Sprint Stuff

ramirezk at emi.com ramirezk at emi.com
Sun Feb 11 09:32:57 EST 1996

 Decided to try the Sprint at the last minute.My first 
mistake.Strategy-Call CQ QSY + - 5kc,call cq ,etc Signal not 
good enough to answer CQs without getting clobbered. wasted 
lot's of valuable time calling CQ without being answered.Life's 
a Bitch!
 Had to redo the N6TR LOGCFG.DAT file in a rush and barely got 
it correct in time for start time.
20 meters was a bust! Long Haul West Coast only. A measly 30 
something qsos. Thought 40 would be much better. It was. For the 
West coast again that is. West coast, West coast,WESTCOAST,LOUD 
AND CLEAR. a FEW W5s sprinkled in between. 80 had to be better!
Thank God for 80 meters. Finally hearing W1,W2,W3,W4 loud enough 
and still West Coast,west coast, west coast! AAHHHHH!!!!Can't 
escape them...
I need to do more CW contesting. Once or twice a year just isn't 
enough to stay proficient.
      Here is my second mistake. I accidentally forgot to copy 
the log.tmp file and deleted it and only copied the log.dat file 
for v4.05 of N6TR logger. I lost the last 5 calls of the contest 
out of my log. If you were my contact number 185,186,187,188,189
please send me your call and info. Please?!
Results original-189 X 42=7938
        Stupidity version and final version unless I am lucky= 
184 X 42+ 7728
Rig Icom 740 20m antenna= 160m sloper at 47ft
             40m- gnd mouted vertical 100 watts to the sky 700 
watts to the ground!
             80m-inv vee at 47ft works quite well.
  Drake L4B 800 watts
N6TR version 4 Contest logger. Great Program even for Sprint!Got 
rid of all paper and forced myself to use the computer even for 
a Sprint. Need the practice.
    Working on new antennas for 40 meters and 20meters. 
Hopefully in time for next years sprint... 73 Ken KP4XS/W4 SC

>From Bill Feidt <wfeidt at cpcug.org>  Sun Feb 11 15:38:27 1996
From: Bill Feidt <wfeidt at cpcug.org> (Bill Feidt)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 10:38:27 -0500
Subject: ARRLWeb's Contest Calendar
Message-ID: <199602111539.KAA14082 at cpcug.org>

For those who haven't discovered it yet, check out the
new ARRLWeb Contest Calendar:


They've done a superb job putting this together. Kudos
to HQ on this one!!

Bill Feidt/NG3K
wfeidt at cpcug.org

>From Steve Sacco <0006901972 at mcimail.com>  Sun Feb 11 16:57:00 1996
From: Steve Sacco <0006901972 at mcimail.com> (Steve Sacco)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 11:57 EST
Subject: M0AAA
Message-ID: <41960211165714/0006901972DC6EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

-- [ From: Steve Sacco KC2X * EMC.Ver #2.5.03 ] --

> Subject: Re: M0AAA
> You wrote: 
> >
> >
> >I hope they set aside MM0OOO for Guernsey. 
> >
> >73, Larry N6AZE
> >
> >
> or Jersey, for that matter--just to milk that a little further.
> Garry, NI6T
> -------
Come on, guys, let's moooooooove on to another subject.

Steve KC2X

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Sun Feb 11 17:39:12 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:39:12 -0800
Subject: Tower modeling programs
Message-ID: <199602111739.JAA17825 at desiree.teleport.com>

>Fred, here is my thought process comparing tower engineering programs to
>spreadsheet programs.
>Spreadsheets just do well established mathematical operations (sums,
>differences, percentages, etc.) on functions that are generated by the end
>user.  All results are solely dependent on the creation of appropriate
>models by the end user and any safety factors he might build into his models
>are his and his alone.  The spread sheet is no more than a multi-dimensional
>A tower modeling program, on the other hand, is a collection of formulas and
>safety factors developed by the author of the program for which the end user
>has little or no control, especially the unsophisticated end user who is
>solely dependent on the assumptions and accuracy of the model.

