I would like to poll the group here to see if anyone has any ideas or
circuits which could be put external to our tranceivers to protect the
front-ends. When operating multi-op and/or using stacked antennas, rf
problems can be severe and expensive to fix.
I'm thinking of something to put in-line which would give its life instead of
the sensitive transistors/diodes/attenuators inside the transceiver. It would
be much easier to change out and would be ultimately much cheaper to fix.
I am now focussing on overseas operations, some single-op and some multi-op.
When travelling with expensive and heavy transceivers, I really don't want to
have to haul them back and forth to keep the front-ends repaired!!!
I do not feel that ICE bandpass filters and/or stubs are the real answer. I
remember when Yaesu put neon bulbs in line. Could this be the way to do it or
are the discretes too fast nowadays for that cheap-o fix???
I will summarize to the public the results for all who are interested.
73,
Mr. Bill K5GA
>From David Musselwhite <ve8nc@gov.nt.ca> Fri Apr 7 16:19:54 1995
From: David Musselwhite <ve8nc@gov.nt.ca> (David Musselwhite)
Subject: No subject
SUBSCRIBE 425 DX NEWS
>From Richard Riley (G0JFX)" <RRILEY%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Fri Apr 7 23:49:42
>1995
From: Richard Riley (G0JFX)" <RRILEY%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de (Richard Riley
(G0JFX))
Subject: this frequency is in use!
Peter Casier (ON6TT) wrote:
>>> You know what bothers me in a contest? Guys coming right on your working
>>> frequency and starting 'CQ contest, CQ contest,...'.
Can't let this go by without commenting....
I had the pleasure of sharing a few beers in the company of Dave Lawley (G4BUO)
a few weeks back...
While chatting about the ARRL DX (SSB) contest at TM5G...I mentioned a similar
problem I had with a certain East Coaster.
**(Intermission)**
** In these cases I never let a point or two slip by...I work the guy politely
** and then ask him to "move on".
** This "general" attitude pays off...during the "Coupe de REF" an "American"
** came up to say "turn it down man you're WIDE!"
** "sorry!" I replied and asked the chap to hang around while I backed things
** off in order that he could re-check my side-bands...
** A few seconds later he was back...happier with the size of my signal...
** I asked him for some contest points...he was a MULT a KL7!
** So I suppose the moral is "be polite on the air...IT COULD HELP YOU WIN!"
..right back to main theme....
So I pop up 5Hz and put in my call...
he calls again....
"Tango Mike Fiiiiive Germany!"
nout...
(is there anyone on the East Coast that DIDN'T hear TM5G during ARRL SSB?)
.the guy didn't respond...just kept calling..making 0 QSOs ...
"autorepeat"?....maybe
I dropped down 5Hz and carried on...squeezing QSOs out from behind his racket..
..after a good 30 minutes he went away...I carried on and forgot about it.....
until I mentioned it to Dave...
The THING is....Dave had the SAME problem with SAME guy....during the CW leg!
TWO WEEKS EARLIER!!
I don't make a point of noting these people's calls...
or get worked up about these "isolated" incidents...
nor do I play the net policeman harassing ops for "bad" practice
we are human after all and some of us aint perfect!! :-)
BUT....
I just happened to mention this call to a fellow contester and he says
ME TOO! Is this just coincidence or does this East Coaster do this all
the time?
Dave said that he spoke with the guys at CQ and that they would be
"on the look-out" during the SSB leg.
He suggested that I add a complaint to the TM5G entry...unfortunately
it had already been sent in.
To how many other people has this guy caused problems?
How many of these "guys" are there out there?
...ie..is this a BIG problem?
and if it is,
how can we "scare" these "guys" away from reverting to this sort of behaviour?
disqualification?....should a certain number of complaints be received?
..do we need a Complaints Committee at ARRL/CQ?
Your thoughts please....
73
Richard
G0JFX/F5VCO
PS: My sole interest is FUN contesting with zero animosity...ie...I don't
wanna start a name calling thing here...!!:-)
-----------------------------------
email: rriley%esa.bitnet@vm.gmd.de
packet: G0JFX@N0ARY
>From Larry Tyree <tree@cmicro.com> Fri Apr 7 17:40:22 1995
From: Larry Tyree <tree@cmicro.com> (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Complaint department
Message-ID: <199504071640.JAA24582@cascade.cmicro.com>
My prediction is that if we start complaning a lot to the ARRL or CQ about
contest problems, it will just push them towards eliminating contests.
They get a lot of heat already from non contesters, and if they start
getting a lot of heat from contesters, the easy decision is to just get
rid of the contest, and all of the heat will go away.
