Roger I had a great night working Asia HS0 and lots of JA also USA. Conditions here seemed good. Was using my Dipole! Mike G 3 SED
Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Jan 2020, at 17:01, [email protected] wrote: > > Send Topband mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Topband resource (W0MU Mike Fatchett) > 2. Re: Topband resource (Roger Parsons) > 3. Re: Topband resource vertical vs. horizontal (David Olean) > 4. Re: Topband resource (Jim Brown) > 5. Hamvention related updates (Tim Duffy) > 6. Re: Topband resource (Jim Brown) > 7. Topband resource (Lee STRAHAN) > 8. Re: Topband resource (Jim Brown) > 9. Re: Topband resource (Arthur Delibert) > 10. Re: Topband resource (Roger Parsons) > 11. Re: Topband resource (Jim Brown) > 12. Re: Topband resource (Roger Parsons) > 13. Topband resource (Jim Thomson) > 14. Wednesday 160m DX CW Activity Night (Roger Kennedy) > 15. Re: Wednesday 160m DX CW Activity Night (Sam Josuweit) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:53:32 -0700 > From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I was only really able to work Carib/CA/SA with my inverted v at 70 ft.? > With the inverted L I get our far better.? I am a very long way from any > salt water in any direction. > > W0MU > >> On 1/15/2020 9:17 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> Roger has 27 topband QSOs in my log since February 1993, >> well done! >> >> >> Its interesting how our transmitting antenna experiences are exactly >> opposite on both 160 and 80 meters. I've had little success with >> 160 meter horizontal dipoles 100 to 200 feet high compared to >> my 4-square vertical array which always perform superbly. >> >> >> I use only vertically polarized antennas f or topband receiving , >> a 350 foot diameter W8JI/W5ZN/N4HY passive 8-circle array, >> 580 foot Beverages and my transmitting 4-square array. All >> receive 6 to 10 dB better for DX than horizontal dipoles at my QTH. >> Many easily copied DX signals on the verticals are completely >> inaudible on the horizontal dipoles. >> >> >> >> On 80 meters I use only horizontally polarized 2 element quads >> 170 feet high for transmitting which are far superior to any verticals >> I've tried although I've never tried anything more sophisticated than >> a 4-square transmitting array. >> >> >> My 80 meter quads perform very well as receiving antennas, on >> some -- but not all -- very weak signals they outperform the >> 175 foot diameter passive 8-circle array and 580 foot Beverages. >> >> >> You can never have too many antennas... >> Unless they interfere with each other, a non-trivial issue. >> >> >> 73 >> Frank >> W3LPL >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Roger Kennedy" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 10:48:51 PM >> Subject: Topband: Topband resource >> >> >> "However, 160 needs vertical polarization for consistent long DX." >> >> So how is it that I consistently work all over the world on 160m with my >> horizontal dipole at 50ft?! (and my signals seem to often be pretty >> comparable with other Brits using verticals} >> >> You certainly need a Vertical to work DX on 80m . . . but in my experience >> 160m propagation is very different . . . I'm guessing it's often quite high >> angle due to multi-hop or ducting. >> >> Also, I don't understand why on the Web page they are talking about NA >> stations coming on Top Band at 1730 UTC to work Europe . . . I don't find >> the band opens to NA until at least 2200 . . . and for me signals are always >> much better after midnight. >> >> Roger G3YRO >> >> >> _________________ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >> >> _________________ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:55:15 +0000 (UTC) > From: Roger Parsons <[email protected]> > To: TopBand List <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > NR1DX wrote: "Apples and oranges." regarding my antennas. > > Not really. > > There is very little pattern difference between a purely horizontal dipole > and an inverted V provided that the angle of the V is not too acute. A > horizontal dipole 5/8 wavelength high has predominantly low angle? radiation. > > W4RNL is sadly an SK. However, he designed and described a great many antenna > systems one of which is a half wave vertical array for 160m. I have one. Here. > > 73 Roger > VE3ZI > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:07:38 +0000 > From: David Olean <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource vertical vs. horizontal > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I was always intrigued by the success of our "Down Under" friends in > VK6. They tried vertical polarization and it was horrible. They had much > better luck with horizontal wires.? I think this had much to do with the > gyro frequency.? It depends on where you are in the world.? I am about > 30 miles away from salt water. My ground is poor with hills and rocky > soil.? The tops of the local hills are solid rock. ? I tried an inverted > vee antenna for 160. It worked, but not very well.? My signal was sort > of like chopped liver. No one would answer me when I called!? I did > catch an opening, however, where it worked very well and I nabbed two JA > stations. I have a recording of one of the? QSOs , and my signal got > very loud in JA at times. Switching to a vertical here, there was no > comparison. I went from chopped liver to meat loaf and gravy. Still it > was a long time before I worked another JA, and when I did, it was a > squeaker! > > 