There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work them and
some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman agreements are of the
past.....sucks
PAUL. N0aH
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Topband <topband-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of John Randall via
Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:25:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Roger,Its the old problem with contests, where people are so eager to get that
piece of paper, that they will operate across the whole band and even out of
band in many cases. The big issue is whether contests are now even worth the
effort, what with the ability to cheat ever greater by using websdr and other
means to get that qso. My conscience would not allow me to cheat the system and
I have no plan on even trying.
Why would a digital station even BE "ALLOWED" inside the small QRO segment
beats me. Then you get the rag chewers hogging the same segment while others
try to work DX, talking their friends across town. I know some QRO stations
even operate outside the segment, judging by their signal strengths.
73John - M0ELS
Digitally signed mail - John M0ELS
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak
it.”
George Orwell
On Monday, 27 November 2017, 23:23:55 GMT, <topband-request@contesting.com>
wrote:
Send Topband mailing list submissions to
topband@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
topband-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
topband-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: BOG pre amp info ? (Lee STRAHAN)
2. Re: CQ WW CW 160m observations (Ed Sawyer)
3. CQ WW CW 160m observations (David Olean)
4. Re: CQ WW CW 160m observations (MR TREVOR DUNNE)
5. Re: CQ WW CW 160m observations (Henk Remijn PA5KT)
6. Re: 160m magnetic loop (John Randall)
7. Re: CQ WW CW 160m observations (Roger Parsons)
8. FT8 on 160m (Roger Parsons)
9. Re: FT8 on 160m (Tim Shoppa)
10. Re: CQ WW CW 160m observations (rayn6vr)
11. Re: Beverage construction (Donald Chester)
12. Re: Beverage construction (Mike Waters)
13. Re: FT8 on 160m (W0MU Mike Fatchett)
14. Re: CQ WW CW 160m observations (W0MU Mike Fatchett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:01:02 +0000
From: Lee STRAHAN <k7tjr@msn.com>
To: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>, Roger Kennedy
<roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
Cc: topBand List <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: BOG pre amp info ?
Message-ID:
<DM5PR19MB1163B0EC97BF16A4752BC7E0F5250@DM5PR19MB1163.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello Tim and all.
The input impedance of the W7IUV amp is also highly dependent on the
negative feedback found by looking at the unbypassed base bias circuit. And
highly dependent on the size of the unbypassed emitter degeneration resistance.
There is a thorough discussion of this by Wes W7ZOI in the ARRL book
"Experimental Methods in RF Design".
Lee K7TJR OR
>Input impedance on the W7IUV preamp is determined almost entirely by the DC
>bias currents.
>Clifton Labs used to have a really nifty set of pages on modeling and
>measurement of the various high performance preamps. I really miss that site.
>Tim N3QE
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Roger Kennedy < roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
wrote:
> Hi Don
>
> Gosh, really? Looking at the circuit, and given the resistors used, I
> would have thought the input impedance would be about 800 ohms . . .
>
> And hard to estimate the output impedance, but wouldn't have thought
> it was about 50 ohms.
>
> Guess I'm wrong then ! Sorry about that.
>
> (I already built a FET pre-amp for my Loop . . . but was just
> commenting.)
>
> 73 Roger G3YRO
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Don Kirk [mailto:wd8dsb@gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 November 2017 13:09
> To: Roger Kennedy
> Cc: topband
> Subject: Re: Topband: BOG pre amp info ?
>
>
>
> HI Roger,
>
>
> You said "However, the circuit seems odd . . . I used transformers in
> and out on my Loop Preamp, to give a match to 50 ohms."
>
>
> I believe your above statement was in reference to the W7IUV preamp.
> I've measured the W7IUV preamp input and output impedances and also
> modeled the W7IUV preamp using LTspice, and both methods yield input
> and output impedances of close to 50 ohms. Therefore no additional
> components (such as matching transformers) are required for impedance
> matching purposes on the W7IUV preamp.
>
> Just FYI,
> Don (wd8dsb)
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Roger Kennedy
> <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's a nice cheap board, and worth using considering it has relay
> switching too . . .
>
> However, the circuit seems odd . . . I used transformers in and out on
> my Loop Preamp, to give a match to 50 ohms.
