Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 132, Issue 13

[Greg Chartrand]

Guy - K2AV,

I read your message about your noises and thought I'd share some of my experiences.

Typically I found the louder the noise the closer it is (this is not necessary obvious). My first rule of thumb is to eliminate my house first. I have a battery powered Sony SW radio I connect to my vertical (when the noise is on), then throw the main breaker to my house. Most of the time the offending noise goes away thus the noise is within my ability to get rid of it. I use the same Sony radio to walk through the entire house for searching for the source. My latest find is a 12v PS for the LED lights that were installed below our new kitchen cabinets; its a switcher that puts out a buzz from DC to light. 

about 10 years ago, I had a similar noise I found coming from my next door neighbors house. My Sony radio led me to a wall in the house but I could find no source. The noise plagued me for at least 5 years, then one day it was gone. I used an MFJ noise cancelling phaser for those years and without it, I would have been off of the air. 

Good luck finding the source!

Greg
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Chartrand - W7MY 
Richland, WA.


W7MY Home Page:
http://webpages.charter.net/w7my/



On Saturday, December 14, 2013 9:11 AM, "topband-request at contesting.com" <topband-request at contesting.com> wrote:
 
Send Topband mailing list submissions to
>    topband at contesting.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    topband-request at contesting.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>    topband-owner at contesting.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Wideband interference (Jim Brown)
>   2. Re: Wideband interference (Barry N1EU)
>   3. Re: Wideband interference (Gary and Kathleen Pearse)
>   4. Re: Wideband interference (James Wolf)
>   5. Re: Wideband interference (N1BUG)
>   6. Re: Wideband interference (Tom W8JI)
>   7. Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160) (Guy Olinger K2AV)
>   8. Re: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160) (chetmoore)
>   9. Re: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160) (Guy Olinger K2AV)
>  10. Re: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160) (Bill Cromwell)
>  11. Insulator problems (Greg - ZL3IX)
>  12. Re: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160) (Jim Brown)
>  13. K3 & some interesting noise lessons in the ARRL 160.
>      (Guy Olinger K2AV)
>  14. Re: Insulator problems - attempt at attachment (Greg - ZL3IX)
>  15. Re: K3 & some interesting noise lessons in the ARRL 160.
>      (Petr Ourednik)
>  16. Re: Insulator problems (Tom W8JI)
>  17. Re: Insulator problems (Don Kirk)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:12:30 -0800
>From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>To: topband at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>Message-ID: <52AB3FFE.6050905 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 12/13/2013 7:49 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
>> The noise occurs early AM, before sunrise.
>
>The consensus among RFI professionals who hang out on the RFI list is 
>that recordings and spectrum plots are not usually helpful, but walking 
>around with a portable RX is.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:47:02 -0500
>From: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu at gmail.com>
>To: topBand List <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>Message-ID:
>    <CAFmfzDv8N20fzb2y7g3OQKnPF1ru5JkzdqSzRkduczsrDzcVzA at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>I've had many helpful private emails from folks who've seen/listened to
>what I posted.  An RFI occurrence may or may not have a characteristic
>fingerprint, but you're not going to know unless you ask around or search
>the Web for a similar recording.  If someone posted a recording of
>interference similar to what I've personally identified in the past, I
>could certainly respond with my past findings and potentially help them.
>
>In any event, this is the first step I choose to take before heading out
>the door in the dark and bitter cold weather to snoop around the
>surrounding area.  But thanks for your encouraging finger pointing to do
>just that.
>
>Barry N1EU
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/2013 7:49 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
>>
>>> The noise occurs early AM, before sunrise.
>>>
>>
>> The consensus among RFI professionals who hang out on the RFI list is that
>> recordings and spectrum plots are not usually helpful, but walking around
>> with a portable RX is.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:43:02 -0900
>From: Gary and Kathleen Pearse <pearse at gci.net>
>To: topband List <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>Message-ID: <02652212-D5BB-4883-A850-77CCE8B94895 at gci.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>