73 > > Dave K1WHS > >> On 1/15/2020 4:17 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Roger has 27 topband QSOs in my log since February 1993, >> well done! >> >> >> Its interesting how our transmitting antenna experiences are exactly >> opposite on both 160 and 80 meters. I've had little success with >> 160 meter horizontal dipoles 100 to 200 feet high compared to >> my 4-square vertical array which always perform superbly. >> >> >> I use only vertically polarized antennas f or topband receiving , >> a 350 foot diameter W8JI/W5ZN/N4HY passive 8-circle array, >> 580 foot Beverages and my transmitting 4-square array. All >> receive 6 to 10 dB better for DX than horizontal dipoles at my QTH. >> Many easily copied DX signals on the verticals are completely >> inaudible on the horizontal dipoles. >> >> >> >> On 80 meters I use only horizontally polarized 2 element quads >> 170 feet high for transmitting which are far superior to any verticals >> I've tried although I've never tried anything more sophisticated than >> a 4-square transmitting array. >> >> >> My 80 meter quads perform very well as receiving antennas, on >> some -- but not all -- very weak signals they outperform the >> 175 foot diameter passive 8-circle array and 580 foot Beverages. >> >> >> You can never have too many antennas... >> Unless they interfere with each other, a non-trivial issue. >> >> >> 73 >> Frank >> W3LPL >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Roger Kennedy" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 10:48:51 PM >> Subject: Topband: Topband resource >> >> >> "However, 160 needs vertical polarization for consistent long DX." >> >> So how is it that I consistently work all over the world on 160m with my >> horizontal dipole at 50ft?! (and my signals seem to often be pretty >> comparable with other Brits using verticals} >> >> You certainly need a Vertical to work DX on 80m . . . but in my experience >> 160m propagation is very different . . . I'm guessing it's often quite high >> angle due to multi-hop or ducting. >> >> Also, I don't understand why on the Web page they are talking about NA >> stations coming on Top Band at 1730 UTC to work Europe . . . I don't find >> the band opens to NA until at least 2200 . . . and for me signals are always >> much better after midnight. >> >> Roger G3YRO >> >> >> _________________ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >> >> _________________ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:44:36 -0800 > From: Jim Brown <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > It's more than antennas. There's also propagation. You're 700 miles ESE > of me, which gives you a path to EU over less of the auroral zone. > > AND there's noise, which has been increasing over time. My first years > in W6 were more productive for CW on Topband than now -- I have a dozen > or so countries in the log from the solar minimum of those earlier years. > > 73, Jim K9YC > >> On 1/15/2020 6:21 AM, Wes wrote: >> Roger is in my logbook, along with at least five other "G" stations.? My >> station is described on my QRZ page.? I receive on the TX antenna. >> >> Wes? N7WS > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:44:46 -0500 > From: "Tim Duffy" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: Hamvention related updates > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 2020 Dayton Contest University Professors and the 2020 Course Outline have > been posted. > > <https://www.contestuniversity.com/> https://www.contestuniversity.com/ > > <https://www.contestuniversity.com/course-outline/> > https://www.contestuniversity.com/course-outline/ > > > > 2020 Dayton TopBand Dinner speaker is Glenn Johnson, W0GJ > > <https://www.topbanddinner.com/> https://www.topbanddinner.com/ > > Info about Glenn's talk is here: > > <https://www.topbanddinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/VP6R-pg1-3.pdf> > https://www.topbanddinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/VP6R-pg1-3.pdf > > > > The 28th Annual Dayton Contest Dinner > > <https://www.contestdinner.com/> https://www.contestdinner.com/ > > Our dinner speaker is Bryant, KG5HVO - his bio is here: > > > <https://www.contestdinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bryant-Rascoll-KG5 > HVO.pdf> > https://www.contestdinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bryant-Rascoll-KG5H > VO.pdf > > > > 73 > > Tim K3LR > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:59:02 -0800 > From: Jim Brown <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >> On 1/15/2020 9:55 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote: >> There is very little pattern difference between a purely horizontal dipole >> and an inverted V provided that the angle of the V is not too acute. A >> horizontal dipole 5/8 wavelength high has predominantly low angle? radiation. > > But there IS a difference in efficiency that looking ONLY at the pattern > misses. To understand this, take a look at > > http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf > > starting around slide #18, which plots the pattern of an 80M dipole as > it's height is varied ON THE SAME AXES, and the following slide, which > picks points off of those curves to show gain vs height at vertical > angles of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 70 degrees. Slide #19 clearly shows that > gain at low angles increases with mounting height. To apply these data > to 160M, simply multiply height by 2. > > There is, of course, also the matter of how horizontally and vertically > polarized waves propagate, and how they are affected by nearby earth. > Vertically polarized waves encounter a very strong loss component from > poor soil conductivity, while horizontally polarized waves are almost > unaffected. > > 73, Jim K9YC > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:13:43 +0000 > From: Lee STRAHAN <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: > > <mwhpr05mb28163bda6e7e5b04db0719c9f5...