CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] TB-wires WPX category

To: CQ contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TB-wires WPX category
From: "David J. Sourdis - HK1A" <hk1kxa@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 07:34:22 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
First time I read about the TB-Wire Overlay came to my mind the typical little 
station with a three element tribander (TH3, TA33, etc) with a couple of 
inverted vees sharing a common feedpoint. I believe that is the intention of 
the rule.
IMO Maybe a TH7 or one of the big OB-XX are a little too big to play in that 
TB-Wires sandbox. But those are tribanders. Pentabanders (5) are OK.How about 
dualbanders? Get a 10 meter boom and fill it with ten and fifteen meters 
elements,  one or two feedlines, is the same, you have two antennas that IMO 
are way out of the TBW league.
A Bruce array can be made with one piece of wire, but it never will be a TBW 
antenna
A ground plane antenna has 3-4 wires, but is a TB-Wire antenna. 
Now, if you connect the two antennas, GP and dipole, to a tee and a match them 
for TX/RX, that combination shouldn't be playing in the TBW sandbox.
I hope we won't need a list of "certified TBW antennas" in the rules.
David  
HK1A
EC5KXA
ex-HK1KXA




> From: sov1178@rambler.ru
> To: k0rc@citlink.net; k5zd@charter.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:50:27 +0300
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TB-wires WPX category
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, Randy,
> 
> As far as I understand the 10-15-20 quad antenna should
> comply with the rules if only one feedline is used from the station
> to the antenna (to the switching box). With such setup there
> will be no benefits from the quads compared to more traditional
> tribanders.
> 
> If more then one feedline is used between the station and the antenna
> (or switching box) I can use qauds on the two bands simultaneously
> operating SO2R, so this will not be within the limits of the TB-wires
> category anymore.
> 
> Is my interpretation correct?
> 
> Regards,
> Oleg
> 73 de UR3IQO
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>
> To: <k5zd@charter.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 8:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TB-wires WPX category
> 
> 
> Hello Randy,
> 
> What is the rationale or thought behind the "one feedline" from a tribander
> (or quad) rule opposed to separate feedlines? I believe some manufacturers
> offer these choices as an option (Force12).
> 
> The question about using a remote antenna switch at the top of a tower "got
> me thinking" about this.
> 
> 73 de Bob - KØRc in MN
> 
> 
> - - - Original message - - -
> 
> Based on the discussion I may need to add some more text to this
> explanation. For example, we have allowed receiving antennas in the past,
> but it does seem like a gray area that should be clarified for next year.
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how the rules can be made
> more clear or more interesting to competitors.
> 
> 
> Randy Thompson, K5ZD
> Director - CQ WPX Contest
> 
> email: k5zd@cqwpx.com
> web: www.cqwpx.com
> facebook: www.facebook.com/cqwpx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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