We need to solve these problems without escalating them too far.
Tree N6TR
tree@cmicro.com
>From Scott J Bauer" <sjb@rfc.comm.harris.com Fri Apr 7 17:59:45 1995
From: Scott J Bauer" <sjb@rfc.comm.harris.com (Scott J Bauer)
Subject: Town Boards & Tower Permits
Message-ID: <199504071659.MAA18017@usc02.rfc.comm.harris.com>
Subject: Town Boards and Tower Permits
There is currently a local fight going on about the proposed tower installation
of Dick K2SZE. The town of Pittsford originally approved the permit but now
has very strong opposition from the neighbors. Gotta love 'em.
This "contest" tower (notice how I got the word "contest" in there), has caused
quite a stir, with approx 150 showing up at the last town board meeting,
including about 60 Amateurs who came to show support.
It took over 4 hours to hear all who wished to speak either in favor or opposed.
I spoke as well, hoping that as an engineer I could help in some way. I
think I did help, but not nearly enough.
Pittsford NY is a "well healed" community and several doctors spoke in
opposition and quoted some EMF studies that really didn't apply to Amateur
radio. But town boards being what they are, they don't really understand the
technical issues.
I was asked if I could obtain any studies either showing no correlation between
high frequency RF and cancer, or at least a neutral conclusion. Studies
I've seen haven't applied very well to HF RF.
**** Can anyone help ? Does anyone out there know of a study that can
support this cause and hopefully show no adverse effects or minimal
effects from RF ??? Dick K2SZE really needs your help.
Any of you doctors out there know of any favorable studies ???
You should have been there, it was quite the spectical ! Unbelievable doesn't
even begin to describe what happened. Several doctors flat out lied about
the effects, but without some documentation to show otherwise, the town board
just doesn't know. One even said that Amateur radio was radioactive ! Yes
that is exactly what he meant, but I think the board did see through that one,
at least I hope they did.
A really sad sad event for those wishing to put up a tower. The next meeting
is scheduled for April 25th. (The proposed height is 70 feet)
I could go on for pages here, and sorry for this being so long, and not
being directly related to contesting, at least not for you.
Any help is appreciated. ARRL has been completely informed since the start.
Send references of where any info can be found, and I can look it up. Or
copies would be appreciated, send direct to Dick or to me and I'll relay.
K2SZE, Dick Kessler, 8 Esterny Lane, Pittsford NY 14534.
Thanks in advance for your help. Scott WA2LCC
>From Jerry Sidorov" <jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru Fri Apr 7 19:01:59 1995
From: Jerry Sidorov" <jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru (Jerry Sidorov)
Subject: DX Sprint thoughts
References: <199504070341.UAA24837@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <AANuNXlyi0@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru>
Tony, AE0M wrote:
> I like the idea. Lets set a 24 duration divided into 6 four hour periods.
>
> A station in the single operator category may choose to operate
> 1, 2, or 3 four hour periods maximum. Choosing which periods to operate
> becomes part of the strategy. This category will favor those with the
> superior hardware to the extent that they are able to operate it.
>
> Does anyone think a single operator can do more than 3 four hour periods?
I can operate approx. 24 hour period... may be without very high efficiency,
but I can...
And I know that Willy, UA9BA (ex-UW9AR) can operate longer than 36 hour period
simultaneously!
---
73, Jerry UA9AR.
>From Jerry Sidorov" <jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru Fri Apr 7 19:57:04 1995
From: Jerry Sidorov" <jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru (Jerry Sidorov)
Subject: Is this frequency in use?
References: <199504061727.TAA17691@box.eunet.be>
Message-ID: <AE0iOXlyi0@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru>
Peter, ON6TT wrote:
> You know what bothers me in a contest? Guys coming right on your working
> frequency and starting 'CQ contest, CQ contest,...'.
<Del>
> During the test, I noted the calls of guys who tried to take my frequency
> without even bothering if it was in use or not. Two of them I remember very
<Del>
> Indeed the bands can get crowded and you will always splatter here or there,
> but it is only normal you ask if a frequency is in use before taking it.
Well, I never ask is the frequency in use... I everytime listen it for a
minute or couple before CQing...
If I can't hear CQing station, it's no use to ask "QRL?" - I won't hear
their answer anyway... But during a minute monitoring I probably will
hear any correspondent of it and, therefore, I would know the frequency
is occupied...
> Peter
> ON6TT
---
73, Jerry UA9AR.
