It should be noted that many shortwave broadcasting stations have modern
open wire transmission lines and antenna arrays made from alumoweld
wire/cable. Alumoweld is like copperweld, except that aluminum forms the
outer skin around the central steel core in each wire.
Alumoweld is lighter than copperweld for the same mechanical strength. It
is better than copperweld from a maintenance standpoint because surface damage
to the cable is self-healing. The aluminum oxide layer that forms when
exposed to air is protective. When nicked, copperweld wire does not form a
protective layer and the steel rusts, leading to failure of the wire strand.
These high-power transmitter sites would not use aluminum cabling if there
were any kind of significant losses or maintenance problems at joints, etc.
(Joints are usually made by mechanical fasteners -- no funny pastes or fusion
splices.)
I believe that the problems mentioned in an earlier message with the use of
aluminum wiring for someone's vertical antennas on an expedition must have
been due to other factors.
-- Eric K3NA
eric.L.scace@adn.sprint.com
[ By the way, W3LPL installed antennas last year with copperweld
"Flexweave", sold through The Wireman. Flexweave is a braided cable where the
strands are small-diameter copperweld wires. After less than one year in the
air in a normal rural environment, the wires had completed rusted!!!
Apparently the braiding process was so damaging to the cable that virtually
every strand was nicked in many many places. The steel rust, when it galls
(expands outward), sheds the copper layer. The result: many wire antennas
made of rusty steel wire -- all in the near fields of W3LPL's many yagi's! It
all had to be thrown away. ]
>From Morao Esteban <z801183a@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> Thu Aug 25 21:59:30
>1994
From: Morao Esteban <z801183a@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> (Morao Esteban)
Subject: I will contest for point!
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9408251609.A2492-0100000@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Hi,
I'm still looking for any group that would like an extra operator for
either the CQ WW SSB or CQ WW CW test.
Please E-Mail me,
73 de Steve W4/YV5DTA
z801183a@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Ex: YX0AI, 4M5I ( WW CW '93), 4M8X, YW5N, YY5P, YX5LA, YV25ARV, YV5ARV,
YV5DTA/5, YV5ENI/5, ....
>From James White <0006492564@mcimail.com> Fri Aug 26 01:49:00 1994
From: James White <0006492564@mcimail.com> (James White)
Subject: Help-bakelite needed
Message-ID: <33940826004933/0006492564PK2EM@mcimail.com>
Need source for thick bakelite to be used on driven element of 20 M
yagi....any sources?
TNX Jim, K1zx
k1zx@mcimail.com
>From Phill Duff <pduff@wizards.austin.ibm.com> Fri Aug 26 02:46:06 1994
From: Phill Duff <pduff@wizards.austin.ibm.com> (Phill Duff)
Subject: Radials
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9408252009.A15928-0100000@wizards.austin.ibm.com>
In light of the current thread on radials, both in/on ground & elevated,
has anyone tried the "reverse-feed" system for elevated radials as shown
in N4KG's recent QST article on shunt-fed towers/elevated radials??
73 de Phil NA4M
Phil Duff INTERNET: pduff@wizards.austin.ibm.com
Amateur Radio: NA4M IBM Risc System/6000, Austin, Texas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with IBM. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>From stevem@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) Fri Aug 26 03:12:30 1994
From: stevem@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) (Steve Maki)
Subject: Rohn Tower Basing
Message-ID: <199408260212.WAA16941@w8hd.w8hd.org>
>Thanks, Steve - as for your new product idea, another respondent told me
>that the cover of the CQ with W0UN's set-up shows rohn's double-guy setup
>in use. Good idea tho'
>
I didn't realize Rohn had those brackets for 45 and 55. But of course it's
common on microwave and broadcast towers.
I was thinking, if this twisting issue is real important, the guys with
large rotating tower setups are in trouble, because it is common, in gusty
wind condx, for the top and and bottom antennas to get swinging out of phase
at times, thereby maxing out the twisting torque. Doesn't matter how the
base is attached in that situation; and with your guy wires attached to slip
rings, they offer no twist resistance.
73
--
Steve Maki K8LX
stevem@w8hd.org
>From Ingemar.Fogelberg@CEC.Comm.SE (Ingemar Fogelberg) Fri Aug 26 06:47:37
>1994
From: Ingemar.Fogelberg@CEC.Comm.SE (Ingemar Fogelberg) (Ingemar Fogelberg)
Subject: 1/8 vert on 160
Message-ID: <199408260547.AA19274@nic.comm.se>
We are planning to build a 1/8 vertical on 160 using aluminium tubing. Has
anyone experience how large the cap hat should be? We are planning to use
wires to form the cap-hat.