>
> Roger G3YRO
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> Try this guy he does good quality boards and it's easier than
> importing from the states,
>
> https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/
> <https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/W7IUV-Beverage-preamplifier-
> PCB-for-experimenters-
> 2N5109-or-DCP68-transistor-/261634019988>
> W7IUV-Beverage-preamplifier-PCB-for-experimenters-2
> N5109-or-DCP68-transistor-/261634019988
>
> Trevor
> EI2GLB
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_
> <http://www.contesting.com/_topband> topband
>
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:33:53 -0500
From: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <0aaf01d367a5$e671aa70$b354ff50$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I worked G4IIY at about 03Z on Sunday morning. Ian was one of the most
consistent signals CQing and heard from my end (nice job Ian). However - no
one from EU was strong. A few of the Carib and Zone 33 stations were strong
some of the time but even then not frequently.
I worked EI9E around the same time as G4IIY but EI9E was not quite as strong
and if he was CQing frequently then he wasn't heard a lot here. Many EU
stations were at the noise level on the end of my phased 1000 ft beverages
to EU. They clearly could not hear the USA well.
I worked a total of 15 EU stations in this contest. It ranks as one of the
top 5 worst CQ WW 160/80/40 conditions in memory (since 1997 for me).
See you all on for a bit in ARRL 160.
73
Ed N1UR (2 el phased array and 1.5kw from Vermont)
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:01:05 +0000
From: David Olean <K1WHS@metrocast.net>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <2f3d7a10-a841-6a32-07e3-d5910ae1ac40@metrocast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Trevor,.
I was calling and calling many EU stations and they would uniformly come
back calling CQ right in my face both evenings. I was running 1500 watts
into a vertical with 125 radials. I seemed to hear just fine, but no one
across the pond could hear me. I quit in disgust on Friday evening about
0330 UT,? but was active all evening on Saturday until the Sun came up
in Europe. I only called CQ once around 0700 UT on Saturday and that is
when I worked you.? Mostly I tuned looking for DX stations. A few
earlier CQs produced nothing.? Very strange conditions for sure. I
thought my antenna was broken.
Dave K1WHS
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:38:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: MR TREVOR DUNNE <ei2glb@eircom.net>
To: Ian Fugler <zen90387@zen.co.uk>
Cc: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <93266875.424085.1511807902073.JavaMail.zimbra@eircom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Thanks for the report Ian you did very well, me not being able to run is a big
reason why I missed lots I really need to improve my CW,
73
Trevor
EI2GLB
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Fugler <zen90387@zen.co.uk>
To: Gary@ka1j.com, Topband@contesting.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:55:29 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Trevor
I worked 123 US stations on topband over the weekend, including Gary KA1J
(thanks!) and a couple in Zone 3. However, I think conditions were not
great and it seemed on several occasions that the US stations were hearing
EU better than we could hear them. Some of the RBN reports from north
America on my signal were never matched by any of the US or VE people that
called me. In fact, I think that all of my north American contacts were
when I was running. Every time I clicked on a spot for a W or VE station, I
could not hear them. I also struggled to hear (let alone work) much beyond
zone 18 to the east.
So, I think condx were down and the general band noise in EU was high.
73,
Ian G4IIY
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Smith
Sent: 27 November 2017 14:39
To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Hi Trevor,
I'm in Connecticut. I didn't compete much, I was too busy otherwise this
weekend. I ran full power to give out some Q's on 160.
I heard many more EU than I could get to hear me. Some stations I called
maybe 20 times and they either didn't reply to me or went to another call.
Odd, I usually make nearly all the EU contacts I hear in a contest.
73,
Gary
KA1J
> Hi All
>
> First time to give 160 a good go during CQ WW and I was surprised how
> few NA stations I heard,
>
> I feel I was active at the right time 03-08utc but apart from VO1HP
> K3LR and W3LPL I don't think I worked a half a dozen more, worked some
> Caribbean stations as well I don't have a contest winning setup by any
> means but I was expecting a lot more from NA, due to work I'm going to
> miss the ARRL 160 contest next weekend which is a pity as it would
> give me a better chance to see how well I can hear NA, Just wondering
> how did guys over this side find NA prop and how did the NA guys find
> prop to EU??
>
> Thanks
> Trevor
> EI2GLB
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:43:07 +0100
From: Henk Remijn PA5KT <pa5kt@remijn.net>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <fe89adf7-9553-0ef4-e36b-8aebb9f1ba2e@remijn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
I did not long stay on 160m as conditions did not seem very good.