>From John Allyn <jallyn@airdata.com> Fri Apr 7 18:18:00 1995
From: John Allyn <jallyn@airdata.com> (John Allyn)
Subject: FW: EXTERNAL FRONT-END PROTECTION
Message-ID: <2F8573E2@wddmssmtp.nwest.airdata.com>
----------
From: John Allyn
To: owner-cq-contest
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL FRONT-END PROTECTION
I use a homebuilt 8-pole bandpass filter (tuned carefully with Network
Analyzer) on each band (total of 6 filters, one for each band, switched in
and out) in the transceiver line. Insertion loss 0.5 dB, stopband
attenuation (on nearest adjacent band) 60 dB and ultimate attenuation of 100
dB plus. Components to handle 200W.
In addition, the power amps each have a 3 section lowpass filter to reduce
harmonic energy and give additional receive protection to the next higher
bands. These low pass filters have negligible insertion loss (less than 0.1
dB) and are built to handle kw level power. About 35 dB attenuation on
second harmonic; ultimate attenuation 100 dB up to 1 GHz, using capacitors
etched on teflon 2 sided printed circuit board material. Coils made of
copper tubing from plumbing suppliers. Not silver plated, however this could
be done.
These two filters in cascade provide superior protection from front burnout,
plus strip off phase noise, spurious and other out of band signals from the
nearby colocated transmitters. This helps to remove intermodulation and
other related problems that multi-multi's have to deal with. Another side
benefit is that there is NO TVI!
John
W7XR
jallyn@airdata.com
----------
From: owner-cq-contest
To: CQ-CONTEST
Subject: EXTERNAL FRONT-END PROTECTION
I would like to poll the group here to see if anyone has any ideas or
circuits which could be put external to our tranceivers to protect the
front-ends. When operating multi-op and/or using stacked antennas, rf
problems can be severe and expensive to fix.
I'm thinking of something to put in-line which would give its life instead
of
the sensitive transistors/diodes/attenuators inside the transceiver. It
would
be much easier to change out and would be ultimately much cheaper to fix.
I am now focussing on overseas operations, some single-op and some multi-op.
When travelling with expensive and heavy transceivers, I really don't want
to
have to haul them back and forth to keep the front-ends repaired!!!
I do not feel that ICE bandpass filters and/or stubs are the real answer. I
remember when Yaesu put neon bulbs in line. Could this be the way to do it
or
are the discretes too fast nowadays for that cheap-o fix???
I will summarize to the public the results for all who are interested.
73,
Mr. Bill K5GA
>From Steve Fraasch <sfraasch@ATK.COM> Fri Apr 7 21:54:00 1995
From: Steve Fraasch <sfraasch@ATK.COM> (Steve Fraasch)
Subject: Town Boards & Tower Permits (EM Fields)
Message-ID: <2F85A77C@msm.ATK.COM>
Dick/Scott:
First, please note your email address was not listed in the body of your
message, making it necessary to respond on the reflector.
I recommend the following:
1.) Invoke the ANSI standard from the ARRL antenna handbook. Note the
recommended limits of E, H field strengths vs. frequency. Currently, that
standard is widely accepted and is not prone to debate; if your city won't
accept it, than you have bigger problems.
2.) Next, find someone who can run NEC. NEC will give you precise
near-field strengths (E, H) for a given structure, over REAL ground, for
various distances and orientations from the antenna. Normalize the data to
1.5KW output.
3.) Unless your within 20 feet for the antenna, you should note that the
near-field strengths will be way below those limits, even at 1.5KW with gain
antennas. I have run my own 80m 70' vertical at various distances from the
base, and noted that the ANSI limits were only exceeded within 15 feet or so
of the base at 1.5 Kw out. My vertical is in a wetlands making human
exposure within 15' moot.
4.) I have analyzed antennas for govt. customers to determine same, and
always, at distances and powers given, there has never been a problem. The
cellular phone scare is warranted (as far as exceeding ANSI limits) because
the antenna is less than an inch from your head (near fields proportional to
1/r^3). Airport radar antennas situated near freeways, or parking lots,
also warrant concern, because of the high transmit power, antenna's high
gain (25 dBi +), and continuous operation. But near-field strengths
emanating from Ham and CB antennas are negligible, given that Ham and CB
operations are relatively low power (even at 1.5 kw), intermittant in
nature, and the antennas used have relatively low gain ( < 10 dBi).
