Stub QTHs

W8JITom at aol.com W8JITom at aol.com
Sun Mar 31 11:35:58 EST 1996


Like anyone would be interested, but I reviewed the data again.

Optimum attenuation occurs when cascaded stubs are place 1/4 wl apart (or odd
multiples thereof) *at the REJECT frequency*. 

Optimum SWR bandwidth *at the pass frequency* occurs when pass stubs are 1/4
wl apart at the pass frequency.

Optimum harmonic suppression, if the source favors a low Z load at the
harmonic's frequency, occurs when the first reject stub is 1/4 wl away from
the source at the reject frequency. This is the usual case, and varies with
the PA's internal layout more than anything else.

Optimum harmonic suppression, if the source favors a high Z load at the
harmonic's frequency, occurs when the first stub is right at the output port.
This is a rare case.

I can't find any exceptions to these general statements.

73 Tom

>From Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy at avana.net>  Sun Mar 31 17:16:16 1996
From: Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy at avana.net> (Ed Tanton N4XY)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:16:16 -0500
Subject: More Power
References: <960330232747_458904982 at emout09.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <315EBDE0.4552 at avana.net>

Chas: I think you have summed it very well: it does come down to the 
individual and his willingness to abide by the rules or not. What I have 
been trying to say is just that. Many hams COULD exceed the limit but 
most CHOOSE not to because it is not that big a deal (in terms of signal 
strength) and it is illegal. I hope they are the majority. One final 
thing: let's not forget that SOME stations DO need the extra plate 
dissapation for RTTY and Slow Scan. Anyway, thanks for adding your 
excellent comments. 73
-- 
        Ed Tanton  N4XY  (770) 971-0436  Marietta, GA
        email: n4xy at avana.net   URL: Coming Soon

>From Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy at avana.net>  Sun Mar 31 18:07:26 1996
From: Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy at avana.net> (Ed Tanton N4XY)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:07:26 -0500
Subject: More Power, the real rule
References: <960331113512_260512607 at mail02.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <315EC9DD.2552 at avana.net>

I'm sure Tom that we both look like a couple of cats spitting back and 
forth... I should have restrained myself when I let loose. The answer to 
your question however, is that no, of course not: many people 
intentionally exceed the speed limit who would never consider running a 
stop sign or a red light. And no doubt most hams who run excessive power 
would never falsify a contest report. That is NOT the point.

Laws and rules are relatively black and white issues. The arbitrary 
breaking of them is not always that easily discerned. Bonnie & Clyde 
Barrow were 'black & white' in their actions. They broke the law, they 
meant to. They chose to do the things they did, and their choosing 
implied a position relative to their own rights vs the rights of their 
fellow man. 

The guy that steals a 'loaf of bread' to feed his family certainly broke 
the law, but look at the reason, and it isn't so black and white.

I suggest to you that the planned, intentional disregard for the FCC's 
regulations on power is also a considered choice by the individual and 
directly relates to the rest of us. That consideration for the rest of 
us is nil. "The hell with everyone else, I'm more important." It DOES 
seem to logically follow that disregard in one area might well extend to 
another.

As far as my own personal actions are concerned, I have always flattered 
myself that by reducing power whenever reasonable I'm "doing the right 
thing." And that by making that choice I not only serve the idea of the 
laws governing power, but also please myself-privately-at the same time. 
Always has seemed like a good idea at the time, and seems even more so 
now. 73
-- 
        Ed Tanton  N4XY  (770) 971-0436  Marietta, GA
        email: n4xy at avana.net   URL: Coming Soon

>From MEC <danmec at inet.uni-c.dk>  Sun Mar 31 23:10:07 1996
From: MEC <danmec at inet.uni-c.dk> (MEC)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 01:10:07 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: TopBand: Matching 160 meter Inv. L antenna
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604010143.A3887-0100000 at inet.uni-c.dk>

I am using an inverted L myself, abt 52 meters long. Have a 500 PF
cpacitor in series.  fairly flat in 1820-1840 kHz band, which is the 
interesting part for me.
Only 10 elevated radials of various lengths, longest abt 22 meters.

