Canadian Mults

[zf8bs at twg.com]

>The biggest beef I here from Canadians about US contests is the the fact
>many dont recognize the maritime provinces as seperate mults or the fact
>that VE8 and VY1 are lumped together.
>N0BSH has a point-how about recognizing VE1,VO1/2,VE9 and VY2 as
>seperate mults? Whats the downside?

>Tim VE6SH
>Canadian CAC Rep

For the California QSO party, we have 58 counties in the state and use
each county as a multiplier for all of the contest entrants outside of
California.  So to make scores from California comparable in some way to
scores from outside California, it's nice to have 58 mults available to
California operators.  By lumping the Maritimes together and counting
VE8 and VY1 as a single multiplier, we get 58.  

This one example does not generalize to the other contests, though.  And
there I think the Canadians have a point.  
                                             de Bruce, AA6KX

>From fish at crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P  Concentric Systems, Inc.)  Fri Sep 16 21:02:54 1994
From: fish at crl.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P  Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher, KM9P  Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 13:02:54 -0700
Subject: NA & SS reporting question (?)
Message-ID: <199409162002.AA24215 at mail.crl.com>

>I still believe that the practice of cq'ing on a second radio should be
>banned by the rules of these contests. It is a waste of spectrum space, and
>it is a lot of WORK. I thought this was supposed to be FUN!

Single-oping is much more fun with 2 radios.  

Dave is too used to being THE loudest and THE last station on the band in
the domestic contests because of his Yuma QTH.  Sure he doesn't want anyone
else to use 2 radios...  Everyone will eventually call him because of his
LARGE footprint in north america on the high bands.  I'm sure there are alot
of northeasterners that would like to see this rule changed for the DX
contests.  

Ask yourselves the question...

Who is the better operator? 

1)  The Yuma guy who sits on one frequency CQing.
2)  The Missouri guy who sits on one frequency.   S&P's on another radio,
because his rate on the 1st radio won't allow him to compete with the guy in
Yuma.

Obviously the 2nd guy.  He worked harder and used more operating skills.


It takes alot of practice, concentration, energy, ect, ect to do 2 radios.
KR0Y is the best at it, and is undisputedly the best single operator in the
US.  I know a few others practicing hard though!

73


---
Bill Fisher, KM9P
Concentric Systems, Inc.  (CSI)
404-442-5821  Fax 404-667-1975


>From ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.AirTouch.COM (ken silverman)  Fri Sep 16 22:21:04 1994
From: ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.AirTouch.COM (ken silverman) (ken silverman)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 13:21:04 PST
Subject: Summary - Half Square Antenna
Message-ID: <9408167797.AA779746864 at atlas.ccmail.airtouch.com>

While the number of responses was small, some good comparative 
results was offered from those who have installed a half square 
antenna.   From those that have used a half square, most if not 
all, feed the antenna in the top corner, as described in the 
recent CQ article.   

THe modeling I did using AO indicated that a good match can be 
obtained using 50 ohm coax cable.  There was a difference between 
a gain optimized half square, and an SWR optimized half square.  
You give up about 1 dB to obtain the best match to 50 ohms.  If 
you can live with 1.5 or 2:1 SWR, then you can get back most of 
the 1 dB.

As most people indicated, this is a low angle vertical radiator.  
As such, the quality of the ground will influence how well the 
antenna works.  WHile this antenna does not require radials, 
ground conductivity will effect performance.  Many of the people 
who have used this antenna have had the antenna fairly high, and 
not low to the ground.  Modeling in AO suggests that some 
additional gain (relative when modeling against ground vs. free 
space) can be had if the antenna is elevated (more than a few 
feet).  

The following are some results of the modeling I did, and how 
some antennas compare.  THe modeling I did was over Salt Water, 
for I will be at a beach front QTH.  If you model the same 
antennas over average ground, the performance will be MUCH 
different.  Also in my case, high supports will not be available.  
I suspect that 40' trees will be the maximum.  So all antennas I 
modeled had a maximum height of 40' (except the existing 40m-2 
yagi at 50').  This generally leads the choice of antennas 
towards verticals, or low antennas with vertical polarization.  
Remember, that a dipole shows gain when modeled over ground.  
Thus use the following gains figures as relative.  Also I suggest 
reading Force 12's description on how they do thier gain 
calculations.  INformative reading.  Generally I modeled antennas 
weighted at 90% for gain, and 10% for SWR.  

