TopBand: W3LPL Beverages etc.

[Patrick Collins]

I always receive with what gives the best signal to noise.  Last night it
happened to be the SW 1100' beverage.  A lot less signal but when there is
no noise and a little signal then copy is much easier.  Ra6ax was q5 with qsb
that would take him out at around 0100z.   



On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 owner-topband@contesting.com wrote:

> Howdy
> 
> I am gonna stick my neck out here to add my 2 cents to this one.
> 
> I use 4SQ arrays almost exclusively for RX both here in NY and on Cape Cod  -
> on both 80 and 160M.  I will be happy to make recordings of the incredible
> difference in intelligibility I am observing when compared against 1000 foot
> beverages.  While the background noise level is indeed LOUDER on the 4SQ, so
> too is the signal and my ears seem to work best with MORE signal in there - I
> seem to be able to "filter out" the QRN pretty well just be backing off the
> RF gain and concentrating harder!
> 
> 160M is a funny band - and 80 sometimes is as well.  
> 
> Each situation may be different though - so you just GOTTA GO WITH WHAT WORKS
> BEST FOR YOU!!  And, don't be afraid to try ALMOST ANYTHING!  Slinkies, low
> dipoles, snakes - 65 feet of wire just laying in the grass........  at times,
> all of these antennas have produced qso's which would not have been possible
> without many antennas to choose from!   I learned this one BTW from G3SZA who
> once had a 1/4 acre lot in the UK at the bottom of the biggest hole I ever
> saw!  
> 
> Dave lived in a duplex attached townhome setup at the time and his QTH
> literally looked like a GIANT steam shovel had scooped out all the earth for
> a 1/4 mile in all directions surrounding his QTH.   His home was at the exact
> bottom of this hole in the earth!
> 
> Having heard his enormous signal for many years on 160M, I was literally
> STUNNED by what I encountered upon arrival.  And, most of his listening
> antennas were just bits of wire - I think he had one "long" beverage - maybe
> 400 feet long running along a low fence parallelling an adjacent railroad
> track bed...
> 
> If Dave could make THAT PLACE work to the tune of over 240 countries on 160m,
> then I would have to think that just about ANYTHING is possible - given
> persistence and a good set of ears!
> 
> One more thread I have been following:
> 
> Dipole vs Vertical - I find a high inverted vee dipole (130 feet or HIGHER)
> can, at times, be a real producer - 160M often goes HIGH ANGLE as noted by
> Don G3XTT.  Again, you gotta have both covered well if you really wish to
> optimize your XMIT potential under rapidly changing angles of
> takeoff/arrival.
> 
> Again, it is a matter of resources and personal choice - but given the
> option, I always use BOTH - here in NY and on Cape Cod as well.  
> 
> Now, PSE, I do not want to get trashed with questions about theory this and
> theory that - on either thread - I really don't wish to engage in those types
> of discussions - If I understood what was happening here I would gladly share
> it as well -  I am only reporting what I know based on my situation - take it
> for what it is worth - and hope it helps out for some out there! 
> 
> 73 jeff
> 
>  K1ZM@aol.com
> 
> 
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
> Submissions:              topband@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-topband@contesting.com



Pat Collins
-.-. --.-  - . ... -  - --- .--. -... .- -. -..  -.. .  -.- ---.. .-.. .-.



--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions:              topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-topband@contesting.com