HF Log Periodic Problem

Cooper, Stewart coopersg at odl.co.uk
Tue Oct 15 14:38:55 EDT 1996

I have built the LPDA as described in the ARRL Antenna Handbook and I 
can't get the SWR to go below 1.9:1. I have tried everything except 
rebuilding it with a bigger gap between the central feeder run. The 
antenna, without the balun, seems to have an impedence around 105 
ohms which would tie in with this theory.
A friend built one for last year's CQ WW and had similar problems, 
eventually abandoning the project. Has anyone ever tried to build one 
and got it working at 1:1 (52 ohms) on 80m? If not, I strongly 
suspect that the details of measurements in the Ant Handbook are wrong 
in spite of the antenna appearing through many editions.

>From dale.long at internetmci.com (Dale Long)  Mon Oct 14 19:41:14 1996
From: dale.long at internetmci.com (Dale Long) (Dale Long)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 13:41:14 -0500
Subject: stacking Telrex beams

-- [ From: Dale Long * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --

A friend of mine is putting his 10M636 antennas back up...Yes, he is crazy,
but he doesn't have much time left, and he is my Elmer. I have two

1. How can one reproduce the phasing lines originally supplied by Telrex?
(If we could buy them, we would)  What would be the normal lengths and
impedance of these lines?  Does the unique Telrex match make any difference
in the phasing harness requirements?

2. My friend wants to stack them 32 feet apart. Is this the optimum
distance?  What other separation would be good?

Tks es 73,

Dale - N3BNA    (dale.long at internetmci.com)

>From Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike)  Tue Oct 15 15:27:14 1996
From: Fatchett.Mike at tci.com (Fatchett, Mike) (Fatchett, Mike)
Date: 15 Oct 1996 08:27:14 -0600
Subject: Please Don't Use Expired Calls
Message-ID: <01CCB32639F42055*/c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=tci/o=mailhub/ou=msmaildos/s=Fatchett/g=Mike/@MHS>

I am curious, If this is fact then why is the name and call of the   
individual not published?  I think this would be a big deterrent for   
cheating.  Maybe it is time for the contest organizers to be more public   
with disqualifications.

NI0E  (Yes this call is going away!)

From:  (Norton, Richard)[SMTP:nortonr at mrd.srl.dsto.defence.gov.au]
Sent:  Tuesday, October 15, 1996 12:43 AM
To:  (CQ-Contest)
Subject:  Please Don't Use Expired Calls

It seems pedantic to have to say the following but -

Some people think it is cool to give friends extra contacts by working   
them with their old, or even future-expected call. This has, in the past,   
included people who should know better. There even was a case of this   
detected during the WRTC.

Some people think it is cool to give friends extra contacts by working   
them with their wife's call, or multi-op station's operator's call, or   
call of a foreigner licensed to their location. This has, in the past,   
also included people who should know better. There are discussions taking   
place between some of the judges of one big contest about to do with one   
guy who received 35 private contacts in one recent event. One of his   
friends gave him a "contact" with a guy who died about five years ago,   
and he actually logged it. He is the only "serious" competitor doing this   
kind of thing. The sad thing is that the guy actually has enough talent   
to win his class someday, with skill, if things went right for him.   
Presently he has a reputation that I wouldn't want, and he can thank his   
helping friends for part of it.

There are likely to be a number of new calls on the air in the upcoming   
contests. It sure would be nice if there were no contacts made with the   
calls that were given up. Log checkers would thank you if you made their   
work of looking at computer generated notations of "Bad-calls" easier, by   
using only your call currently assigned by the FCC.

It would be much cooler to let your friends win using their skill.


Dick Norton, N6AA/VK5

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list