Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] remote ant switch decision

To: <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] remote ant switch decision
From: "Jim Hargrave" <w5ifp@gvtc.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:28:12 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Don't sell the surplus military antenna switches short. Mine is a small 4 
position rotary drum type fully enclosed.
I have a homebrewed control box (24v) which now contains  a Binary decoder 
interfaced with Logger32. 
It is still operating after 60+ years. They are not cheap, but very reliable.

http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2009-03/msg00290.html

73, Jim – w5ifp@gvtc.com

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TowerTalk [] On
>> Behalf Of J. Hunt via TowerTalk
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:08 PM
>> To: towertalk@contesting.com; Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] remote ant switch decision
>> 
>> Great - I also agree with Joe, W4TV.
>> 
>> I have also replaced / upgraded many "open-frame" relays within
>> transceivers / amplifiers / antenna switches over the years with
>> appropriate sealed relays.
>> The "open relays" I have replaced - exhibited the same failure type
>> as described below.
>> 
>> My HF tower switch is home-brew.
>> It features "N" connectors, computer controlled from station, with
>> lock-out and feedback protection.
>> Including integral lightning protection.
>> Insertion loss <0.05db @ 50MHz., >60db isolation between ports
>> (4).
>> 
>> About 10 years ago, I got fed up with pre-manufactured remote
>> antenna switches.
>> Problems, one lightning hit - toast, high insertion loss, with
>> questionable isolation between ports.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks n 73,
>> James
>> ki5dq
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Tue, 4/12/16, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>>  Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] remote ant switch decision
>>  To: towertalk@contesting.com
>>  Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 11:45 AM
>> 
>>  thanks Joe,
>> 
>>  Bob
>>  K6UJ
>> 
>>  On 4/12/16 7:47 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Stick with the switch that uses enclosed relays with higher
>> impedance  > coils.  The "open frame" relays (even with a
>> carbonate cover) with  > low impedance coils (higher current) are
>> more sensitive to corrosion  > *and* resistance in control
>> leads.  The "open frame" relays *will*  > become unreliable over a
>> relatively short period of time.
>>  >
>>  > The better switches use enclosed relays, and at least in one case,
>> > cast, moisture resistant enclosures rather than bent sheet metal
>> > that is susceptible to moisture intrusion.
>>  >
>>  > 73,
>>  >
>>  >   ... Joe, W4TV
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >> To:    towertalk@contesting.com
>>  >> Subject:    [TowerTalk] remote ant switch decision  >>
>> From:    Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>  >> Date:    Tue, 12 Apr 2016
>> 00:56:48 -0700  >>  >>  >> I am considering getting either the Array
>> Solutions RatPak or a DX  >> Engineering remote antenna switch.
>> Any feedback on either of these,  >> positive or negative ?
>>  >>
>>  >> thanks,
>>  >> Bob
>>  >> K6UJ
>>  >>

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>