@mwhpr05mb2816.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > And from the Northwest I have a slightly different observation of > horizontal/vertical questions. What I have noticed is this. I more or less > equate Horizontal antennas with high angle and vertical with low. The EU > stations are usually mostly looking West into the setting sun. The East coast > stations are looking into the total darkness toward EU mostly. Here in the > Northwest we look into darkness toward EU and the East coast. I mention this > because observations of high angle signals are VERY rare looking East toward > EU. Maybe twice in 10 years. However looking West toward the setting sun and > JA and UA0 I often see signals start early on the low angle vertical antennas > and progress toward high angle signals in a same setting. The low horizontal > takes over as the signals apparently get to a higher angle. I am about 200 > miles from the Pacific. I have on my project list (way way down it) to build > a high angle, low elevation horizontal array with a high RDF and gain just to > see what it > would do. Unfortunately it stays way down the list. > For me Frank LPL says it all " You can never have too many antennas... > Unless they interfere with each other, a non-trivial issue." > Lee K7TJR OR > > > It's more than antennas. There's also propagation. You're 700 miles ESE of > me, which gives you a path to EU over less of the auroral zone. > > AND there's noise, which has been increasing over time. My first years in W6 > were more productive for CW on Topband than now -- I have a dozen or so > countries in the log from the solar minimum of those earlier years. > > 73, Jim K9YC > >> On 1/15/2020 6:21 AM, Wes wrote: >> Roger is in my logbook, along with at least five other "G" stations.? >> My station is described on my QRZ page.? I receive on the TX antenna. >> >> Wes? N7WS > > _________________ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:56:34 -0800 > From: Jim Brown <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >> On 1/15/2020 11:13 AM, Lee STRAHAN wrote: >> And from the Northwest I have a slightly different observation of >> horizontal/vertical questions. > > Your analysis makes lots of sense, Lee. It's consistent with what I've > read from trustworthy sources about propagation. > > 73, Jim K9YC > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:06:36 +0000 > From: Arthur Delibert <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: > > <sn6pr10mb26089ac28ac176bf2abc746fe4...@sn6pr10mb2608.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Back in the late 90s, there were a pair of articles in QST about a receiving > antenna for 80 and 160 that rejects local noise. The antenna was low and > horizontal, it was exceptionally quiet even in a somewhat noisy location, and > it had a very high reception angle. I recall that the authors said they > could hear pretty much everything the "big boys" could hear, but for a > shorter window of time. Also seems consistent with what Lee said. > > Overall, I have to say that 160M propagation is still somewhat mysterious, > and we should be careful about judging too quickly what others describe as > their experience. We're like the three blind men describing the elephant: > each of us has hold of a different part and so we have different experiences. > We won't understand the full picture until we respect and appreciate each > other's experiences. > > 'Nuf said. > > Art Delibert, KB3FJO > > ________________________________ > From: Topband <[email protected]> on behalf of > Jim Brown <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:56 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > >> On 1/15/2020 11:13 AM, Lee STRAHAN wrote: >> And from the Northwest I have a slightly different observation of >> horizontal/vertical questions. > > Your analysis makes lots of sense, Lee. It's consistent with what I've > read from trustworthy sources about propagation. > > 73, Jim K9YC > _________________ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:25:15 +0000 (UTC) > From: Roger Parsons <[email protected]> > To: Topband <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > K9YC wrote: "But there IS a difference in efficiency that looking ONLY at the > pattern misses." > > Your point is unclear to me. Of course the pattern of a horizontal antenna > changes with changing height and with other environmental factors. If the > antenna is actually on the ground the efficiency is pretty terrible, but it > does not have to be very high before efficiency does not change meaningfully > with height - assuming that total radiation is considered rather than just > that which is useful. > > However, I was only describing a horizontal dipole at around 5/8 wavelength > high. NR1DX suggested that because the ends are lower than the centre that > there was now an additional "significant vertical component". There is not if > the included angle is shallow, which in my case it is.