[CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?

Wed Apr 19 15:24:19 EDT 2017

Try it out, John.

I suggested the Double-L to my friend Cary, VE4EA, who lives on a
postage-stamp-sized lot in Winnipeg, MB.

Cary has a 50-foot tower, and the yard is not big enough to support the
fully-parallel horizontal legs as shown in the article.

Rather than 90 feet vertical, Cary ended up with 42 or so feet vertical.
He built the antenna just before ARRL 160.    The horizontal sections
were like pretzels (ask VE4XT -- he helped build it!).

Anyway, despite those compromises, Carry was able to work WAS in ARRL 160
over the contest weekend!

Of course, the same antenna can be used on 80 for the same beneficial
reasons.

We are assembling one for VY1AAA, which will have 70 feet vertical.

73, Gerry W1VE

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, John Geiger <af5cc2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That is definitely I suggestion/plan I might be interested in. I live in a
> pretty small city lot and want to improve my 80 meter signal, but the wife
> has turned most of the very small backyard into a garden, so radials would
> get caught in the rotatiller.  The homebrew G5RV type antenna I have been
> using seems really poor on 80m compared to what it used to be-at the same
> height and all.  I did finish off 5BDXCC with it but not sure why I am
> having trouble getting US stations on 80 now with it.
>
> 73 John AF5CC
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Wes Jennings <wjennings2011 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks another option for low bands
>> ________________________________
>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of Gerry
>> Hull <gerry at yccc.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:03:17 AM
>> To: Steve London
>> Cc: Chuck Dietz; CQ Contest
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to QSY?
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>