5.) I have NEC, and can run the problem, but having only an MSEE, you
probably want an "expert opinion" from a PHD. Try an EE professor from
Princeton, Rensaeller Polytech Institute, or equivalent school. NEC is
fairly quick to run. The professor's analysis time, and summary report
should be less than 4 hours, and certainly a day. Many may offer to due for
free, or a nominal fee (~ $75/hr)
5.) Contact me off-line. A have a close, personal friend with > 25
articles (at age 35) in IEEE Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Microwave Theory
& Techniques (among others). He is a well-respected EM scientist, and not a
ham, which will help. He might be willing to help for a nominal fee.
6.) Best of luck. Use the ARRL to the full extent possible.
73, Steve Fraasch, K0SF
sfraasch@atk.com
Phone: 612-931-5631 (if unavail, leave message)
>From k3lr <k3lr@telerama.lm.com> Fri Apr 7 21:34:30 1995
From: k3lr <k3lr@telerama.lm.com> (k3lr)
Subject: NA Reflector
Message-ID: <199504072034.PAA02600@telerama.lm.com>
The NA Contest logging software reflector (na-user@eng.pko.dec.com)
can be subsrcibed to by sending a request to
na-user-request@eng.pko.dec.com
Put this in the body of the message
subscribe
The NA BBS is available at 412-528-8877
73,
Tim K3LR
K3LR@telerama.lm.com
>From Steve Fraasch <sfraasch@ATK.COM> Fri Apr 7 22:33:00 1995
From: Steve Fraasch <sfraasch@ATK.COM> (Steve Fraasch)
Subject: FW: Tower Permits (EM Fields) Rev. A
Message-ID: <2F85B096@msm.ATK.COM>
Dick/Scott:
First, please note your email address was not listed in the body of your
message, making it necessary to respond to the reflector.
I recommend the following:
1.) Remind them that the FCC, and only the FCC, regulates technical matters
pertaining to radio amateurs. Field limits are implicit in our power limit
(1.5 KW).
2.) If your city does not accept this argument, then I would invoke the ANSI
EM field limit standard from the ARRL antenna handbook. Note the
recommended limits of E, H field strengths vs. frequency. Currently, that
standard is widely accepted and is not prone to debate; if your city won't
accept it, than you have bigger problems.
2.) Next, find someone who can run NEC. NEC will give you precise
near-field strengths (E, H) for a given structure, over REAL ground, for
various distances and orientations from the antenna. Normalize the data to
1.5KW output.
3.) Unless your within 20 feet for the antenna, you should note that the
near-field strengths will be way below those limits, even at 1.5KW with gain
antennas. I have run my own 80m 70' vertical at various distances from the
base, and noted that the ANSI limits were only exceeded within 10 feet or so
of the base at 1.5 Kw output. My vertical is in a wetlands making human
exposure within 10' moot.
4.) I have analyzed antennas for govt. customers to determine same, and
always, at distances and powers given, there has never been a problem. The
cellular phone scare is warranted (as far as exceeding ANSI limits) because
the antenna is less than an inch from your head (near fields proportional to
1/r^3). Airport radar antennas situated near freeways, or parking lots,
also warrant concern, because of the high transmit power, antenna's high
gain (25 dBi +), and continuous operation. But near-field strengths
emanating from Ham and CB antennas are well below ANSI limits, given that
Ham and CB operations are relatively low power (even at 1.5 kw),
intermittant in nature, and the antennas used have relatively low gain ( <
10 dBi).
5.) I have NEC, and can run the problem, but having only an MSEE, you
probably want an "expert opinion" from a PHD. Try an EE professor from
Princeton, Rensaeller Polytech Institute, or equivalent school. NEC is
fairly quick to run. The professor's analysis time, and summary report
should be less than 4 hours, and certainly a day. Many may offer to perform
analusis and summary for free, or a nominal fee (~ $75/hr)
5.) Contact me off-line. A have a close, personal friend with > 25
articles (at age 35) in IEEE Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Microwave Theory
& Techniques (among others). He is a well-respected EM scientist, and not a
ham, which will help. He might be willing to help for a nominal fee.
6.) Best of luck. Use the ARRL to the fulest extent possible.
73, Steve Fraasch, K0SF
sfraasch@atk.com
Phone: 612-931-5631 (if unavail, leave message)
>From wicall@ccpac.ims.disa.mil (Lee Wical) Fri Apr 7 10:32:06 1995
From: wicall@ccpac.ims.disa.mil (Lee Wical) (Lee Wical)
Subject: PACKET RACKET--DAILY & ESPECIALLY DURING CONTESTS
Message-ID: <9503077972.AA797272326@ccpac.ims.disa.mil>
THE FOLLOWING IS OF CONCERN TO THOSE OF US LISTENING AND CONTESTING
IN THE DX WINDOW, ESPECIALLY ON 40 METRES WORLD WIDE:
The IARU committee in Curacao released the attached recommendation
in the fall of 1992, as direction for HF packet operations.