Works well for me  , WHEN the band is open ! hi
73   Rag oz8roX

>From Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr at Interpath.com  Sun Mar 31 22:59:48 1996
From: Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 18:59:48 -0400
Subject: Scores WPX
Message-ID: <199604010007.TAA14546 at mail-hub.interpath.net>

I will be doing scores for WPX. Do not post them here. Send them to 
me direct or the 3830 reflector.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ATTACHED SUMMARYS, PUT ALL SCORES IN THE BODY OF 
YOUR EMAIL, AT THE TOP IS BEST!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you,

73's Jim
           ********************************************************** 
           * Jimmy R. Floyd  (Jim)   Thomasville, NC                *
           *                                                        *
           * Amateur Call:              >> WA4ZXA <<                *
           * Packet Node:               >> N4ZC <<                  *
           * Internet Address: **NEW**  >> floydjr at interpath.com << *
           **********************************************************


>From w2vjn at rosenet.net (George Cutsogeorge)  Wed May  1 04:49:02 1996
From: w2vjn at rosenet.net (George Cutsogeorge) (George Cutsogeorge)
Date: Wed, 01 May 96 03:49:02 GMT
Subject: *REAL* QRO
References: <B6J8mD1w165w at barf80.nshore.org>
Message-ID: <M.043096.204902.53 at ppp019.rosenet.net>

At the Plasma Physics Lab, we built amplifiers using the large Eimac tubes. The 
drivers were 4CX100,000As and 1 or 2 second pulses of 3 Megawatts could be 
delivered for fusion experiments.  The plate load impedance was 50 ohms and we 
ran about 20 Kv on the plate.  The output was run through 9" diameter coax 
filled with inert gas.  They have been operated on various frequencies from 25 
to 80 MHz.

One of those babies surely could open 10 meters.
----
George Cutsogeorge,  W2VJN
Umpqua, OR.


>From Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon at ve7tcp.ampr.org>  Wed May  1 00:02:16 1996
From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon at ve7tcp.ampr.org> (Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP))
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:02:16 -0700
Subject: Rain Static
Message-ID: <199604302302.QAA28407 at ve7tcp.ampr.org>

>>>>> "K8DO" == K8DO  <K8DO at aol.com> writes:

    K8DO> Hmmmm.... anybody have any connections with any supply
    K8DO> clerks at SAC?

Sort of :-)  The Baldy Hughes radar base (part of the old DEW line)
is (was) located just a couple of miles from the VE7ZZZ site. It went
up for sale a few years ago, and a couple of the ZZZ crew put in an
unsucessful bid.  It had a fairly monster sized radome, although I
doubt it would have been able to hold the 80m quad *and* all the
other stuff :-(

We did, however, manage to salvage the turntable that spun the radar
dish. Guess what's going to turn the aforementioned 80m quad? :-)

--lyndon

>From Dean Norris <dnorris at k7no.com>  Wed May  1 01:46:38 1996
From: Dean Norris <dnorris at k7no.com> (Dean Norris)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 17:46:38 -0700
Subject: *REAL* QRO
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960501004638.0068757c at mail.syspac.com>

At 03:49 5/1/96 GMT, you wrote:
>At the Plasma Physics Lab, we built amplifiers using the large Eimac tubes.
The 
>drivers were 4CX100,000As and 1 or 2 second pulses of 3 Megawatts could be 
>delivered for fusion experiments.  The plate load impedance was 50 ohms and we 
>ran about 20 Kv on the plate.  The output was run through 9" diameter coax 
>filled with inert gas.  They have been operated on various frequencies from 25 
>to 80 MHz.
>
>One of those babies surely could open 10 meters.
>----
>George Cutsogeorge,  W2VJN
>Umpqua, OR.
>


I purchased one of these li'l jewels surplus for $300.  had to resell tho
since I could not get it to fit in my mobile.  Oh well, my 4 array 4-1000's
will have to suffice.  Main problem is the darn switching power
supply...........


{$^)


           C. Dean Norris
      Amateur Radio Station K7NO             
      e-mail to dnorris at k7no.com             
    http://www.syspac.com/~dnorris/


>From Danny Eskenazi <k7ss at wolfenet.com>  Wed May  1 02:28:03 1996
From: Danny Eskenazi <k7ss at wolfenet.com> (Danny Eskenazi)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Antenna input sought
Message-ID: <199605010128.SAA13372 at wolfe.net>

        hmmmm forgot all about that antenna!  yeah as I recall we used the
TH6 as the counterpoise! and the vertical really liked being at 70 feet off
the ground!  I think about using a trapped vert.
above a tribander from time to time....would be a nice diversity antenna AND
cover 40...but these
days a vertical is just not good enough to cut the mustard....its a GOOD
antenna, but too many
40 meter yagis in the neighborhood and youre left in the pileup dust ...

vague memory recap of the vert is generally GOOD results..(that was TWENTY
years ago..werent you about 8 years old then Brett???)