Heard JA3YBK on saturday evening, but heavy pile up.
Worked some zone 5 and 4and some Caribbean.
I just had my inv L up on Friday. It has 2 radials. All temporary setup
till the rework of the garden is finished.
K9AY loop is adding RX capabilities.
Power around 600 Watts.
73 Henk
Op 27-11-2017 om 18:33 schreef Ed Sawyer:
> I worked G4IIY at about 03Z on Sunday morning. Ian was one of the most
> consistent signals CQing and heard from my end (nice job Ian). However - no
> one from EU was strong. A few of the Carib and Zone 33 stations were strong
> some of the time but even then not frequently.
>
>
>
> I worked EI9E around the same time as G4IIY but EI9E was not quite as strong
> and if he was CQing frequently then he wasn't heard a lot here. Many EU
> stations were at the noise level on the end of my phased 1000 ft beverages
> to EU. They clearly could not hear the USA well.
>
>
>
> I worked a total of 15 EU stations in this contest. It ranks as one of the
> top 5 worst CQ WW 160/80/40 conditions in memory (since 1997 for me).
>
>
>
> See you all on for a bit in ARRL 160.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Ed N1UR (2 el phased array and 1.5kw from Vermont)
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Randall <m0els@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m magnetic loop
Message-ID: <632192269.6033123.1511810021980@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Roger, No, I have not seen it, but will take a look. I am eager to get this
up and see what it does, especially with that proposed 890Hecta solar farm
going up just a few miles away, its going to generate a lot more noise for all
concerned. My loft is full on junk, so will probably have to clear it out and
then see if its a feasible location with the surrounding noise. I hope the
further from the house, the quieter it will be...ha ha.There were a lot of
stations on the 160m contest, but its not my cuppa so I have a few shouts on
ssb and then called it quits. CW is out due to arthiritis and this keyboard
stuff is just not me either. Around 21h30 clock time , the locals start
switching off their appliances and gadgets and I can connect my preamp.
I am not too worried about Dx and I take it as and if it comes along. Too old
to worry about paper certificates etc etc. Back to the loop, did you isolate
the loop from the transceiver ?
73John - M0ELS
Digitally signed mail - John? M0ELS
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:23:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
To: TopBand List <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <1726060970.2695081.1511814224465@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Quite surprised at the negative comments on 160m conditions this last weekend,
as I found them excellent to Europe, particularly on Sunday morning. I worked
over 200 which is a lot more than I have ever managed before. Really long haul
conditions were however non-existent - P3 was the only Asia heard (but not
worked).
73 Roger
VE3ZI
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:43:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
To: TopBand List <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: FT8 on 160m
Message-ID: <834231237.2709979.1511815394320@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
As we all know, CQWW produces huge activity on all HF bands. This year I was
hearing stations up to well above 1850kHz. I have found that trying to run
Europe is often more productive in the 1840-1850 segment, presumably because it
is less crowded than lower in frequency.
Late in the contest I started to CQ on about 1842kHz, and after a while, and
several QSOs, was told (on CW): "Please QSY. 1840 is reserved for FT8. Good
luck in the contest." Ignoring the fact that nobody has a reserved frequency on
any band, I thought OK, don't want to upset anybody, and moved to 1842.9kHz.
Shortly, the same message arrived.
My (probably incorrect) understanding is that FT8 stations are using USB with a
carrier frequency of 1840kHz. So a CW station on 1842.9 should be out of their
passband. I did listen carefully and could not hear any FT8 transmissions above
1842.2. (I have multiple receive antennas in a very quiet location.)
I believe that FT8 transmissions in principle use a microscopic bandwidth, but
it appears they actually need a wide clear channel.
Yes? No?
73 Roger
VE3ZI
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:17:46 -0500
From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>
To: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>, topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
Message-ID: <CF35E547-8585-4A8E-A3B6-EB8B61B5E03C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
As a practical matter there are several 2 kHZ segments of each band that are
now devoted to 24x7 JT65, FT8, and other digital modes. Weak signal CW work -
eg working rare mults or even just weak guys from common mults - in those
segments just isn?t gonna happen.
Substantial parts of 80M and 40M have been pretty bad for several years now
with SAILNET and other automatic modes.
