Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:sawyered@earthlink.net: 106 ]

Total 106 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:43:31 -0400
Shouldn't this topic be dealt with at a generic level rather than CQ WW 160? The remote receiver is as valuable on 80 or 40 as it is on 160 in a contest. I agree wholeheartedly with the feeling that
/archives//html/Topband/2015-03/msg00098.html (11,169 bytes)

2. Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:18:14 -0400
I agree with John's (KK9A) commentary but not necessarily that it needs a new category. Just add it to the assisted category. Leave the unassisted category as is. Assisted is an evolving slippery slo
/archives//html/Topband/2015-03/msg00201.html (8,222 bytes)

3. Re: Topband: Salt-Water Qth! (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:13:17 -0400
The best write up and data I have seen on this subject was the "team vertical" report on test done in Jamaica back about 10 or more years ago. As I recall, the vertical signal strength to low angle D
/archives//html/Topband/2015-04/msg00012.html (8,924 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: Top Hat Vertical (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 05:35:35 -0400
?Same here. My T vertical for 160 is 100 ft vertical and 82 ft horizontal. That makes the antenna resonant below the band, with a feedpoint Z of 50 ohms plus some inductive reactance on 160M. I add s
/archives//html/Topband/2015-07/msg00000.html (6,530 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: beverage layout (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:18:56 -0500
Are you actually talking about "switched 2 direction beverages" or 2 bi-directional beverages. A bi-directional beverage receives in 2 directions at the same time on a single wire. It is un-terminate
/archives//html/Topband/2015-11/msg00032.html (7,495 bytes)

6. Re: Topband: 160m LP to LP DX contacts in 2015 (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:29:32 -0500
Bob, I am not sure if you are aware that KP4KE allegations and confirmed actions are legendary. People have operated from his station and never had the same result (can't imagine why). Also, KP4KE wa
/archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00210.html (8,048 bytes)

7. Re: Topband: safely sharing an RX antenna (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:10:39 -0500
I have a pair of 900 ft parallel beverages to the NE. The feed point of the beverages is approximately 350 ft from the closest of the 2 T verticals. The T verticals pattern is directly towards the be
/archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00267.html (7,907 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:16:55 -0500
When did this become the QRP reflector? There has to be some better place for this expanding and off topic dialog than here. 73 Ed N1UR _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.conte
/archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00403.html (8,452 bytes)

9. Re: Topband: Commercial 160 antennas? (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 07:43:25 -0500
Bill, Given the info that you have provided, it sounds like you don?t have ?lots of room for almost anything? if the room needed is radial field in certain directions from the tower. And re guying th
/archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00478.html (8,754 bytes)

10. Re: Topband: Commercial 160 antennas? (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:50:58 -0500
Guys, the point of the original posts, if you actually read it, was from someone who is balancing their limitations vs an antenna choice. If a significant portion of the radial field desired is un ob
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00000.html (7,011 bytes)

11. Topband: Received Signal Strengths (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 07:45:48 -0500
The 5NN discussion brought up an interesting subject to me. Signal strengths reported on 75M SSB are funny to listen too as people seem to be in a "mines bigger than yours" competition on how many dB
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00158.html (7,762 bytes)

12. Re: Topband: Received Signal Strengths (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 03:42:19 -0500
I guess that this question was pretty useless for this group. Sorry for asking. 73 Ed N1UR _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00169.html (7,858 bytes)

13. Re: Topband: Strange propagation (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:08:03 -0500
I am sure that this is someone remoting. Nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. They can legally use their own call assuming they are licensed to be where they are, which isn't hard on 160M. And its n
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00215.html (8,380 bytes)

14. Re: Topband: strange propagation (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:35:47 -0500
In the case discussed of a station remoting in and not properly identifying (ie an Italian station remoting a USA station but continuing to use the Italian callsign), it seems to me that the FCC woul
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00276.html (8,543 bytes)

15. Re: Topband: strange propagation (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 02:57:41 -0500
Correct, but if he doesnt, its actually the primary responsibility of the control operator/station owner to shut down the station to prevent further illegal transmissions. Ed N1UR It is the same thin
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00285.html (10,385 bytes)

16. Re: Topband: strange propagation (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 04:04:52 -0500
It would be hard to believe that the control operator is outside the US, beyond the FCC jurisdiction, and no one in the US is responsible. If that is the case, its pretty scary in my opinion. 73 Ed N
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00292.html (11,614 bytes)

17. Re: Topband: strange propagation (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 04:18:20 -0500
Thankfully, this is not the case. The FCC rules are quite clear on this issue. From Section 107 of Part 97 FCC rules: (a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the station i
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00293.html (12,296 bytes)

18. Re: Topband: strange propagation (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:35:23 -0500
A very interesting interpretation of the FCC regs by a former FCC official. Whether a liability lawyer would agree with him is debatable in my opinion. Just like a bartender can be liable for serving
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00391.html (9,256 bytes)

19. Re: Topband: W8JI is bailing out of this reflector? (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:51:15 -0500
Personally, I did not observe commentary deserving of someone leaving a reflector that they have enjoyed for 20 years. I do believe that Tom got tweaked by hearing opinions on RHR which questioned wh
/archives//html/Topband/2016-01/msg00544.html (7,876 bytes)

20. Re: Topband: Antenna Tuners (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:15:27 -0500
I have been successfully using the MFJ-998RT successfully on a 2 el 80M phased wire array. The 2 el wire beam has great performance but is very narrow banded (about 100khz) so I decided to try this t
/archives//html/Topband/2016-02/msg00067.html (7,691 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
This search system is powered by Namazu