73


K7SS

WARNING: Dont forget your reading the technical musings of QCAO Grand
Exhausted Poobah,
K7SS, and any relationship to actual technical intelligence is purely
coincidental.
08:06 AM 4/30/96 +0800, you wrote:
>N7ENU asked:
> 
> What do y'all think of putting a vertical antenna on top of a tower that
> has a tri-band beam presently installed.
> 
>I believe this is what XU6WV is running at the moment - an HF2 mounted a
>meter or so above an A3, all on a short roof tower.  If I recall correctly,
>Mike got it working by setting the HF2 up all by itself with proper radials
>for tweaking the radiator & then moved the HF2 to its final position.  He
>then trimmed the final radials, which obviously have to be below everything
>that rotates, until the HF2 was resonant where it was originally.  The end
>result is an antenna that seems to work pretty good.
> 
>K7SS years ago (nearly 20, come to think of it!) used to have a
>quarter-wave 40m vertical mounted on top of a TH6 which was perched atop a
>tall tree.  I don't recall what Danny did for a counterpoise, but I believe
>it played well, too.  You might want to talk to him about it.
> 
>73, VS6BrettGraham bagraham at hk.super.net & vr2bg at harts.org.hk
>
>


>From DANIEL VIOLETTE <0002090328 at mcimail.com>  Wed May  1 05:43:00 1996
From: DANIEL VIOLETTE <0002090328 at mcimail.com> (DANIEL VIOLETTE)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 23:43 EST
Subject: Fwd: Novice/Tech in DX contests
Message-ID: <13960501044331/0002090328PK2EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

-- [ From: Dan Violette * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --

Came across the electronic version of the letter I got from the ARRL regulatory
information regarding Novices/Techs in a DX contest.  I brought this up a
couple years ago and wished I had found this a month or so ago when the
discussions started again.  My problem was that the ARRL DX contest forbid
operations outside of the operator class of license (a miscellaneous rule).  I
had the rule removed one year after a note to my CAC member.  Then it was put
back and I asked why to the reflector and the majority said because of third
party rules.  This letter disputes that interpretation.  Wanted to get some
techs involved in contesting, but the rule stopped me that year.

Please, not planning on starting this issue again.  Just for your files not for
comments/replies.

73, Dan KI6X   <DViolette at mcimail.com>

------- FORWARD, Original message follows -------
Subject: Novice/Tech in DX contests

Subject: Novice/Tech in DX contests
Author:  Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com> at smtpgty
Date:    2/8/94 7:51 PM


Last week there were several messages about how people got started in 
contesting, and about how it was difficult to get Novice and Tech (and I 
suppose General and Advanced) operators on-the-air contesting experience  in DX
contests.  Dan, KI6X, related one frustrating experience.  

I thought his interpretation of the FCC rules was not quite correct and  almost
answered him at the time, but in a burst of restraint I decided  to pass it
along to someone who would be right.  I've attached a copy  of the letter sent
to KI6X today because it should be of interest to  anyone wanting to get
newcomers involved in contesting, particularly  with the ARRL DX Contests
coming up soon.  

I don't know if the letter was sent to KI6X electronically -  so my apologies 
if you get this one first Dan.

Bottom line:  anyone with a valid FCC license can make QSOs from your station 
as long as a control operator is present.




                                   February 8, 1994

Dan R. Violette, KI6X
1122 E. Sail Ave.
Orange, CA 92665

Dear Dan:

   ARRL Vice President Tom Frenaye, K1KI, shared your recent  contest reflector
comments with us for comment.  I am addressing  the legal issues; the CAC
issues need to be addressed separately.

   First, "A station may only be operated in the manner and to  the extent
permitted by the privileges authorized for the class  of operator license held
by the control operator." [97.105(b)].  Thus, a Technician isn't eligible to be
the control operator of  the station while it is transmitting on twenty meters.

   A Technician, however, is eligible to be "a control operator"  of any
station.  This is true even though he or she cannot act as  THE control
operator at times when the station is being operated  on frequencies beyond his
or her license class.

   The Commission specifically acknowledged in the Part 97  rewrite proceeding
in 1989 that messages sent between amateur  stations on behalf of another
amateur licensee are not  third  party traffic.  See, the Report and Order,
Docket 88-139, 4 FCC  Rcd. 4719 (1989), at paragraphs 39 and 42.  The FCC, at
the  League's request, concurred with the prior holding of the United 
Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry, that "the passing of  messages on
behalf of other licensed radio amateurs (at home and  abroad) does not
contravene the prohibition against third party  traffic..."  FCC codified that
provision (though not clearly  enough, really), at Section 97.115(a) of the
rules, saying that   "The prohibition [on international third party traffic
with  countries with which the United States does not have a third party 
traffic agreement] does not apply to a message for any third party  who is
eligible to be a control operator of the station."  Notice  that says "a"
control operator, not "the" control operator. 