This is kinda what I was trying to say, also, in my inept way. (W7NI)

>PS  Possibly a better comparison can be made between tower modeling programs
>and tax preparation programs.  The end user is subject to the assumptions
>and models in the tax program.  Maybe the CYA disclaimer of a tax program is
>strong enough--especially if the tower program is sold only as a preliminary
>design program and advises everyone to have the results signed off by a PE
>in the state of use.  But then I think one should be able to sue the IRS for
>bad advice but they have their own disclaimer!
>John Brosnahan  W0UN

The tax preparation program comparison falls down a little also because I
can't see how an innocent bystander can get maimed or killed because you
make a mistake in your taxes.

Stan  W7NI at teleport.com

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Sun Feb 11 17:39:20 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:39:20 -0800
Subject: Tower Load Distribution
Message-ID: <199602111739.JAA17977 at desiree.teleport.com>

One topic that seems to be missing from all the tower discussions I see here
lately is the fact that it is not simply the number of square feet of
antenna that loads the tower, but how those square feet are distributed on
the tower as well.

Everything I see published from Rohn shows the ENTIRE antenna load
concentrated right at the top of the tower in one place.  Certainly,
mounting antennas on a mast that sticks above the tower loads it
differently, but how differently?  I have two towers with antennas above the
top by about 10 feet.  How did I determine it was safe?  I didn't!  I just
guessed and I've been lucky for 25 years.  I must have made a good guess.
There has to be a better way . . . 

Stan  W7NI at teleport.com

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Sun Feb 11 17:39:16 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:39:16 -0800
Subject: WB7SND's Mast Plan
Message-ID: <199602111739.JAA17888 at desiree.teleport.com>

>>My current plan is to put a 20' mast thru my garage roof with a Force12 C-4 
>>on it.  I'll probably guy the mast.  I plan to have a relative easy way to 
>>"lower" mast and all should winds come up.  The rotor will be IN the garage 
>>so the only thing outside will be the mast (3" water pipe) and the antenna.
>>73, WB7SND (ex XR0Z .. CW)                                                  
>   Wouldn't a little roof tripod be sturdier and more convenient than a 3"
>pipe?  Yes, the tripod will be more expensive.  I'm not sure that a Hy-Gain
>mast mounting bracket will go to 3" although the Yaesu clamps should
>accommodate it.  Just be sure to put some sort of collar and eatherproofing
>around the mast to keep water out of your garage and it'll work just fine.  I
>think you'll have fun with the Force 12 antenna - they seem to work very
>73 and good luck, Steve    K7LXC
>      "Up The Tower"      now appears in CQ Contest magazine

My advice would be to abondon the water pipe idea.  Water pipe is
notariously weak for this application.  It is made for conducting fluids
from point to another, not for building antenna supports.  You can get good
steel masting that will look the same as the water pipe but will be much
stronger.  Check K5RC's ad in the Contest Journal for strong masts.

Stan  W7NI at teleport.com

>From Dave Hockaday <wb4iuy at nando.net>  Sun Feb 11 18:00:29 1996
From: Dave Hockaday <wb4iuy at nando.net> (Dave Hockaday)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 13:00:29 EST
Subject: Tower Load Distribution
Message-ID: <9602111800.AA16836 at merlin.nando.net>

>One topic that seems to be missing from all the tower discussions I see here
>lately is the fact that it is not simply the number of square feet of
>antenna that loads the tower, but how those square feet are distributed on
>the tower as well.
>Stan  W7NI at teleport.com

Hi Stan and the gang. I've been busy and missed the beginnings of this
thread. Is there tower loading/modeling software out there for amateur
applications?? Maybe something with Rohn 25/45/55 stuff?? I have a Rohn 25
rower 100' tall. It's anchored to the house at about 10 feet, then guyed at
40, 67 and 95 feet. The guys are 3/16" aircraft cable, and each level goes
down to a separate 8 ft screw-in anchor. All anchor heads are tied together,
and there is a 4th anchor at each point with the 3 previous anchors tied to
it. The soil is hard red clay. The anchors are about 3 feet apart.

