CT Version 8

[gw_n5uxt at nternode.com]

Hi All!

 Our club plans on using CT 8 for Logging during Field Day this year.. I was
wondering if their is any new Data files for Version 8 for the FD?? I know
that there was once a CT mailing list but the address I have for it is
old.. 

Thanks in Advance..

73 de Angelo

gw_n5uxt at nternode.com


>From Frank Donovan <donovanf at sgate.com>  Thu Jun 22 11:13:02 1995
From: Frank Donovan <donovanf at sgate.com> (Frank Donovan)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 06:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: radial wire
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950622060859.20235A-100000 at holmes.sgate.com>

Speaking of radial wire, I need about 5000 feet of insulated wire for a new 
80M 4 square array.  I'd prefer number 16 or larger.  Can anyone suggest a
source, or obtain it locally and arrange UPS shipping to me?

Thanx!
Frank
W3LPL


On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Bill Turner W7LZP wrote:

> At 11:12 AM 6/21/95 CDT, Kris I. Mraz wrote:
> >Aluminum fence wire can be purchased very cheaply. Can this be used for
> >radial wires in a phased vertical system? I believe it is about 18 gauge wire.
> >
> >
> >73
> >Kris AA5UO
> >mraz at aud.alcatel.com
> <<<cut>>>
> considerably.  Here in Seattle, the Boeing surplus store is a fabulous
> source of cheap wire.  Literally tons of it.  Check around in your area for
> similar outlets.   Buy it by the thousand-foot reel for pennies on the
> dollar, but never, never pay list price for brand new stuff!!
> <<<cut>>>

> 73, Bill  W7LZP
> wrt at eskimo.com
> 
> 

>From wfeidt at cpcug.org (Bill Feidt)  Thu Jun 22 12:22:19 1995
From: wfeidt at cpcug.org (Bill Feidt) (Bill Feidt)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:22:19 -0400
Subject: Lightning.....yawn
Message-ID: <199506221122.HAA09052 at cpcug.org>

On June 21, n6cq at paonline.com said:
>After a recent conversation with my agent, I discovered that I'm eligible for
>a LIGHTNING ROD DISCOUNT on
>my homeowners insurance! I currently have a 120'(soon to be 140') tower (with
>lightning rod) near my house that has been struck previously with NO damage.
>Several of my neighbors, on the other hand, have had TV antennas and trees
>struck and HAVE suffered damage. Since installing Josyln protectors in the
>service panel, and ICE protectors on the coax, several storms have damaged
>appliances and electronics in the neighborhood, but not in my house. I'll
>keep my ground rods, thank you.

There was an hour-long special on lightning on The Learning Channel
yesterday evening (Science Frontiers).  One of the segments dealt with 
a mountain-top lightning research facility in New Mexico.  Apparently 
the place is situated amidst an area known for the frequency of its 
lightning strikes. Part of the work there is to test various styles of 
lightning rods, side-by-side.  The on-camera staffer claimed that it was 
very unusual for lightning to strike _any_ of the tested lightning rods, 
despite their prominence.  Go figure.  Anyhow, it was an interesting program,
especially in light of recent discussions here.

Bill/NG3K
wfeidt at cpcug.org


>From jallen at vhfcom.com (John D. Allen)  Thu Jun 22 14:35:11 1995
From: jallen at vhfcom.com (John D. Allen) (John D. Allen)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 08:35:11 -0500
Subject: Which vertical
Message-ID: <199506221234.IAA20357 at nic.iii.net>

Doesn't it matter what band you are considering?
(Pardon me if I don't remember the start of this thread)

I agree completely with Bill's comments below if you are talking about
40 M and up, provided you have a support for a dipole/inverted V.

But, it seems to me that 80 is dependant on the height of support you can acheive 
and 160M more so.  I know that it also depends (on 160 especially) on band
conditions - there are times when the angle is higher and dipoles do well and
times on 160 when only the guys with vertical antennas (Inv L's etc.)
get out.

Note that a 160 dipole at 60' is the same part of a wavelength above ground
as a 10M dipole at 4 feet.  I know from experience that a 160 dipole at
60' has trouble working long haul DX, although at the bottom of the sunspot
cycle almost any antenna can get out.

73, John, K1FWF
> 
> Hi Rick:  I know you asked about verticals, but if I may make a suggestion,
> you'd be better off putting up something horizontally polarized.  The simple
> dipole or inverted vee will work out better than a vertical, unless you can
> put down a truly humongus set of radials.  The ARRL antenna book has a good
> (but pretty technical) discussion of horizontal vs vertical and the effect
> of ground reflection on each.  Over ordinary earth with the "usual" number
> and size of radials, horizontal wins easily.  The same effect is shown by
> the various antenna modeling programs such as Elnec.  Over "perfect" earth
> or salt water, the vertical does well, but over "real" earth, it will be
> roughly two to five db down.  Us contesters need every db we can get.  Good
> luck!!
> 
> 73, Bill  W7LZP
> wrt at eskimo.com
> 
> 

John D. Allen, jallen at vhfcom.com