Tim N3QE
> On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband
> <topband@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> As we all know, CQWW produces huge activity on all HF bands. This year I was
> hearing stations up to well above 1850kHz. I have found that trying to run
> Europe is often more productive in the 1840-1850 segment, presumably because
> it is less crowded than lower in frequency.
>
>
> Late in the contest I started to CQ on about 1842kHz, and after a while, and
> several QSOs, was told (on CW): "Please QSY. 1840 is reserved for FT8. Good
> luck in the contest." Ignoring the fact that nobody has a reserved frequency
> on any band, I thought OK, don't want to upset anybody, and moved to
> 1842.9kHz. Shortly, the same message arrived.
>
> My (probably incorrect) understanding is that FT8 stations are using USB with
> a carrier frequency of 1840kHz. So a CW station on 1842.9 should be out of
> their passband. I did listen carefully and could not hear any FT8
> transmissions above 1842.2. (I have multiple receive antennas in a very quiet
> location.)
>
> I believe that FT8 transmissions in principle use a microscopic bandwidth,
> but it appears they actually need a wide clear channel.
>
> Yes? No?
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:58:20 -0700
From: rayn6vr <rayn6vr@gmail.com>
To: MR TREVOR DUNNE <ei2glb@eircom.net>, Ian Fugler
<zen90387@zen.co.uk>
Cc: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <5a1c8af7.93e6ca0a.13d73.6095@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Trevor,I called u for almost 20 minutes? my Saturday evening just before ur SR.
U peaked 459 at times but u never hear me or some of the other Ws
calling.Hoping for better condx.Ray, N6VR?Near Prescott, AZ
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: MR TREVOR DUNNE <ei2glb@eircom.net>
Date: 11/27/17 11:38 AM (GMT-07:00) To: Ian Fugler <zen90387@zen.co.uk> Cc:
Topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Thanks for the report Ian you did very well, me not being able to run is a big
reason why I missed lots I really need to improve my CW,
73
Trevor
EI2GLB
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Fugler <zen90387@zen.co.uk>
To: Gary@ka1j.com, Topband@contesting.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:55:29 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Trevor
I worked 123 US stations on topband over the weekend, including Gary KA1J
(thanks!) and a couple in Zone 3.? However, I think conditions were not
great and it seemed on several occasions that the US stations were hearing
EU better than we could hear them.? Some of the RBN reports from north
America on my signal were never matched by any of the US or VE people that
called me.? In fact, I think that all of my north American contacts were
when I was running.? Every time I clicked on a spot for a W or VE station, I
could not hear them.? I also struggled to hear (let alone work) much beyond
zone 18 to the east.
So, I think condx were down and the general band noise in EU was high.
73,
Ian G4IIY
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Smith
Sent: 27 November 2017 14:39
To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Hi Trevor,
I'm in Connecticut. I didn't compete much, I was too busy otherwise this
weekend. I ran full power to give out some Q's on 160.
I heard many more EU than I could get to hear me. Some stations I called
maybe 20 times and they either didn't reply to me or went to another call.
Odd, I usually make nearly all the EU contacts I hear in a contest.
73,
Gary
KA1J
> Hi All
>
> First time to give 160 a good go during CQ WW and I was surprised how
> few NA stations I heard,
>
> I feel I was active at the right time 03-08utc but apart from VO1HP
> K3LR and W3LPL I don't think I worked a half a dozen more, worked some
> Caribbean stations as well I don't have a contest winning setup by any
> means but I was expecting a lot more from NA, due to work I'm going to
> miss the ARRL 160 contest next weekend which is a pity as it would
> give me a better chance to see how well I can hear NA, Just wondering
> how did guys over this side find NA prop and how did the NA guys find
> prop to EU??
>
> Thanks
> Trevor
> EI2GLB
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:54:17 +0000
From: Donald Chester <k4kyv@hotmail.com>
To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage construction
Message-ID:
<BN6PR1401MB19064672E3A66E26FC652E7DF4250@BN6PR1401MB1906.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thu Nov 23 13:42:27 EST 2017 Dave k4em at bellsouth.net wrote:
> did you slope the last 50' on each end?
Sloping the ends of a beverage serves no useful purpose. That's an old wives'
tale (or maybe I should say old Hammy Hambone's tale) started by W1WCR, I
believe. Whether the wire is horizontal all the way to eacd end with a
vertical lead straight down to the ground point, or 50' of sloping the wire at
each end, you have exactly the same vertical and horizontal component of wire.
