On 16 Jan 97, K4RO - Kirk Pickering wrote:
> I'm curious how many other folks use amps in a low power contest
> such as the NAQP?
I don't, but have considered it to bring the 90 watt rig up to the
150 watt level allowed in some contests.
Actually, I think in some contests (the NAQP I thought) it's not
legal to use an amplifier to reach the max 150 watt level - the
intent of the power restriction is to use barefoot transceivers.
Now, y'all don't hang me if I'm wrong, this is just something I seem
to remember reading in the rules of some contest.
> The reason for this post is that I am curious how many other folks
> use their amps in these contests. I have a 500w amp, but will probably
> not ever use it in NAQP, because everything is automatic except the amp.
> Using the amp would slow things down and eliminate the 'automatic' in
> my band/antenna swithching arrangement. Now if I had a solid state or
> auto-tune amp of some sort... that might be a different story. My rig
> can put out 100w all day long, and I wonder if I'd see any real
> difference going to 150w output. I wonder why the low power tests
> have the limit at 150w when 95% of xcvrs are 100w output.
Well, the difference between 100 watts and 150 watts is exactly the
same difference between 1000 watts and 1500 watts, no? And most of
the big dogs will tell you that there is a definite difference
between 1k and legal limit.
> Guess this is another reason to have a 200W output xcvr. :-)
Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I'd rather have a plain
FT-1000 over an 'MP!
73 Y'all!
--
Lee Hiers - AA4GA
Contest Preservation Society - NT4DX
Cornelia, GA
mailto:aa4ga@contesting.com
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4473
>From donovanf@sgate.com (Frank Donovan) Fri Jan 17 01:34:18 1997
From: donovanf@sgate.com (Frank Donovan) (Frank Donovan)
Subject: gamma's
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970116202505.12244C-100000@jekyll.sgate.com>
Hi Pete!
I've always preferred to build antennas that are bullet proof. I don't
object to spending extra effort constructing an antenna to very high
standards, but I detest unscheduled corrective maintenance -- especially
immediately before or during a contest! As a result, I've always tried to
apply best practices to all aspects of my antenna design, implementation,
and preventive maintenance.
Among the practices that I follow for both mechanical strength as well as
minimum ohmic loss reasons is to use a continuous 12 foot length of
aluminum tubing at the center of every Yagi element. A Gamma match or
T-match allows this practice to be followed with the driven element. Yes,
the T-match requires an electrical half-wavelength of coaxial cable to
implement a 4:1 balun, but this is quite a bullet-proof balun in my
opinion. The T-match does not require capacitors, so this potential
failure mechanism is also eliminated.
73!
Frank
W3LPL
donovanf@sgate.com
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Pete Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Frank -- Purely a curiosity question, but why a T-match? Doesn't that
> require you to put at least a coax choke or bead balun at every feedpoint?
> 73, Pete Smith N4ZR
>From radio@UDel.Edu (Robert Penneys) Fri Jan 17 11:38:09 1997
From: radio@UDel.Edu (Robert Penneys) (Robert Penneys)
Subject: ==Delaware QSO Party Feb 1-2==
Message-ID: <199701171138.GAA01401@copland.udel.edu>
Finally - the Delaware QSO Party!!
Sponsored by the First State Amateur Radio Club
Who - All radio amateurs in and out of Delaware
When - First full weekend in February (1997: Feb 1 & 2)
Saturday: 1700Z (1200 EST) until 0500Z Sunday (2400 EST Sat.)
Sunday: 1300Z (0800 EST) until 0100Z (2000 EST Sun.)
Where - Suggested frequencies are:
Phone CW
1.860 1.825
3.960 3.550
7.260 7.050
14.260 14.050
21.360 21.050
28.360 28.050
Novice and Technician freqs: 25 kHz above sub-band edge
This does not imply that you may not work any bands you choose,
such as VHF/UHF/SHF. However, as there is only one entry class,
all logs will be judged equally.
How - Work stations once per band and mode.
Exchange signal report and QTH (county for Delaware stations;
state/province/DXCC country for others).
