CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?

To: Wes Jennings <wjennings2011@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
From: John Geiger <af5cc2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:05:40 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
That is definitely I suggestion/plan I might be interested in. I live in a
pretty small city lot and want to improve my 80 meter signal, but the wife
has turned most of the very small backyard into a garden, so radials would
get caught in the rotatiller.  The homebrew G5RV type antenna I have been
using seems really poor on 80m compared to what it used to be-at the same
height and all.  I did finish off 5BDXCC with it but not sure why I am
having trouble getting US stations on 80 now with it.

73 John AF5CC

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Wes Jennings <wjennings2011@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks another option for low bands
> ________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Gerry
> Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:03:17 AM
> To: Steve London
> Cc: Chuck Dietz; CQ Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
>
> Best single-element, 160 compromise antenna  I've used at many QTHs is the
> so-called K2KQ Double-L.  (http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm)
>
> Balanced, no radials required, vertical polarization with the current point
> up fairly high, and very easy to make, so no huge investment to try it out.
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hah !
> >
> > Sit in my shoes, on a dry, rocky mountaintop in SW New Mexico, with poor
> > dielectric and conductivity characteristics. Essentially, no soil - just
> > rocks.
> >
> > I have tried a number of single-element 160 antennas over the years, with
> > less-than-satisfying results. I evaluate each of them by the percentage
> of
> > EU stations that CQ in my face on a good Europe night.
> >
> > A marked difference from my previous Colorado QTH, which had a 1/4 wave
> > sloper over flat, irrigated farm land.
> >
> > You can get away with some pretty poor transmit antennas on 160 if you
> > have good ground characteristics under them. For poor ground, lots of
> > radials somewhat, but not entirely, mitigates the problem.
> >
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/17/2017 04:57 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
> >
> >> I use a 1/4 wave sloper on 160 with the top at about 130 feet on a 155
> >> foot
> >> tower. I have a receiving array, but I have never heard any 160m
> station I
> >> could not contact. East coast stations tell me I have EU pile ups I
> can't
> >> hear after I have worked all the loud ones. I think transmit antennas
> are
> >> easy. It is the receive antennas that are a problem.
> >>
> >> Chuck W5PR
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:53 PM Wes Jennings <wjennings2011@hotmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve as you know I am setting up here also. 4 sq on 40m - 2multi band
> >>> verts for 80 phased. And inverted l for 160. Now on a small city lot my
> >>> old
> >>> elmer had KLM tribander, 2ele 40m beam, shunt fed the tower for 160,80
> >>> with
> >>> beverages that fit in the lot. Did real well on that setup
> >>>
> >>> Wes
> >>> WL7F
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of
> >>> Stephen
> >>> Bloom <sbloom@acsalaska.net>
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:43:28 PM
> >>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
> >>>
> >>> I'll throw this out there ...
> >>>
> >>> 80M and 160M antennas!
> >>>
> >>> Most of us probably know the theory, but I want to know what has
> actually
> >>> worked and hasn't ..and ..why
> >>>
> >>> Competitively, at this point in the cycle, we're gonna live and die on
> >>> the
> >>> low bands.  For the most part, 40M and below, we know it's some
> variation
> >>> on
> >>> heavy metal high in the air .. for 80 and 160M, I'm curious, and I bet
> >>> others are too about
> >>>
> >>> 1)  For the "big guns" and those trying to be, what are you doing?  Are
> >>> any
> >>> of you having success with 80M yagis, and if so, how are you keeping
> them
> >>> in
> >>> the air and on the air?  For 80M and 160M, 4 square arrays?  4 "tower
> >>> verticals" or Dipole arrays off a single tower?  2 phased verticals?
> >>> Receiving antennas?  How do you keep Moose from ravaging your
> Beverages?
> >>> (OK, maybe that is an Alaska only problem!)
> >>>
> >>> 2)  For the people on smaller lots.  Suggestions, ways to improve
> >>> performance realistically.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks/73
> >>> Steve KL7SB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> K1AR via CQ-Contest
> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 1:08 PM
> >>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
> >>>
> >>> OK everyone -- unless someone has something new and profound to offer,
> I
> >>> suggest we move on to a new thread. How about a discussion on leveling
> >>> the
> >>> playing field in contesting? Or, perhaps the impact of spotting, RBN
> and
> >>> packet  on contest operating? Maybe we can debate the merits of
> combining
> >>> assisted  and unassisted.
> >>>
> >>> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >>> Something new folks? Anything? Please?
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>>
> >>> 73, John, K1AR
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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