WHAT'S WRONG WITH SPRINT
perring at infocom.net
perring at infocom.net
Sun Feb 4 21:27:34 EST 1996
Well, I can empathize with the East coast boys and their problems with sprint propagation as a function of contest starting time and the sunspot numbers. We suffer difficult propagation challenges here in Texas on just about every DX contest where European QSO's must be earned through their propagation advantage.
But on another thought concerning the sprints, I tend to agree that the QSY rule causes bedlam on 75 and really puts everyone in a no win situation. We cause aggravation to the pig farmers via our scurrying all over "their" band, and we get tossed back some pretty ignorant QRN as a result.
NAQP, as an example, is a super contest, but it doesn't thrill me to always be aware of the fact that eventually I must move to 75 meters for contacts.
10, 15, 20, 40, 160 ..... Great!
75 ................. Sucko !!
Might sprint not be a better contest if we started sprint earlier so as to better use the high band propagation, and didn't even use 75 meters as one of the bands? After all, who says the same old start/stop times have to be used every year. Can't we adapt our contest session timing to suit prop conditions and time of year?
I, for one, just don't want to hear that 75 meter crap any more. It just haunts me to know it's coming when I QSY to 75 meters. It bothers me more, knowing that the wrath shoveled out on us by the the good old boys has some bit of merit behind it, to their way of thinking.
Email: perring at infocom.net
>From Paul Mackanos <pmackano at vortex.weather.brockport.edu> Mon Feb 5 03:24:35 1996
From: Paul Mackanos <pmackano at vortex.weather.brockport.edu> (Paul Mackanos)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: good ol' boys on 75m (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9602042229.A25123-0100000 at vortex.weather.brockport.edu>
Another reason to stay in the CW band, 99% of the time. If you do run SSB
there in a contest, one time, and remember what happened, you WON'T do it
again. Hi, and have a good time, just turn the dial away and say " I
won't go there again !!!!!!!" 73 de Paul, K2DB
On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Steve Lufcy wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 13:41:28 -0600 (CST)
> From: Steve Lufcy <km0l at tyrell.net>
> To: cq-contest at tgv.net
> Subject: good ol' boys on 75m
> The good ol' boys on 75 meters were in rare form last night during SSB
> sprint. Maybe cause we went to 75 early- but I have never heard such fowl
> languaage on the ham bands. The guys on 3850 really let loose. I only
> wish the FCC could have heard it. These guys are certainly the worst
> examples of radio amatuers concievable- how could they have possibly
> gotten licenses? The guys on 3835 always get on during contests for the
> sole purpose of harrassing contesters- anyone within 3 khz of them gets
> deliberately and maliciously interferred with. This is illegal and should
> should be dealt with by legal means.
> I sure hate it that general class operaters are prevented from
> participating in contests on 75 meters because of the immature, self
> centered, and illegal actions of a few jerks who have no business
> operating a radio. Life would be better for all if these 75 meter jammers
> were removed the ham (or any other) bands.
> Guess this gets a little steam off my chest. I do wonder what we can do
> about these guys. We can't ignore them- they chase us down to curse us
> and QRM us. Fighting with them is counter productive. No one should be
> subjected to the language and meanness.
> Thanks for letting me vent-
> 73 de KM0L
>From n3rr at cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) Mon Feb 5 03:52:06 1996
From: n3rr at cais.cais.com (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:52:06 -0500
Subject: Tic-Ring = Broke Feedline
Message-ID: <199602050352.WAA17594 at cais.cais.com>
Bill, you don't say what model TIC you have but I'll assume it's a model
1022. Where is the motor mounted? Near the spring-loaded roller bearing?
Or near one of the other two non-spring-loaded roller bearings? If it's
near the spring-loaded bearing, bad news. Your ring could slip in even
modest winds of the correct direction. If the motor is mounted near one of
the other two roller bearings, the non-spring-loaded ones, it is opposite
the spring-loaded one and that combination will hold the ring from turning.
I have three model 1032s on my heavy duty AB-105 tower. I use two motors on
two of my antennas and one on the other. Once I moved the motor on my
single-motor ring away from the spring-loaded roller bearing, I didn't have
any more problems with non-powered ring movement.
I seriously doubt that the 160M RF could cause the DC motor to energize,
especially since the TIC design utilizes a short circuit (at the rotor box
in the shack) to be placed across the motor windings when the unit is off
(power off and non-rotating with power on), thus utilizing the stator magnet
to hold the motor in place. That's why you need the wire gagues that TIC
specifies for the rotor wire! I will assume you have the correct size (or
Additionally, I would be concerned that the "preset" lamp lights when you
transmit on 160! I have a 160 M inverted "V" mounted to the upper TIC ring
on my tower @ 134 ft. The feedpoint insulator of the "V" is attached to one
of the extra holes in the TIC bracket near one of the roller bearing
assemblies. I also have PolyPhaser lightning protectors (at the tower base)
on the rotor leads (these are MOVs that conduct at voltages > 30V). In
addition, I have 110V MOVs from each rotor lead to ground near the motors.
And the tower is well grounded, as are the coax cables attached to each
antenna. I would double check your grounding implementation on the tower.
The presence of RF in the shack caused by transmissions on 160 M on a tower
outside the shack is a symptom of bigger potential problems.
Until you get on the tower to look at the situation you won't know for sure,
but I'd say, based on the info here, your problem is mechanical more than
electrical. You don't say, but I assume the rotor won't turn in the other
direction either. If not, you need to determine why. Slippage of the ring
alone shouldn't cause the rotor not to turn. Either something is binding
(coax, other wire, in the gears) or the control cable/motor/control box has
Good luck. I'll be glad to help you via Internet. Give me some more data
to chew on!
Bill, n3rr at cais.com
t 07:07 PM 2/4/96 -0500, AB5YG at aol.com wrote:
>I have a Tic General Tic-Ring rotor on my Rohn 25 tower that turns a Force 12
>4lm 20M monobander (30' boom).
>The beam was left at North (center of rotation) last night. I was operating
>160M on high power --- The Tic-Ring preset light always lights when I operate
>on 160M using my tower/sloper antenna ----This has not caused a problem in
>Well--- this morning I set the preset to 90 Degrees and the rotor did not
>turn!!! I immediately went outside and found the beam had rotated 360
>degrees CW and ripped the balun off the driven element!!!!
>There are NO mechanical or electrical stops on the Tic-Ring!!! Good thing
>the balun had 16ga wire -- If the coax had been directly attached the driven
>element would probably had been broken --- I checked the pot in the rotor
>and the cable, and the control unit -- all appears to be normal ---- Is
>possible that my 160M RF was rectified and powered the rotor motor? I don't
>think the gears or drive motor slipped as the winds were only around 20 knots
>--- The beam was rock solid in 65 MPH winds this past summer as well.
> Anyone have this happen to them??? Anyone add stops to their Tic-ring??
>Please respond directly to me by: ab5yg at aol.com
>Thanks - Bill - AB5YG in Mississippi
More information about the CQ-Contest