SprINT results!! W5NN Name Trace!
KB5YVT at aol.com
KB5YVT at aol.com
Fri Aug 11 18:16:35 EDT 1995
Ha ! At least we made our mark!
<<LOG THAT NAME
Here's my favorite name trace this running:
w5nn 1 poky =====k7sv=
nc6u 5 potty ===n0bsh=
k5zd 14 gotty ==n0bsh=
wi2e 11 phil ============-====na4k-w5nn=
nd3f 34 poky ====-===========-===-=====n0bsh=
wa2srq 71 goky ==wq5l=
k2mm 69 gody ======-======k5zd=
nd3f 76 kay ====-=====-==nc6u-aa2gs=
w5asp 50 gene =====n6tv=
n2aa 108 doug ======-==========-==n4tqo.
We were having a Post FD party (W5NN 2A) and remembered the "INT" was
running. Got our new hams from FD to get on and make a Q or two. Their
comments were: "if this is real contesting we don't want any part of this
madness!" Used the name POKY for the stations owner (WA5POKy), its a dig
about his code speed! :-)
Sorry about sending in the log... I had been over-served by the end of the
evening and deleted the log.
73 KB5YVT (W5NN)
>From n4zr at ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith N4ZR) Fri Aug 11 22:32:37 1995
From: n4zr at ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith N4ZR) (Pete Smith N4ZR)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 14:32:37 -0700
Subject: FW: Ant Gain is NOT subjective
Message-ID: <199508112132.OAA14963 at ix6.ix.netcom.com>
>>>On Tue, 8 Aug 1995 17:55:34 -0400 Rob Hummel WS1A wrote:
>>>>I have watched with discomfort the discussions relating to antenna
>>>>performance and the various gain claims of manufacturers. (Including the
>>>>negative gain phenomenon associated with coax cable.) It's sometimes tough
>>>>to watch the stuff that goes back in forth about antennas, gain, and
>>>>performance. I (hesitatingly) have decided to throw my .02 in. (I'm not mad
>>>>or anything, I just want to see some more messages with formulas in them.)
>>>>I believe that those without vested interests in antenna sales genuinely
>>>>mean well and are simply passing on their impressions and experiences. Even
>>>>so, the amount of plain wrong information about antennas is distressing.
>>>> Why publications
>>>>like QST and CQ continue to publish idiocy such as "The antenna seemed to
>>>>perform well, working Europe with no problem" I cannot understand. The
>>>>reasons antenna companies continue to publish modeled (instead of measured)
>>>>pattern and gain, I do understand: greed and possibly ignorance.
>Hmmm... I agree with Rob that there is a terrible amount of misinformation
out there about antennas. CQ's so-called "reviews" are particularly guilty
in this respect.
>But I do take issue with his characterization of antenna companies that
publish calculated data as driven by "greed and possibly ignorance." That's
just too harsh. Seems to me that economics are/is another good reason. Rob's
three-antenna range for 10-15 dBi antennas at 20m. is a non-trivial
investment. I would rather have modelling results, identified as such, than
Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at ix.netcom.com *** please note new address ***
Radio Free West Virginia (under construction)
>From km9p at is.net (Bill Fisher) Sat Aug 12 00:34:40 1995
From: km9p at is.net (Bill Fisher) (Bill Fisher)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 19:34:40 -0400
Subject: Side mounts, Tic, what?
Message-ID: <199508112334.TAA27269 at mail1.is.net>
I have to turn a 205CA that will be right above the top set of guys on my
biggest tower. I was a bit taken back by the new pricing of the Tic Ring
rotor that someone posted last week. I could see paying that much to turn a
giant 3 element 40M beam, but not a 205CA.
There is a guy here in town that makes side mounts. Not sure, but I was
thinking they were around $250.00. Add this to the cost of T2X and your a
heck of a lot cheaper than $1150.00 for the Tic ring.
Any comments either way are apprciated from those of you who have tried one
or the other or both. I know what K3LR will tell me... buy the Tic.
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> Sat Aug 12 05:36:00 1995
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629 at mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 23:36 EST
Subject: Ant. Gain Meas.