   Therefore, while an unlicensed person operating with a  licensed control
operator, is limited to communications only with  the United States stations
and with those stations located in  countries with which the United States has
a third party traffic  agreement.  Any licensed amateur can operate any station
and  participate in international communications as long as there is a  control
operator on hand who is licensed to operate on the  frequency being used.  So,
a Technician, for example, could  operate at a contest station on 20 meters and
contact any station  in any country as long as there was a control operator
present who  is eligible to operate on 20 meters. 

I hope this helps clear the air on the legal aspects of the  issue.  The CAC
issues should be addressed through your  Division's CAC representative.  If I
can be of further  assistance, please let me know.  73.

                              Sincerely,



                              John C. Hennessee, KJ4KB
                              Regulatory Information Specialist
                                            ARRL

------- FORWARD, End of original message -------


>From Alejandro Angel Mejia <edam015 at apolo.eafit.edu.co>  Wed May  1 12:31:09 1996
From: Alejandro Angel Mejia <edam015 at apolo.eafit.edu.co> (Alejandro Angel Mejia)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 06:31:09 -0500
Subject: K1EA Software
Message-ID: <31874B7D.374B at apolo.eafit.edu.co>

Hi OM's
Know anybody if i can download the last version of K1EA CT software from 
the internet?
Thanks...de HK4QIM Alex

>From DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY)  Wed May  1 13:05:08 1996
From: DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 08:05:08 -0400
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <18762820 at maila.harris.com>

     Way to go, Paul!  
     
     Congrats on passing your general test.
     
     >question is what's the best why to do casual ssb on 20 meters. I have 
     >put up an r7 (actually an r7000) and have had little luck making any 
     >contacts. I checked my rig and antenna and all seems fine. Localls 
     >hear me just fine. Any suggestions would be appreciated. 
     
     Bury your microphone in the back yard and polish up your keyer.  Work 
     on your code.  Now that you are "over the hump", it will be easier.  
     If you pick up the mike now, you are destined to be a general forever.
     Pick a goal like DXCC or WAS on 20M and go for it!
     
     Dick

>From AA3JU George Cook <george at epix.net>  Wed May  1 16:09:09 1996
From: AA3JU George Cook <george at epix.net> (AA3JU George Cook)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 11:09:09 -0400
Subject: Champion Beer Drinkers.....
Message-ID: <199605011459.KAA10598 at epix.net>

Yes Contest indeed!

I say our own Big Gun of the BrauHuas N3ADL takes the trophy and takes it in
FRC style!


At 12:24 PM 4/30/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Top contenders for the beer record.
>>
>>>>  1.n0bsh
>>>>  2.we9v
>>>>  3.ea3ny
>>>>  4.wd8ixe yes, you steve.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>        What I want to know is: 
>>
>>        1 - Who had the best cirrhosis multiplier, 
>>            measured in degree of liver damage?
>>
>>        2 - Who grabbed the detox multiplier?
>>
>>        3 - Who holds the record for the Most Brain 
>>            Cells Damaged category?
>>
>>        Just curious....
>>
>>        73
>>
>>        Tom, NM1Q (tomf at neca.com)
>>        Another lame attempt at CONTEST related humor....
>>
>
>Francisco, HK0BKX (may he rest in peace) used to say that the body worked 
>very hard to convert sugar into alcohol, so why put through so much 
>trouble? Just give it the alcohol!  :-)
>
>CONTEST!
>
>Zack W9SZ
>
>
>
AA3JU  george at epix.net    AA3JU at W3PYF
Proudly  F R C...........
"FRC When second best just isn't good enough!"


>From Gary E. Jones" <gejones at whale.st.usm.edu  Wed May  1 19:32:32 1996
From: Gary E. Jones" <gejones at whale.st.usm.edu (Gary E. Jones)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 13:32:32 -0500
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960501183232.006c3ab0 at whale.st.usm.edu>


This was a previous post which was returned. 