73 de SM0AJV - Ingo
Ingemar Fogelberg if@cec.comm.se
Communicator CEC AB Phone: +46-8-764 41 94
Box 1310, S-171 25 Solna, Sweden Fax: +46-8-764 45 70
>From Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@canada.unbc.edu> Fri Aug 26 09:12:21 1994
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@canada.unbc.edu> (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Subject: more on elevated radials
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9408260145.A21747-0100000@canada.unbc.edu>
> Isn't there another possible explanation for the reduced bandwidth when
> elevated -- that resistive ground losses in parallel with the antenna
> input impedance gave you the illusion of bandwidth.
Perhaps, but subjective tests (i.e. operating) definitely showed that the
ground mounted configuration achieved much better performance.
There's still a lot of black magic when it comes to antennas ...
--lyndon
>From p_casier@ub4b.eunet.be (Peter Casier) Fri Aug 26 11:15:10 1994
From: p_casier@ub4b.eunet.be (Peter Casier) (Peter Casier)
Subject: Telephone, Internet and Contests
Message-ID: <199408261015.AA13938@ub4b.eunet.be>
Friends,
I want your opinion and reflections on some matters concerning the use of
fax, telephone, internet etc.. during a contest.
Let's take the rules of the cqww contest (CQ Mag. Sept'93 - have not got the
'94 issue yet).
"
The use of non-amateur means such as telephone, telegrams, etc., to elicit
contacts or multipliers DURING a contest is unsportsmanlike and the entry is
subject to disqualification.
"
I totally agree with this, but I'd like to find the border of what is
allowed and what is not. Let me give some cases, and let's take a vote.
***Do assume all cases happen DURING the period of the contest.***
***Assume the contest station is a Multi/Single, Multi/Multi or Single up
Assist.
CASE #1:
********
During a contest, one phones or faxes or telexes to a DX station asking to
come on frequency.
+++My opinion: thy should not. Clearly.
CASE #2:
********
Somebody else is spotting for you. In order to keep him up to date with the
mults worked, you fax him the worked multiplier list every hour.
+++My opinion: this is not an direct 'elicit', but probably: thy should not.
CASE #3: (and here I start to doubt seriously what is allowed and what not)
********
To log onto a remote cluster, the contest station dials with a telephone
modem into an Internet access point and telnets to the remote cluster.
My opinion: I don't know
CASE #4:
********
To log onto a remote cluster, the contest station logs in, through packet
radio into a packet<>internet gateway and reaches the remote cluster through
Internet. Most probably, the gateway uses a telephone dialup connection to
get into Internet.
+++My opinion: ? (oh boy)
CASE #5:
********
The contest station logs through packet radio into the local clusternode.
The cluster network is quite extensive, and somewhere in the network, two
nodes are connected through a telephone dialup connection.
+++My opinion: I think this is ok, but taking the rules strictly there is no
difference between case 3, 4 or 5. Unfortunately, the contest station might
not know how all nodes are connected. And it is more and more common that
nodes are connected through non-radio amateur means (leased lines, PSTN,
channels from commercial satellite links etc...).
CASE #6:
********
A friend is making a dialup connection as in case #3, and forwards you the
multipliers by 2m phone.
+++My opinion: no difference with case #6. (but what if this friend uses
this way or any other non-amateur means of eliciting contact for you,
without you asked him to do this? Without you even knowing he uses
non-amateur means..
There are other variants you can think of. Just to give you one example.
Someone hears you saying on frequency: "Looking for zone 1, still need zone
1 for a last zone multiplier here on 20m." Helpful as this guy is, he takes
the phone and calls his KL7-friend who comes on frequency and gives you a
clean zone sweep on 20...
I think there are different ways to look at these cases: OR strictly
according to the wording of the rules, OR 'in the spirit of the contest'.
Judging the cases do differ accordingly.
You can send me your opinion (per case pse) directly, I will make a summary.
Or if you have reflections, important enough for all to know, send them to
the reflector.
Note: don't flame. I'm not accusing anyone, I do not criticize CQ (I have
the deepest respect for them!) etc... I'm just asking questions.
Looking forward to your answers.
Peter - ON6TT.
p_casier@ub4b.eunet.be
>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Fri Aug 26 12:43:20 1994
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: AC line protection
Message-ID: <XmVNRc1w165w@w2up.wells.com>
SInce we've been talking lightning protection lately...
My house has 400 amp service using two 200 amp panels side by side. If I
were to go with one of these parallel surge suppressors, would I require
two units, one for each panel? If it matters, there's only one power
meter and two big cables coming from it, into the house. I'm not sure how
many lines come into the power meter as the conduit is underground.
Tnx/Barry
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
|