Message-ID: <20950812043602/0005543629NA2EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
The 3-Antenna Method is a good idea, but hard to establish accurately at
HF because of ground and other reflections. A ground-reflection range is
typically site-unique, and an absolute measurement of antenna gain is a
tough job. Typically, you must adjust the height of one of the antennas
until you get a peak of received signal at a given frequency (yep, it's
different for each band), or you can attempt to simulate a free-space
situation by shooting across a canyon ala DL1BU. I've even seen ranges
that shoot straight up to attempt to avoid ground reflections, but they
weren't successful at HF. Typical HF antenna patterns on a real range
look more like a potato than like the pictures you see in books or on
Lots of big dollars have been spent in attempts to obtain absolute gain
measurements at HF, but the results have been uncertain enough to make me
doubt it can be done to any great accuracy. For reference, see some of the
helicopter-borne gain and pattern measurements published by Jim Breakall,
WA3FET. The difficulty of establishing absolute gain in the presence of
environmental reflections is the reason companies (my own included) spend
what they do on anechoic chambers for VHF through microwave antenna
measurements. However, it is certainly a step in the right direction to be
able to compare contest antennas one to another by measurement on the same
range under the exact same conditions.
If some manufacturer told me that the gain of an HF antenna was measured
to be 8.3 dBi on a ground reflection range, I'd have to harbor doubts about
the value of the number. It's a much tougher problem than one would hope.
73 de Dave, W6QHS leeson at nova.stanford.edu
>From ni6t at ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) Sat Aug 12 09:12:42 1995
From: ni6t at ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) (Garry Shapiro )
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 01:12:42 -0700
Subject: Missent Award
Message-ID: <199508120812.BAA02661 at ix8.ix.netcom.com>
>For some odd reason, the CQ Awards people mailed the
>certificate for C6AFT #1 Bahamas Single Op 93' WWDX
>test. Perhaps it os a result of my incorrectly being
>listed as QSL manager in some DX pubs...
>And of course, it came torn in one corner because the
>gang at CQ used a piece of cardboard that's smaller than
>the certificate.. seems a shame.
>If anyone knows who the award should go to I'll be more
>than happy to forward it, otherwise I'll return it to
>CQ after a few weeks.
>Amateur Radio: KD7E
>Internet Addr: k8ae at primenet.com
Yeah, the cardboard size is pretty idiotic, isn't it? Mine came with
the edges all gnarly and the center pristine. Some real thinkers at
work at CQ!
>From torgny.isaksson at mailbox.swipnet.se (SM0TXT) Sat Aug 12 15:42:49 1995
From: torgny.isaksson at mailbox.swipnet.se (SM0TXT) (SM0TXT)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 16:42:49 +0200
Subject: WAE CW;SL0CB - need an exorcist..
Message-ID: <199508121442.QAA03709 at mailbox.swip.net>
Yup, happened again! Another failed attempt at WAE CW. This contest just isn't
meant for me to take part in.
WAE CW 93: Overslept, some unkind fellow snitched my bike. I got home and
found the fridge had turned belly-up.
WAE CW 94: Worst Aurora in history? Ate a bad pizza and fell ill for a week.
WAE CW 95: Antenna got whacked after 113 QSO's. Balun pulverized.
Think I'll pass next year :-)
Besides this, something keeps bothering me about the WAE contest:
Why do most DX-stations refuse to send QTC's, or refuse to send them the
first day of the contest? Don't they know they get POINTS for them?
11p for a QSO sure beats 1p! Still - NO/LTR/TMW/CQ NO QTC/and so on.
You might want to jump in here and say it messes up the rate, but noo..,
the 'NO QTCer' keeps on with an endless CQ and no takers, how come?
SL0CB WAE CW 1995, M/S (SM0MXO/SM0TXT):
Mults: didn't bother to count.
Score: Lowest? :-)
Band: 80 40 20 15 10
#QSO: 16 44 52 1 0
still some 34 hours to go in the test, hi.
Anyone got a phone-number to an exorcist? Have a WAE-ghost to get rid off.
73/cu in SAC
Tor / SM0TXT
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Sat Aug 12 18:44:45 1995
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 12:44:45 -0500
Subject: NCJ - happy ending
I recently mentioned a problem with NCJ delivery here. I didn't
receive one issue, asked for the missing one and was sent the
wrong one, sent that back with another request for the missing
one and was told that a different issue was out of print, asked
again for the missing one...
I had a note from someone at ARRL who read my post, saying that
the missing issue was on its way, and by Gad it was, it came
yesterday. Also had a note from another Swell Guy at ARRL who
offered to go round to the relevant department and torture the
So I'm now back to being a happy NCJ subscriber again. Onward!!
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
More information about the CQ-Contest