: overposting

To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: overposting
From: "David Raymond" <daraymond@iowatelecom.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:07:55 -0600
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
With due respect, I guess I have never understood the logic of "bottom
posting" (and perhaps I'm missing something).  The entire business and email
world overpost (and for good reason). . . no one wants to have to
continually sort down through a litany of old messages just to find the most
recent message.

73. . .Dave
W0FLS
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Clark" <jcclark@radiusnorth.net>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:16 AM
Subject: Topband: overposting


> 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
>

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

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