ANTENNA TYPE:           GAIN at 5 DEG ELEVATION ANGLE
40m Dipole @ 37'        -11.75 dBd (max rad @ 68 degs, + 4.99 dBd)
40m 2 ele yagi @ 50'    -3.82 dBd (max rad @ 36 degs, +8.91 dBd)
40m Loop @ 37'          +4.02 dBd
40m halfsquare @ 37'    +6.52 dBd

>From this limited selection, you can see that a half square is a 
solid low angle performer.   In comparison to the yagi, it beats 
out the yagi at angles below 15-20 degrees or there abouts.  The 
half square looks like it will be 1 to 2 S Units stronger at low 
angles than the yagi!.  Thats a big improvement ANY day.

WHile there is not much technical information on the feeding of 
the antenna (my original question)  modeling and on the air 
performance indicates that the half square will work as shown 
when fed in the top corner.  I would add that I would be careful 
on how the coax is lead away from the antenna.  I would suggest 
the coax be removed in the same plane as the horizantal wire for 
as long as possible, to minimize any interaction.

I hope this was of interest.  It sure seems like this antenna 
will play.  CU in the pileups, Ken WM2C

ken.silverman at atlas.ccmail.airtouch.com

>From Joel B Levin <levin at BBN.COM>  Fri Sep 16 21:13:47 1994
From: Joel B Levin <levin at BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 16:13:47 -0400
Subject: SPRINT MULTS
Message-ID: <8592.779746427 at bbn.com>

|  c) follow up with profuse thanks for the QSO and an invitation to
|      "Jump in and hand out a few contacts, we need and appreciate
|       the extra participation.  The more, the merrier."
|
|Is this a "manufactured" contact? Maybe, but I don't feel guilty.

Nonsense.  I think it's a great thing to do and you never know when
some non-contester decides maybe contesting would be fun.  And it's
certainly not like setting up contacts.

	/JBL   KD1ON


>From modular!liddy!eric at cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson)  Fri Sep 16 19:46:00 1994
From: modular!liddy!eric at cs.arizona.edu (Eric Gustafson) (Eric Gustafson)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 11:46 MST
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <m0qliJC-00009eC at liddy>

To: arizona!longs.att.com!n2ic
CC: cq-contest at tgv.com
In-reply-to: <9409161517.AA13746 at drmail.dr.att.com> (arizona!longs.att.com!n2ic)
Subject: Re: Delta Loops




 >
 >Yes, you can enchance the vertically polarized component from a delta loop
 >by feeding it about 1/8 wavelength up from a bottom corner.  However,
 >this makes the antenna very ground-dependent - just like a vertical.  For
 >typical ground conductivities, you will be sacrificing a significant amount
 >of gain.  If you have the luxury of height, a high, horizontally polarized
 >delta loop will have much more low-angle gain.  KC1XX has taken good
 >advantage of this.
 >

N7CL > All antennas are very ground dependent in this respect.  However the
       vertically polarized delta loop is NOT so "just like a vertical" if
       we are talking about a ground mounted vertical which depends on
       ground to source antenna return currents and therefore is strongly
       dependent on the ground and ground system to mantain its radiation
       effeciency.  Actually the delta loop is more like 2 phased verticals
       which are elevated and have NO part of their antenna currents
       flowing in the ground system.


 >If you are trying to evaluate some simple, low band antennas, such as
 >dipoles vs. inverted vees vs. delta loops, etc., it is well worth your time
 >to experiment with MN or ELNEC with the options and heights you have at
 >your disposal.
 >

N7CL > This is good advice!


 >Steve London, N2IC/0
 >n2ic at longs.att.com
 >


Steve,

If you can put a horizontally polarized delta loop up high enough to get
this increased low angle gain, you should put up a 2 el linearly loaded
beam and be done with it.  Lots more gain and you can point it.  Only a
little more trouble.

Seriously, folks...  People put up delta loops BECAUSE they CAN'T put up
something horizontally polarized high enough to equal the vertically
polarized delta loop's performance at low angles.  Feeding them up from the
corner is valuable information since it greatly improves the performance
for the intended application (especially on symmetrical equilateral loops
in the vertical plane).

73,  Eric  N7CL

>From Obermann Mark" <obermann_mark at macmail1.cig.mot.com  Fri Sep 16 21:20:18 1994
From: Obermann Mark" <obermann_mark at macmail1.cig.mot.com (Obermann Mark)
Date: 16 Sep 1994 15:20:18 -0500
Subject: Two Radios
Message-ID: <n1432389946.80705 at macmail1.cig.mot.com>

To me, using two radios is part of the FUN.  If *you* can only have fun with
one radio, than only use one radio!

Mark,  AG9A