Scoring - There is ONE CLASS for all stations.
Count ONE POINT per PHONE QSO.
Count TWO POINTS per CW/RTTY/Digital QSO.
Multipliers/special event stations: NONE.
Awards - Certificates will be awarded in the following categories:
Within Delaware: first, second and third highest score.
Within each Delaware county: highest score.
Others: first, second and third highest scores.
Further prizes and certificates may be awarded, depending
upon participation and merit.
Certificates and prizes courtesy of Ham Radio Outlet, Delaware.
Submissions-
There are no requirements for dupe sheets, and no forms nor
software offered especially for this contest.
Logs must show date, time, band, mode, station worked, exchange
send and received, entrant's call and QTH, and total summary of
QSOs and points. You are assumed to be observing the rules of
amateur radio and contesting, so that no such written statment
is required.
Mail entries within 30 days to: Contest Chairman
FSARC, Inc.
P.O. Box 1050
Newark, DE 19715
Include SASE for results.
E-mail logs with adequate summaries, and any other
comment or inquiry to:
radio@udel.edu
Results will be posted through 3830@contesting.com, and e-mailed
to NCJ and CQ.
Thanks and LET'S GO DELAWARE!!
>From n0ss@socketis.net (Tom Hammond) Fri Jan 17 13:00:29 1997
From: n0ss@socketis.net (Tom Hammond) (Tom Hammond)
Subject: Amps in LP tests?
Message-ID: <199701171300.HAA07709@mail.socketis.net>
At 11:53 PM 1/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> Guess this is another reason to have a 200W output xcvr. :-)
>Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I'd rather have a plain
>FT-1000 over an 'MP!
If there's a perceived 'need' to increase power to the maximum
allowed under the rules, and if the majority of us still use
exciters which have outputs in the neighborhood of 90-110W (which
I'll bet covers 90% of us), why not LOWER the maximum allowable
power output to, say, 100W instead of promulgating the perceived
need to meet the 150W maximum limit? It'd be a whole lot easier
to REDUCE power than to BOOST it, and there'd be a lot less
incentive to feel the need for extraordinary measures to do so...
which probably helps to keep us a bit more 'honest'...
73 - Tom Hammond N0SS
>From stans@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (Stan Stockton) Fri Jan 17 13:42:52 1997
From: stans@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us (Stan Stockton) (Stan Stockton)
Subject: Amps in LP tests?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970117065932.9294A-100000@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, K4RO - Kirk Pickering wrote:
> Curious about this one. Ol' Jim K4OJ noted the use of an amplifier
> in the NAQP to bring his power output from 75w to the allowed 150w,
> and said he noted a big difference.
>
> I'm curious how many other folks use amps in a low power contest
> such as the NAQP?
Especially for those who are splitting power to antennas aimed in
different directions, going from 75w to 150w (37.5w to 75w in each
antenna) could make a Significant difference.
I am the kind of guy that needs to have a governor on my car. I would
rather have a pair of 3-500Z and drive the snot out of them than have to
worry about limiting an Alpha 77SX to 1500w.
I agree that since most are now using 100w transceivers the low power
category should be for 100w. It seems to me that it shouldn't be any more
problem for a FT 1000 user to throttle back to 100w than it already is to
throttle back to 150w.
Stan, K5GO
>From kurscj@oampc12.csg.mot.com (Chad Kurszewski WE9V) Fri Jan 17 14:04:40
>1997
From: kurscj@oampc12.csg.mot.com (Chad Kurszewski WE9V) (Chad Kurszewski WE9V)
Subject: Petition
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970117140440.00691bf4@oampc12.csg.mot.com>
I know you guys were comtemplating this recently, but to make it official,
I hereby petition you to reduce the NAQP transmitter power down to 100W.
You know the reasons, so I know I don't have to get into it. Let's just
do it.
Sincerely,
---
Chad Kurszewski, WE9V e-mail: Chad_Kurszewski@csg.mot.com
The Official "Sultans of Shwing" Web Site: http://www.QTH.com/sos
|