If the information could be widely distributed over their own packet
systems, life on the bands would be much more palatable.
Can the ARRL take the lead and "stamp out this ignorance" of HF packet
operations during daily operating and especially during contests?
I find these HF AMTOR/Packeteers loosing their perspective...is worse
than the packet racket created by their not abiding to an agreement
by a respected world amateur radio leadership group. Agreed?
I BELIEVE THAT CONSIDERATION AND ACCOMMODATION OF THIS IARU AGREEMENT
BY OTHERS, IS IN ORDER vice RUDENESS and IGNORANCE.
Happy CONTESTING
Warm ALOHAS, lee
The I.A.R.U met in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles in
September 1992. The outcome of that meeting there were several
recommendations. One recommendation was the I.A.R.U. leadership's
direction for HF band segments for CW, Radiotelephony, SSTV, FAX
remain unchanged; CW is still acceptable in all segments.
Quoting, "THE FOLLOWING HF DIGITAL SEGMENTS WERE AGREED
UPON:
o 80 METERS: 3580-3635 kHz, WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT 3620-3635
kHz.
o 40 METERS: 7035-7050 kHz, WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT 7040-7050
kHz, WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT 7040-7050 kHz FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS; 7100-7120 kHz PACKET
PRIORITY FOR COMMUNICATION WITHIN REGION II.
o 30 METERS: 10.130-10.150 MHz, WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT
10.140-10.150 MHz.
o 20 METERS: 14.070-14.112 MHz (WITH A 1-kHz GUARD BAND AT
14.100 MHz FOR THE" <WORLD WIDE> "BEACON NETWORK);
PACKET PRIORITY AT 14.095-14.0995 MHz; PACKET SHARED
WITH SSB AT 14.1005-14.112 MHz.
o 17 METERS: 18.100-18.110 MHz. WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT
18.104-18.110 MHz.
o 15 METERS: 21.070-21.125 MHz, WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT
21.090-21.125 MHz.
o 12 METERS: 24.920-24.930 MHz, WITH PACKET PRIORITY AT
24.925-24.930 MHz.
o 10 METERS: 28.070-28.189 MHz, WITH PACKER PRIORITY AT
28.120-28.189 MHz." UNQUOTE.
I believe this is the accurate information published in the
International Amateur Radio Union (I.A.R.U.) news published in
November 1992 IARU News.
Respectively Submitted,
Lee R. Wical, KH6BZF/7J1AAP
ASM Hawaii/Pacific ARRL
Asst DIR Pacific Division
ARRL
Internet:
wicall@ccpac.ims.DISA.mil
P.O. Box 29274
Honolulu, HI 96820-1674
>From Jeff Singer <wa2syn@li.net> Fri Apr 7 20:51:45 1995
From: Jeff Singer <wa2syn@li.net> (Jeff Singer)
Subject: this frequency is in use!
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950407153556.11318B-100000@linet01>
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, Richard Riley (G0JFX) wrote:
>(with regard to calling CQ right on top of you)
>
> How many of these "guys" are there out there?
> ...ie..is this a BIG problem?
>
> and if it is,
> how can we "scare" these "guys" away from reverting to this sort of behaviour?
>
> disqualification?....should a certain number of complaints be received?
>
-----------------------------------------
Last year I had an incident with a w5 who suddenly started calling CQ
CONTEST on my freq with a 50 over sig (I was probably only 30 over at the
time), and I had been on freq for at least an hour! I politely asked him
to move, explained my situation and after lying about having been on the
freq for the last hour as well, went on to completely ignore me. I then
answered his CQ, and he responded. Instead of making a Q with him I again
explained my situation and politely asked him to move a bit. NO WAY, and
completely ignored me again. Well, I moved, since I enter these things
for fun and points, not for arguments with morons.
To make a long story short, I noted his call, and after the contest
looked him up and sent him a rather threatening letter (I was so
incensed!).
I think a complaint committee could be very useful to ALL the ops who
operate with courtesy (and my experience says that abt 95% are in this
category). If more than one complaint is received by the committee, the
committee contacts the offender personally, with a letter and a phone
call explaining that, in fact, complaints have been received and his
sigs (and perhaps his logs) will be closely monitored during the next
year for further infractions.> He would then be warned that if this
continued he would be placed on some sort of "probation" for a period of
time, and that re-occurances would result in banishment, or at least
disqualification with publication. This, I believe, would go a long way
to stop the baloney. Other opinions?
73 de Jeff WA2SYN
wa2syn@li.net
|