Gentlemen


There has been a good deal of discussion about cable tensioning and the LOOS
>type gauge. I have been using a similar gauge on my sailboat for over 10
>years.  Stan W7NI has recently discussed his interactions with the company
>and I will not try to add to his discussion, except to clarify the sailing
>issues. "Rigging" on a sailboat is a somewhat flexible stainless steel wire
>(which is usually 1 x 9 or 9 stainless wires twisted into one cable). The
>cable is not particularly flexible, about the same as guy wire line. It can
>be rolled into large rolls or loops, but is a far cry less flexible than
>"aircraft cable". I would guess that Stan is exactly correct, that there
>would need to be a different calibration chart done specifically for guy
>wire, but I would guess that guy wire is more like sailboat standing rigging
>than not. (Standing rigging are the "stays" that guy or support the mast
>fore and aft, starboard and port. A fairly recent invention has been rod
>rigging, which is essentially like steel rods used for the same purpose. The
>rod rigging has been used in some boats but is not particularly common. 
>
>Cable which is more like "aircraft" would be stainless lifeline cable, and
>although I do not have my catalogs in front of me, I remember that lifeline
>cable (for the lines running fore and aft on the stanchions) may be more
>like 1 x 19 or something like that, each component wire much smaller and
>overall somewhat more flexible. 
>
>I would guess that the cables are fairly stimilar, stainless steel versus
>galvanized steel, but we need to look toward an engineer to clarify that
issue. 
>
>               73    "Capt. Gary"       W5VSZ  
>
>


>From Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy at avana.net>  Wed May  1 19:49:20 1996
From: Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy at avana.net> (Ed Tanton N4XY)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 15:49:20 -0300
Subject: RAC 'n Rollup 'REVIEW'
Message-ID: <3187B230.65D1 at avana.net>

Hello everyone... I received my RAC n' Rollup today and immediately set 
it up and tested it out. What a deal! I cannot imagine why RAC didn't 
include such a program with their CD-but this program really completes 
it. Biggest deal-to me-is that you no longer have to pick US/DX. THAT 
ONE FEATURE is enough to justify the $10.45 (total) it cost. Labels and 
printing appear to be consistent with claims. It even loads itself atop 
the WIN 95 screen and waits for you. So, bottom line is: it installed 
easily the 1st try, it works as claimed, and personally, I loved it. 

And-for the record-no connection what-so-ever exists between me and the 
author-N2CKH-except me as customer. 

I thought this was relevant to most of us, hence the 'broadcast' review. 
73
-- 
        Ed Tanton  N4XY  (770) 971-0436  Marietta, GA
        email: n4xy at avana.net   URL: Coming Soon


>From DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY)  Wed May  1 19:52:21 1996
From: DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:52:21 -0400
Subject: Re[2]: Burying the mike
Message-ID: <187c2df0 at maila.harris.com>

     Steve,
     
     Hooray!  At least there is one honest soul out there!  
     
     That advice was given to me 36 years ago by my dad, W3ESU.
     
     I got two flames by recent upgrades from shack-on-a-belt class who 
     felt you should at least "coast a year" after all that unnatural 
     mental effort....
     
     Geez!
     
     CW to me is a simple skill as natural as talking.  After all, any fool 
     can talk into a mike... quite a few do.
     
     Maybe I'm not as old and crotchety as I appear.
     
     
     Thanks again, 
     
     Dick, K4XU

>From David Clemons <dave at egh.com>  Wed May  1 21:19:29 1996
From: David Clemons <dave at egh.com> (David Clemons)
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 16:19:29 -0400
Subject: Re[3]: Burying the mike
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605011618.A25176-0100000 at newman.egh.com>

Hi,
	Boy, this brings back as many old memories as the "first rigs" 
discussion.  Dick (K4XU) - your father and mine both had a great deal of 
wisdom on this point.  When I was licensed as a novice in 1962, novices 
had 2 meter AM privileges.  My father told me that I would not be able to 
use a microphone at our family station until I upgraded to general.  (He 
said it was so I wouldn't turn into a CB'er...)  I did upgrade within a 
year and now I use SSB and CW each about equally in terms of 
time/contacts.  However, if I absolutely had to choose one or the other, 
I would go out back and bury the mike!

73, Dave Clemons K1VUT


>From Trey Garlough <TREY at tgv.com>  Wed May  1 22:44:56 1996
From: Trey Garlough <TREY at tgv.com> (Trey Garlough)
Date: Wed,  1 May 1996 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Need email address for KV5V
Message-ID: <830987096.776608.TREY at tgv.com>

> To: dx at ve7tcp.ampr.org, cq-contest at tgv.com
>
> Anyone have an email address for KV5V?  de Bernie
> Please don't waste ur time flaming me!

Please don't post requests for email addresses here.  Learn to use the
other resources at your disposal to look up this kind of info.  I also
note that your message was cross-posted to two different mailing
lists, which is also considered "impolite" in the email world.

--Trey, WN4KKN/6



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list