[CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?

Wed Apr 19 12:21:03 EDT 2017

The best part is, with some compromise, you can make it work even if you don’t have an 80-foot tower.

Note to John, K1AR: more posts like these, fewer about DQs…

73, kelly, ve4xt 

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Gerry Hull <gerry at yccc.org> wrote:
> 
> Best single-element, 160 compromise antenna  I've used at many QTHs is the
> so-called K2KQ Double-L.  (http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm)
> 
> Balanced, no radials required, vertical polarization with the current point
> up fairly high, and very easy to make, so no huge investment to try it out.
> 
> 73, Gerry W1VE
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hah !
>> 
>> Sit in my shoes, on a dry, rocky mountaintop in SW New Mexico, with poor
>> dielectric and conductivity characteristics. Essentially, no soil - just
>> rocks.
>> 
>> I have tried a number of single-element 160 antennas over the years, with
>> less-than-satisfying results. I evaluate each of them by the percentage of
>> EU stations that CQ in my face on a good Europe night.
>> 
>> A marked difference from my previous Colorado QTH, which had a 1/4 wave
>> sloper over flat, irrigated farm land.
>> 
>> You can get away with some pretty poor transmit antennas on 160 if you
>> have good ground characteristics under them. For poor ground, lots of
>> radials somewhat, but not entirely, mitigates the problem.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 03/17/2017 04:57 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
>> 
>>> I use a 1/4 wave sloper on 160 with the top at about 130 feet on a 155
>>> foot
>>> tower. I have a receiving array, but I have never heard any 160m station I
>>> could not contact. East coast stations tell me I have EU pile ups I can't
>>> hear after I have worked all the loud ones. I think transmit antennas are
>>> easy. It is the receive antennas that are a problem.
>>> 
>>> Chuck W5PR
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:53 PM Wes Jennings <wjennings2011 at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Steve as you know I am setting up here also. 4 sq on 40m - 2multi band
>>>> verts for 80 phased. And inverted l for 160. Now on a small city lot my
>>>> old
>>>> elmer had KLM tribander, 2ele 40m beam, shunt fed the tower for 160,80
>>>> with
>>>> beverages that fit in the lot. Did real well on that setup
>>>> 
>>>> Wes
>>>> WL7F
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of
>>>> Stephen
>>>> Bloom <sbloom at acsalaska.net>
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:43:28 PM
>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
>>>> 
>>>> I'll throw this out there ...
>>>> 
>>>> 80M and 160M antennas!
>>>> 
>>>> Most of us probably know the theory, but I want to know what has actually
>>>> worked and hasn't ..and ..why
>>>> 
>>>> Competitively, at this point in the cycle, we're gonna live and die on
>>>> the
>>>> low bands.  For the most part, 40M and below, we know it's some variation
>>>> on
>>>> heavy metal high in the air .. for 80 and 160M, I'm curious, and I bet
>>>> others are too about
>>>> 
>>>> 1)  For the "big guns" and those trying to be, what are you doing?  Are
>>>> any
>>>> of you having success with 80M yagis, and if so, how are you keeping them
>>>> in
>>>> the air and on the air?  For 80M and 160M, 4 square arrays?  4 "tower
>>>> verticals" or Dipole arrays off a single tower?  2 phased verticals?
>>>> Receiving antennas?  How do you keep Moose from ravaging your Beverages?
>>>> (OK, maybe that is an Alaska only problem!)
>>>> 
>>>> 2)  For the people on smaller lots.  Suggestions, ways to improve
>>>> performance realistically.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks/73
>>>> Steve KL7SB
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>>>> K1AR via CQ-Contest
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 1:08 PM
>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
>>>> 
>>>> OK everyone -- unless someone has something new and profound to offer, I
>>>> suggest we move on to a new thread. How about a discussion on leveling
>>>> the
>>>> playing field in contesting? Or, perhaps the impact of spotting, RBN and
>>>> packet  on contest operating? Maybe we can debate the merits of combining
>>>> assisted  and unassisted.
>>>> 
>>>> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> 
>>>> Something new folks? Anything? Please?
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> 73, John, K1AR
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest