40 beam questionaire update
JKAHRS at delphi.com
JKAHRS at delphi.com
Fri Oct 6 00:16:13 EDT 1995
On 3-OCT-1995 10:03:32.1 gb546 said to JKAHRS
> <<Original message somehow left out the choices. Sorry...>>
> Here's one for y'all (Been hanging around Richard too long...) -
> I'm side-mounting a Mosley 2el 40m beam at 75' on Rohn 25, with one
>face of the tower oriented due north-south. The station is located in
>the Hudson Valley of New York, and I plan to be active during both
>stateside and DX contests.
> Here's the question. The IIX RM-16 sidemount allows 300 degrees of
> rotation about the tower. This leaves a 60 degree "blind spot". The
> following is my list of blind spots. Please pick which one you thing
> would be best (or least bad), and tell me why. I'll try to summarize,
>or forward the replies to someone who can (listening, Scott?).
> N (330-30) S (150-210) SW (210-270) SE (90-150)
> NW (270-330) NE (30-90) [I know, but I said six choices...]
> Thanks for the info.
> 73, Greg
> Greg Becker NA2N
> gb546 at bard.edu
Greg,
Just looking at my beam heading map centered on NW Florida (Home to OPAL!)
which cant be too much difference than your QTH, I find that 180 gets me to
KC4AA-land and 210 to ZL. I think I would choose 150-210 and remember that
the beamwidth of a 2 el beam is quite broad. My guess that the 1/2 power
points are at least +/- 30 deg which would put you only 3 db down at 180
deg....FWIW.
73, Hank/K2UVG
internet: jkahrs at delphi.com
>From floydjr at nr.infi.net (jim floyd) Fri Oct 6 04:34:25 1995
From: floydjr at nr.infi.net (jim floyd) (jim floyd)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 23:34:25 -0400
Subject: UPDATE VII
Message-ID: <199510060334.XAA15050 at larry.infi.net>
CQWW RTTY CLAIMED SCORES 1995
Compiled by
WA4ZXA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR CLASS SCORE QSO's PTS QTH DX ZONES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE OP/HP ALL BAND
P40JT 1,664,569 1485 4369 ? ? ?
K1NG 1,347,367 1381 2711 181 224 92
S56A 1,254,800 1228 3137 322 78
VY2SS 1,047,510 1257 ? 123 159 57
N4CC 710,940 957 1734 169 157 84
WE9V 703,131 1066 1937 159 139 65
K2PS 619,718 805 1657 142 163 69
NA4M 430,810 757 1286 147 122 66
WA3WJD 314,534 541 986 133 125 61
W3GG 302,872 472 1048 94 133 62
N0AB 258,475 620 1055 108 90 47
W7LZP 256,563 682 983 147 67 47
VS6BG 2 217,536 434 1133 38 57 97
NA2M (HP or LP) 148,560 376 619 106 86 48
JH7QXJ 143,500 313 875 37 81 46
WA6SDM 140,499 426 603 124 61 48
SINGLE OP/LP ALL BAND
4X6ZK 804,528 938 2718 41 194 61
AB5KD 639,846 1112 1734 180 122 67
4X0A 487,012 758 2234 40 131 47
KA4RRU 437,987 754 1373 125 134 60
KA1SIE 399,434 754 1442 119 112 46
WA4ZXA 285,948 512 1014 110 115 57
WB2HMF 127,160 313 578 96 80 44
KB2POP 105,225 352 575 85 64 34
KF2OG 95,634 317 506 92 61 36
N7UJJ 93,696 370 488 110 42 40
N4PYD 56,784 189 338 69 61 30
WA5JWU 45,474 167 286 73 50 36
N2VYU 1,548 30 43 18 9 9
SINGLE OP/ASSISTED
NO2T 498,624 729 1484 121 149 66
N4ONI 485,030 775 1435 143 135 60
V31JU (UN or ASST) 421,852 734 1604 133 86 44
JR5JAQ 355,266 517 1462 46 132 65
N2OL 307,840 634 ? 296
N2FF 293,601 525 1023 114 114 59
KE7GH 186,935 587 763 145 54 46
OH2LU 158,388 338 788 29 125 47
SINGLE OP/SINGLE BAND
10 Meters
15 Meters
ZS6NW 222,120 624 1857 33 64 23
N4SR 21,084 117 251 21 41 22
20 Meters
JA5EXW 255,910 565 1630 43 81 31
WB7AVD 152,395 576 1051 49 66 30
N1OAZ 114,600 426 955 41 63 16
VE7OR 92,575 349 805 45 45 25
VE6WQ 83,625 299 669 44 55 26
JR2BNF/1 31,920 121 336 21 48 26
K3EST ? 113 ? 21 39 14
WA2WYR 5,082 48 121 8 25 9
40 Meters
K1IU 185,277 674 1227 54 71 26
9A1A 156,240 558 1302 35 62 23
ZS6EZ 87,000 275 ? 39 50 20
W2UP 83,760 380 698 49 50 21
WF5E 53,954 352 509 50 35 21
KN6DV 46,552 363 506 51 22 19
80 Meters
MULTI SINGLE/HP
OT5T 1,983,016 1551 4166 248 142 86
VP5C 1,845,152 1767 4232 185 182 69
WU3V 1,388,862 1337 ? ? ? ?
DF7RX 1,325,280 1164 3012 232 122 86
PI4COM 1,108,357 1046 2687 120 214 77
K2TW 868,436 1089 136 188 74
WA4QVD 744,640 1153 2080 157 139 62
PI4CC 620,165 753 1885 81 182 66
N9ITX/7 519,930 1060 1635 159 101 58
VK9LZ 517,000 784 2219 79 91 63
PI4ZLD 470,463 627 1563 73 164 63
VE3FJB 404,550 606 1450 111 119 40
N9ENA 199,045 ? ? ? ? ?
MULTI SINGLE/LP
AA5AU 630,400 929 1600 166 151 77
K8UNP 562,872 803 1497 147 158 71
KF4KL 432,928 665 1304 132 138 62
T99MT 287,523 553 1389 65 107 35
MULTI OP/MULTI
W3LPL 2,154,387 2045 3953 214 237 94
I know it has been awhile since I posted an update but the scores have
just about stopped. I will wait one more week and post it again for
the last time. I will note that it will be the last. If you have any
scores or know of anyone wishing to get them they should do it within
the next week.
You need to look at the entire sheet every now and then. People are
sending me corrected scores and I am changeing them on the sheet. So
if someone moves up and down it is because of new info they have sent
me.
When you see a number between the QTH and the DX column it means that
the station added those two together and sent it to me. If they send
me a split of them I will update it.
Don't forget that info beside your call like this (UN or ASST) means
that you never sent which you were. If I do not know then I put you
in the higher one. Let me know if I have anyone in the wrong class.
73's Jim // WA4ZXA @N4ZC <> floydjr at nr.infi.net
ps: Remember if you send me your breakdown I cannot repost them on
the reflector. If you wish for everyone to see the breakdown you will
need to send them to the reflector yourself.
>From Fred Hopengarten" <k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com Fri Oct 6 01:16:30 1995
From: Fred Hopengarten" <k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com (Fred Hopengarten)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 20:16:30 EDT
Subject: Slopers
Message-ID: <3074755f.k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com>
Topic: Sloper Construction
One of the K1VR ops has been complaining that we're not
strong enough into the Caribbean on 80 meter SSB during
contests. He is, apparently, distressed that some W4's get
through to P40V before we do, requiring us to wait 80
nanoseconds or so.
The present antenna for this purpose is a two element
vertical phased array (lined up at 70 degrees/250 degrees)
in the "bidirectional" mode (160/340), which has, in theory,
virtually no gain (OK, perhaps 1 dB) when we want to talk to
the Caribbean.
Questions:
* What simple antenna, erectable within the next 20 days,
would you put up to be loud from New England into the
Caribbean?
* Assuming that you say: "A sloper," at what height
would you start it? (Good heights for my situation are
either 60 feet or 88 feet.) At what angle would you
slope it (30-45-60 degrees???). How long would you
make it (66-70 feet?, or 135-140 feet?) Any
construction tips? Would you use any radials (and what
would they look like?)?
I ask for these thoughts on slopers because the "buzz" on
slopers seems to be that sometimes they work, and sometimes
they don't. KJ9I has recently posted a tip that a sloper
should not begin too close to a tower. Anyone else got some
thoughts?
In responding, I am particularly interested in your thoughts
on this path (New England to the Caribbean).
--
Fred Hopengarten K1VR
Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
home + office telephone: 617/259-0088 (FAX on demand)
internet: k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com
"Big antennas, high in the sky, are better
than small ones, low."
>From Charles Epps <epps at netcom.com> Fri Oct 6 06:09:56 1995
From: Charles Epps <epps at netcom.com> (Charles Epps)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 22:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: California QSO Party
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9510052240.A28525-0100000 at netcom23>
Several of us will be operating multi-single in the California QSO Party
this weekend from rare El Dorado County up in the foothills of the Sierra
Nevada mountains. We'll be using the callsign WB6IRC. Please work us if
you hear us.
73 de Rusty, W6OAT
>From kf3p at cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) Fri Oct 6 06:19:51 1995
From: kf3p at cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 01:19:51 -0400
Subject: TWO WEEKS WITH THE FT1000MP
Message-ID: <199510060519.BAA07487 at cais.cais.com>
>> In the FT1000MP you can now individually select the IF filters in each IF
>> (8.125 MHz and 455 KHz), just like in the TS-850.
>
>Can anyone out there explain just how this "feature" does any good? This is
>the antithesis of how a CONTEST radio's ergonomics should be designed. Things
>should be made **simpler** for the poor overworked operator, not more
>complicated. What's the advantage of selecting, say, a 6 kHz filter in the
>8.125 MHz IF and a 500 Hz filter in the 455 kHz IF, unless you just want to
>see how the rig works without its filter options. Or conversely, why would
>you want a 500 Hz filter in the 8 MHz strip and a 6 kHz filter in the 455,
>unless you just like to listen to broadband noise? I used (and hated) an
>original model TS950 at J6DX in '91 that had this type of filter selection
>mechanism. I'm all for having lots of bandwidth options, but manipulation at
>each individual IF is carrying the concept way too far. I assume the use of
>"can" means that you don't **have to** individually select the filters,
>doesn't it?
>
>Otherwise, the radio sounds pretty good. I'm looking forward to getting to
>fool with one.
I'm just guessing at this point, but you'll notice the vertical row of
buttons to the right of the IF filter displays? I believe these will change
both IF's with one keypress...then if you want to change one or the other,
you can step it ala Kenwood....looks like the best of both worlds to me!
I'll know better next week!
73, Tyler KF3P
>From ni6t at ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) Fri Oct 6 08:27:21 1995
From: ni6t at ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) (Garry Shapiro )
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 00:27:21 -0700
Subject: CQP: Siskiyou County
Message-ID: <199510060727.AAA05855 at ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Since my good friend Rusty, W6OAT has put in a shameless plug for his
M/S effort from El Dorado County, I thought it would be OK to say:
CALIFORNIA QSO PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!
SIKIYOU COUNTY operation by NI6T.
Siskiyou is a large but aparsely-populated county bordering Oregon near
Klamath Falls, among other places. I will be contesting from the K6VX
QTH near Macdoel, a wide spot in the road northeast of Mt. Shasta.
I hope Ray gets a rotor cable on the 40m beam, or at least a rope.
I hope Ray has put up at least something on 80m.
I hope he got his noisy pole fixed.
I hope it doesn't snow.
I hope I don't fall asleep on the 480 mile drive.
CU in the contest.
BARNUM CORRECTUS FUIT!
Garry, NI6T
>From km9p at is.net (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) Fri Oct 6 13:10:06 1995
From: km9p at is.net (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:10:06 -0400
Subject: Storm damage...
Message-ID: <199510061210.IAA10062 at mail1.is.net>
Pretty rough. A tree hit our house and took out all of the service
to our house including the phones. The tree would have hit my guy wires had
I still had a tower at home.
I drove up to the mountains at 6:00am, fearing the worst. One mile
from the hill I could see the tall tower was still standing. Wind gusts
were still 30-40mph (I figure). The stream I have to drive through to get
to the top looked like something out of a white water rafting commercial. I
decided to take my chances (not very smart) and drove through it. Water was
over the hood of my Landcruiser, but I made it. No damage as of 7:30am
yesterday to the towers or antennas. We'll see for sure tomorrow.
K4JPD lost three towers. I talked to his wife briefly. She told me
not to worry about coming over on Sunday to work on the 80m beam... It and
the tower were laying in the tops of oak trees about 50' up. She said it
looked like a war zone out there. She also said they had no idea how they
were going to get the towers out of the trees without cutting all the trees
down. At 8:00pm the night of the storm I was talking to Steve about the
work we were going to do on Sunday and about the storm. He said he wasn't
worried because he had good insurance. Insurance won't replace the hours of
work it took to put up though.
N4RJ's made it through OK. I'm not sure about the other contesters in the
area. If they lived on the west side of town, I'm sure they lost antennas.
One guy on a local repeater was commenting about his newly installed TH7 and
how the winds ripped most of the elements off the boom.
Is there a company that insures antennas and towers? Someone at the ARRL
suggested there was a company that advertised in CQ, but I havn't found it.
Thanks
73
Bill
---
Bill Fisher, KM9P - Concentric Systems, Inc.
>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) Fri Oct 6 14:43:55 1995
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:43:55 -0600
Subject: Slopers Fred Hopengarten
Message-ID: <199510061343.HAA00556 at uucp-1.csn.net>
Fred, my use of slopers is fairly limited but I have had favorable results.
Originally built the 5 half-wave sloper array that appeared in the antenna
handbook, but for 20M--probably about 1977-- with good results but when I
put up a 2L quad, the quad was of course better. Recent sloper
installations have included 2 for 160 and 1 for 80. The 80 and most recent
160 ones were done for the XR0Y and CE0Z operations after I returned from
XR0Y and confirmed what I had learned from my previous experience with the
first 160 sloper and that is that you can't make them too long! These were
1/4 wave slopers with about 1ft of wire between the feedpoint insulator and
the tower connection on the shield side. My first 160 sloper was mounted at
160 ft and was cut to 135ft so that I could trim it to length but I had to
ADD 7 ft to get it down to 1825 KHz! (As in, "I cut it off three times and
it was still too short!" from the late W0ENO. Or, "Cut it a little short,
we can always splice it later." from K0RF--who is recovering nicely from
surgery and will be home in a few days, BTW.)
So when I installed the latest 160 sloper pointing in another direction(
with a different lay of the land) I just cut it to 142 ft thinking I was on
top of it now and it was still about 18 inches too short for resonance where
I wanted it. Making me think that some of the reported problems with
slopers may be due to cutting them much too short and, without proper
instruments or patience, the requirement for lots more wire is never understood.
This held true on the 80 meter one which was mounted on another tower at 80
ft, and I had to make it much longer than suggested by the "half a dipole"
first approximation. The slopers are installed with about a 45 degree tower
slope with respect to the tower and performed quite well with easy shots
into both CE0Z and XR0Y on both 80 and 160. Which is a similar path to your
New England to Carribean and SA shot. (Hey, what is wrong with me--why am I
trying to help some big time W1 station?)
So for my ground conductivity and mounting height and angle it has always
been necessary to make them much longer than one would guess. But they seem
to work wuite well.
gl John W0UN
John Brosnahan W0UN
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz at csn.net
>From ni6t at ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) (by way of broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan)) Fri Oct 6 14:44:00 1995
From: ni6t at ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) (by way of broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan)) (Garry Shapiro by way of broz at csn.net John Brosnahan
)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:44:00 -0600
Subject: 91B info in response to W0UN
Message-ID: <199510061344.HAA00582 at uucp-1.csn.net>
After I suggested that the 91B discussion be taken off line to save
reflector BW, I received 8 or 10 requests from interested parties that it be
kept on line. In the mean time Garry responded directly to me and with the
outpouring of interest I suggested that he cc: the reflector with his latest
comments, but unfortunately he isn't able to and asked me to repost his
message as well as my final comments, in order to satisfy the cravings for
91B info.
--John W0UN
-------------------------------------
(from NI6T)
Many thanks for your detailed response, to which I add only a few
comments.
You wrote:
>
>The demands placed on a generator by a rapidly varying current load
from a
>keyed or ssb modulated amplifier are especially difficult for a
generator
>since the time constant of the varying load is much faster than the
time
>constant of the response time of the mechanical governors on
generators.
>This can be helped by running oversize generators (where the mass of
the
>generator itself provides an additional flywheel effect) but this is
>difficult on an expedition.
Virtually impossible, in fact. The decision to purchase the 3kVA Robin
Diesel was made after many FAX exchanges between Mats and myself. I had
done rough calculations as to what the amp might require or
--alternatively--what we could expect from it for a given generator
capapcity. Naturally, cost and weight were issues. Mats was justifiably
concerned about moving generators across the reef. The Robin was a
beautiful unit, however, with a self-starter, and ran like a clock.
Diesel fuel is safer, of course, and there did not seem to be much of a
weight penalty: it was about the same size as the 3.3 kVA gasoline
unit. The battery for the self-starter became the means for putting a
third station on the air, after losing a crucial power supply
overboard. Mats spliced two battery cables, connecting his IC735 to the
raw DC output of the Robin; the battery provided the peak current
needed and he was QRV.
> It is also important to minimize the percentage
>change from min load to max load by running as much on the generator
as
>possible so that max load is near the capacity of the generator by
running
>lights and other gear even during the daytime to increase the current
drawn
>under "min load"--ie amp not keyed. This reduces the range over which
the
>governor needs to to work and makes sure that the generator is not
coasting
>during receive periods.
With only a 3kVA generator, adding more loads only served to deprive
the amp of steady-state power. In a situation like that, you are damned
either way.
>
>
>I was momentarily confused by "emitter" resistors in a vacuum tube amp
but I
>assume that transistor terminology has become pervasive and that you
mean
>the cathode resistors...
Har! Yes, that is exactly right. After 30 years of solid state
electronics, I have forgotten what a cathode is.
But the progressive failure of the cathode resistors
>doesn't explain the time delay that you noted between amp switching
and the
>appearance of power.
Maybe not, but the time delay did increase, so perhaps the increase in
cathode resistance influenced the control circuitry.
>
>
>Unbypassed cathode resistors do provide negative feedback (ie
degeneration)
>and result in more drive being required but in a grid driven amp with
lots
>of drive this is not a bug but a feature since you are throwing away
most of
>your drive power in the untuned grid resistor anyway.
I did not say it was a bug, and I am sure degeneration is used
precisely to prevent overdrive by lowering gain.
Any change in plate
>efficiency one way or the other is so small as to be a
wash--especially in
>view of the requirement to add some series resistance in the plate
lead to
>limit the energy dissipated inside the tube during an arc over.
Typically
>this plate resitor will be on the order of 50 ohms and a cathode bias
>resistor will be about 1/5 of this value. With only a few watts
disipation
>required in the cathode resistor this is pretty insignificant compared
to
>the 2 kilowatts of anode input power.
Good point.
>
>But I must disagree with you on the statement of slightly compromised
IMD
>statement when using catode resistors. (Snip)
The Eimac
>design uses 11 ohms for the 4CX600J and the ETO 91B uses 12 ohms for
the
>Svetlana 4CX800, which is a pretty close match to Eimac's design.
Actually, one always would expect degenerative feedback to reduce
distortion, but I was actually looking at the published numbers in the
Svetlana 4CX1600B data sheet--using 24 ohms and an apparently large
conduction angle. I do understand that IMD numbers are misleading, due
to to sensitivity of the cusps to operating point.I learned long
ago--in an undergrad electronics lab project--that
amplifiers--especially tetrode amplifiers---have so many interactive
parameters as to make such comparisons quite difficult. My "test amp"
then was my own homebrew pair of 6146's.
>I have to admit that I am a homebrew fan as well and I am building a
number
>of single band 8877 amps. I chose the 8877 since I had a lot of pulls
left
>over from atmospheric radar projects. If I were to go out and buy new
tubes
>I would choose the Svetlana tubes at this point due to their price
>differential. I feel that they are good tubes at a bargain price.
Eimac
>tubes in general are also good tubes but are becomming prohibitively
>expensive for ham use, unfortunately.