Precisely why a Pennant antenna and a Flag antenna of the same total height and
length perform approximately the same. The only advantage to the sloping wire
is that the sloping antenna itself acts as a guy wire for the end poles,
eliminating the need to terminate each end of the antenna with a separate guy
wire. But the long gradual slope makes the antenna wire more hazardous to
surface traffic than a short guy wire at each pole.
Don k4kyv
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:01:34 -0600
From: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
To: Donald Chester <k4kyv@hotmail.com>
Cc: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage construction
Message-ID:
<CA+FxYXjmu57urStK=EPUYjpJfy2EnzZJjdrVAxThvbFNQzE+dA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Exactly! Doing that creates impedance mismatches at each end.
Now, if your aim is to trip people or animals, slope it. ;-)
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com<http://www.w0btu.com>
On Nov 27, 2017 4:55 PM, "Donald Chester" <k4kyv@hotmail.com> wrote:
> did you slope the last 50' on each end?
Sloping the ends of a beverage serves no useful purpose. That's an old
wives' tale ...
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:19:11 -0700
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 on 160m
Message-ID: <056c69d4-f21b-9fd9-10d0-e0a3aef7d643@w0mu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
The normal bandwidth for FT8 is 2.5 to 2.8 kc.? at 1.842.9 you should
have been outside the FT8 band.? Hardly anyone operates above 2.5 it
seems anyway.? I think you? were essentially being trolled.? I suppose
you could have been pretty wide for a local or close in station wiping
out a fair portion of the upper end of the band.
I am usually on 160 FT8 every night but I took the weekend off for the
contest from FT8.
Too bad the guy did not identify.? I noticed a few freq cops on the
cluster announcements where some FT8 users think they deserve clear
space which we know does not exist is a shared band that we have.
W0MU
On 11/27/2017 2:17 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> As a practical matter there are several 2 kHZ segments of each band that are
> now devoted to 24x7 JT65, FT8, and other digital modes. Weak signal CW work -
> eg working rare mults or even just weak guys from common mults - in those
> segments just isn?t gonna happen.
>
> Substantial parts of 80M and 40M have been pretty bad for several years now
> with SAILNET and other automatic modes.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband
>> <topband@contesting.com> wrote:
>>
>> As we all know, CQWW produces huge activity on all HF bands. This year I was
>> hearing stations up to well above 1850kHz. I have found that trying to run
>> Europe is often more productive in the 1840-1850 segment, presumably because
>> it is less crowded than lower in frequency.
>>
>>
>> Late in the contest I started to CQ on about 1842kHz, and after a while, and
>> several QSOs, was told (on CW): "Please QSY. 1840 is reserved for FT8. Good
>> luck in the contest." Ignoring the fact that nobody has a reserved frequency
>> on any band, I thought OK, don't want to upset anybody, and moved to
>> 1842.9kHz. Shortly, the same message arrived.
>>
>> My (probably incorrect) understanding is that FT8 stations are using USB
>> with a carrier frequency of 1840kHz. So a CW station on 1842.9 should be out
>> of their passband. I did listen carefully and could not hear any FT8
>> transmissions above 1842.2. (I have multiple receive antennas in a very
>> quiet location.)
>>
>> I believe that FT8 transmissions in principle use a microscopic bandwidth,
>> but it appears they actually need a wide clear channel.
>>
>> Yes? No?
>>
>> 73 Roger
>> VE3ZI
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:22:15 -0700
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: CQ WW CW 160m observations
Message-ID: <af6f3f20-0d8c-7b74-7971-e0ca0f67d689@w0mu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
?Very poor from Colorado.? 80 and 40 were not what I would call great
either.? I did snag 9m6 for a new on on 80 well after my SR on Sunday.?
I woke up early and thought I would have great fun on the lowbands.? I
mostly got cqed in my face by BY's on 40 and the UP0L and the HS
stations.?? Next to nothing on 80 or 160 at SR.
On 11/27/2017 1:23 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:
> Quite surprised at the negative comments on 160m conditions this last
> weekend, as I found them excellent to Europe, particularly on Sunday morning.
> I worked over 200 which is a lot more than I have ever managed before. Really
> long haul conditions were however non-existent - P3 was the only Asia heard
> (but not worked).
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
------------------------------
End of Topband Digest, Vol 179, Issue 26
****************************************
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|