* > > 73 Roger > VE3ZI > > *(I stated that the ends were at 250' - they are at least that, and could be > up to about 290' - but I have not accurately measured the tension in the > support rope nor allowed for stretch so I cannot be specific about the > catenary.) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:05:29 -0800 > From: Jim Brown <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >> On 1/15/2020 1:25 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote: >> Your point is unclear to me. > > Did you study the slides? > > 73, Jim K9YC > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 23:36:22 +0000 (UTC) > From: Roger Parsons <[email protected]> > To: Topband <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Yes > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:05:27 -0800 > From: "Jim Thomson" <[email protected]> > To: "TopBand List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: Topband resource > Message-ID: <9F9A9A2454FD459D8243CE20F30DE4CE@DESKTOPSV54DBH> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC) > From: Roger Parsons <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: Topband resource > > <W8JI's experience with a horizontal dipole at 300 ft is often quoted as > proof that only vertical antennas are useful for 160m DX. This is not my > experience with a dipole with the centre at 320 ft and the ends at over 250'. > In its favoured directions it is equal to a <W4RNL half wave vertical array > over a very large radial system. It is unsurprisingly not as good off the > ends, and quite is useless for relatively local communications. > <I am also inclined to support Roger, G3YRO, in his use of a low dipole, > having myself successfully used relatively low horizontal antennas for DX in > the past. There are most certainly times when higher angles are useful for DX > - and possibly more frequently than <we imagine. There actually have to be, > otherwise Roger would never work any DX at all. Note, this does not mean that > a good vertical antenna is not often or even usually better than a low > horizontal one. Finally, the UK is small compared to many other <countries, > but it is not actually a tiny island. Roger's path to North America is over > about 300 km of land, and he is more than 10km from the sea in any direction. > > <73 RogerVE3ZI/G3RBP > > ## AFAIK, W8JIs.. dipole was actually an inverted vee, with the > apex at 300 feet....with no info on enclosed angle. > Per the older arrl ant books, Inverted vees...with a 90 deg > enclosed angle are omni directional. > But they conducted that test on 80m, with an inverted vee up 60 > feet, with a 90 deg enclosed angle. The vee was rotated 90 degs.... > and signals 900 miles away did not change. No mention whether a > real CM balun was used. > > ## Plenty of 80m rotary dipoles and 80m yagis that perform > exceptionally well..at heights of 100-150 ft. That would extrapolate > to 200-300 ft > on 160m. Years ago, a fellow In Ore had installed the 1st F12 > 160 rotary dipole.... which I believe was up aprx 120 ft. His > 1st contact > was a 4X4. Several folks with 2 el....shorty 40 yagis up 70 ft, > report that the shorty 40 yagi ate their 40m 4 squares hands > down. > Some have had great success with a half wave sloper......used in > conjunction with a delta loop reflector...apex up. In some cases, a > half wave sloper > was used on either side of the delta loop REF. So 2 switchable > directions were obtained. > > Jim VE7RF > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:00:42 -0000 > From: "Roger Kennedy" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX CW Activity Night > Message-ID: <8A0C7DAFAD1D4A90BF2B36830597E599@Packard> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Well sadly conditions seemed very poor last night . . . > > My own signals were 20 to 30dB down on what I would normally see on NA RBN > sites > > I managed just 4 NA QSOs . . . but heard several other people calling me > that were way down in the noise. > > Not sure how many stations were on across the pond, but heard lots of other > EU stations calling CQ, but getting few replies. > > Thanks to all those that made the effort to come on the band . . . let's > hope conditions are better next Wednesday ! > > 73 Roger G3YRO > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:20:41 -0500 > From: "Sam Josuweit" <[email protected]> > To: "'Roger Kennedy'" <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX CW Activity Night > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Lots of static crashes from a storm front moving into the NE US. Very noisy > last night. > > Sam(N3XZ) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Roger Kennedy > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 11:01 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: Wednesday 160m DX CW Activity Night > > > Well sadly conditions seemed very poor last night . . . > > My own signals were 20 to 30dB down on what I would normally see on NA RBN > sites > > I managed just 4 NA QSOs . . . but heard several other people calling me > that were way down in the noise. > > Not sure how many stations were on across the pond, but heard lots of other > EU stations calling CQ, but getting few replies. > > Thanks to all those that made the effort to come on the band . . . let's > hope conditions are better next Wednesday ! > > 73 Roger G3YRO > > > _________________ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Topband mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Topband Digest, Vol 205, Issue 21 > **************************************** _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