>
That price differential is providing a feast for George Badger, W6TC,
and Svetlana. The 4CX800A is priced virtually at the Eimac 3-500Z and
the retail price for a 4CX1600B is only about $385! And I am told these
prices are much more than what they can be had for in Russia! Ehrhorn
is no fool: he has really created some gross margin by dropping his
manufacturing and parts costs!
DXpeditioning, contesting, my newsletter and DXing have kept me from
diving into this amp, and I do not have your resources, but I have
accumulated most of the parts, and am eagerly anticipating the joy of
building the beast--something I wanted to do as a kid. The local flea
markets have been productive. Wish I had a sheet-metal shop, but I do
have access to help. I could use a 50 ohm 100W globar--the resistors I
have are larger. Got any kicking around?
>
>I will try to work closely with the Heard group to insure reliable
operation
>of the 91Bs. My support is available both before the expedition and
during
>it. I feel pretty knowledgeable about the amps but obviously not as
>knowledgeable as the designers at ETO.
I am glad that you are there as a resource for the Heard Herd.One feels
pretty helpless when the amp craps out in the middle of nowhere. I do
feel, however, that for most DXpeditions, it probably makes sense to
bring a moderate-size amp. 500W is a great improvement over 100 watts,
and such an amp is certainly more manageable in terms of carrying,
shipping and powering. That was the lesson I took home for next time.
>
Garry, NI6T
-----------------------------
response of W0UN
Garry, after my comment about the lengthy discussion and taking it off-line
from the reflector, I received a number of comments about how our discussion
was one of the more infomative ones in recent months and please don't take
it off the reflector. Since I think we have wound down a bit at this point
and since I think your most recent comments were sent directly to me you may
way to cc: the reflector just to bring this to a close with all of the lurkers.
Been an enjoyable discussion and you raised a number of interesting
technical issues that got the juices flowing and got the old books down from
the shelf. The cathode bias resistor is more complex in its effect than I
had recalled but it was nice to review all of my old books (and not find
much, in fact only one reference) and then give Eimac a call. Been a while
since I have talked to the factory.
I will continue to try and help ETO with the Alpha 91B issues and at a loss
to figure out what is involved with the delayed output issue. WIll check
the schematics in more detail for some clue.
73 and thanks for the interesting discussion.
John W0UN
BTW if you cc: your latest note to the reflector then I will cc: this one
so that the lurkers know that it has quieted down with amicable results. HI
>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) Fri Oct 6 15:53:46 1995
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:53:46 -0600
Subject: Slopers Fred Hopengarten
Message-ID: <199510061453.IAA10930 at uucp-1.csn.net>
>John,
>
>My experience with half slopers is that you need a big top hat above them.
>Usually a 40m beam or big 20. K4VX's 160m slopers worked great on his 40m
>tower. Mine at home also worked very well with a TH7 and 402CD above them.
>The problemed ones that I have heard about never have a big top hat.
>Usually just a tribander. They either don't resonate at all or don't work
well.
>
>Bill
Bill,
This is what I have heard also, but haven't confirmed by testing the
hypothesis with little or no antennas for the sloper to work against.
The 160 sloper at 160ft has a 4L 40M KLM just above it and the 80 sloper at
80ft has a 4L 40M M-squared just above it (well a little further up, maybe 6
or 7 ft, but essentially what you are indicating.
73 John
John Brosnahan W0UN
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz at csn.net
>From km9p at is.net (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) Fri Oct 6 16:25:50 1995
From: km9p at is.net (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.) (Bill Fisher, KM9P Concentric Systems, Inc.)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 11:25:50 -0400
Subject: Insurance
Message-ID: <199510061525.LAA12541 at mail1.is.net>
Sorry for the poor description of my request. I am looking for insurance
for my antennas that ARE NOT at my home. This being the case, Allstate will
not cover the antennas under my home owners policy. My agent said they
would not do a rider. I felt like he was just trying to get me off the
phone though.
I understand very few people would actually have antennas not located at
their homes, but was hoping someone have some help for me.
Oh... So far most have indicated that State Farm and Allstate will cover
antennas and towers under home owners policies.
73
Bill
---
Bill Fisher, KM9P - Concentric Systems, Inc.
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list