Any input?

73 de Dave Hockaday WB4IUY
wb4iuy at nando.net  
My homepage  http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3489/
TEARA Club homepage  http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3341/
FCARC Club homepage  http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3212/

>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan)  Sun Feb 11 18:32:53 1996
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:32:53 -0700
Subject: Tower modeling programs
Message-ID: <199602111832.LAA06150 at lynx.csn.net>

>The tax preparation program comparison falls down a little also because I
>can't see how an innocent bystander can get maimed or killed because you
>make a mistake in your taxes.
>Stan  W7NI at teleport.com

Stan, of course you are right.  But look at an insurance policy sometime and
see how little they pay for loss of a toe or finger, or loss of a hand or
foot, or even for the loss of an eye.  The financial value the insurance
people place on what I consider vital pieces of my body is much less than
some of us (well, the rich guys on the reflector, not me) might lose in
penalties from the IRS.  Guess it is all relative.

Hey, as an innocent bystander to what goes on in Washington with my taxes I
feel like I have been maimed if not killed.    HI

73  John  W0UN

John Brosnahan  
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 Pete Smith <n4zr at ix.netcom.com>  Sun Feb 11 18:54:42 1996
From: Pete Smith <n4zr at ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 10:54:42 -0800
Subject: Stacking distance - a summary of sorts
Message-ID: <199602111854.KAA24958 at ix13.ix.netcom.com>

I've received a lot of response to my query on stacking distance for HF
tribanders.  Most of it has been in two categories:

Anecdotal -- "Mine works fine at x feet" or "4/4/4/4 at 50 foot spacing
works great" 

Practical -- "Guys limit your choices, and the best place to put an added
yagi is right above an intermediate guy point."

Nobody responded to my query about whether different tribanders respond
differently to different stacking distances.  

Since I have model files for 2 different tribanders (my C-3 and a simplified
TH-7 model) I decided to compare them at various spacings.  My very
tentative and preliminary conclusion, using EZNEC, is that the C-3 stack
produces a slightly better pattern and slightly more gain than the TH-7 at
the optimum stacking distance, but that the pattern and gain of the TH-7
stack "goes sour" less rapidly than the C-3 does as the spacing departs from
optimum.  Moreover, the optimum spacing for the two antennas on a given band
is different, and the best compromise probably will be too.

It's been suggested that an extension of this work might be welcome in one
of the journals contesters read.  What I have in mind is running models of
several common tribanders in 2-stacks, at various heights and stacking
distances that take into account the guy geometry of the most common guyed
towers (presumably Rohn 25 and 45)as described in Rohn's catalogue.  In
other words, nothing impossible!

As the antennas, I propose (if I can get models of those I don't have) the
C-3, the TH-7, and the KT-34XA.

Sound interesting?  Any suggestions for project design?  Should I add the
Cushcraft A4S?  Some other tribander?

If you think this is worth doing, I need a little help.  Does anyone have
the following:

a.  The turning radius of the TH-7 and KT34XA (to see how much leeway there
is inside the guy geometry).

b.  A model of the TH-7 including the traps (the model I'm currently using
is really 3 simplified yagis, one for each band, and it's a chore to run
that way -- I also wonder about trap losses).

c.  Ditto for the KT34-XA, or, failing that, a simplified model, as above).

d.  Info on the offset from the adjacent tower leg of a) the Tic Ring  and
b) a common side mount.  I want at least to test the effect before I decide
there isn't anything significant ... (but I hope there isn't, because that
would really complicate the problem).

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at ix.netcom.com 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list