>
>I may be overreaching here but?in learning some of the new features of my K3/P3 with SVGA card and remote terminal I came across the screen snap or hold feature. If that image can be exported to the Utility program (or ???), saved, and maybe printed would it be possible to go portable and hunt for a similar noise signature? 
>
>The reason I ask is that the local utility company owns a Radar Engineers receiver. They came to my shack, hooked up to my antennas and took a noise signature on the oscilloscope, and went hunting. They soon found the offending signal and fixed.
>
>Might be worth a try if one has a K3/P3 and the feature I describe does work. I?ve not tried it yet.
>
>73, Gary NL7Y
>
>> I've had many helpful private emails from folks who've seen/listened to
>> what I posted.  An RFI occurrence may or may not have a characteristic
>> fingerprint, but you're not going to know unless you ask around or search
>> the Web for a similar recording.  If someone posted a recording of
>> interference similar to what I've personally identified in the past, I
>> could certainly respond with my past findings and potentially help them.
>> 
>> In any event, this is the first step I choose to take before heading out
>> the door in the dark and bitter cold weather to snoop around the
>> surrounding area.  But thanks for your encouraging finger pointing to do
>> just that.
>> 
>> Barry N1EU
>> 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:50:06 -0500
>From: "James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
>To: <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>Message-ID: <003e01cef834$24e07240$6ea156c0$@comcast.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>
>This sounds like it could be an appliance or light on either a timer or a
>photocell that is tied to daylight/night hours.
>
>Jim, KR9U
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
>Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 12:13 PM
>To: topband at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>
>On 12/13/2013 7:49 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
>> The noise occurs early AM, before sunrise.
>
>The consensus among RFI professionals who hang out on the RFI list is that
>recordings and spectrum plots are not usually helpful, but walking around
>with a portable RX is.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>_________________
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:29:56 -0500
>From: N1BUG <paul at n1bug.com>
>Cc: topBand List <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>Message-ID: <52AB6034.1000602 at n1bug.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>I think Jim and Barry both have valid points. Let me attempt to 
>throw some perspective on it.
>
>For a ham faced with going out in the bitter cold to hunt down RFI, 
>getting input and advice from others who have found the source of 
>noise with similar sound or spectrum plots can help narrow down the 
>likely source and save time in the field. There's certainly nothing 
>wrong with that.
>
>On the other hand, if a ham approaches a professional working for a 
>utility company (or whatever) about their RFI and says they believe 
>it is coming from such and such a device based on the sound and 
>spectrum plots, it may have a detrimental affect on the 
>professional's estimate of the ham's approach and claims. It may 
>affect their response to the problem. This isn't always going to be 
>the case, of course, but it certainly can't hurt if the ham has 
>already done some footwork to identify the source in a manner 
>consistent with how it is done in professional circles. You want to 
>make the best first impression you possibly can.
>
>The other issue that often comes up with hams is not having the 
>portable equipment to track down a source, and budget concerns 
>related to acquiring it. As a ham on a fixed income and extremely 
>tight budget, I get this. I also get that there will be some reading 
>this who are thinking I've got no clue whatsoever what a tight 
>budget is. :-) That was me for many years. When I really started 
>looking into cleaning up my RF environment, I realized the DF 
>equipment had to be a priority, even though it meant downsizing my 
>ham station and/or not replacing some gear that is badly outdated or 
>on it last legs. I now consider the DF and RFI hunting equipment to 
>be vital tools for survival in the modern RF jungle.
>
>I am personally experiencing a strong topband RFI issue that I 
>haven't gone out to find. It will require a three mile walk with the 
>relatively heavy and bulky DF equipment just to get to the likely 
>source area, some walking to find it, and a three mile walk home 
>after! In Maine that is brutal this time of year. On the other hand, 
>even if I become 95% certain I knew what it is, I won't be calling a 
>utility or other business/professional to report my RFI until I have 
>been out to DF it myself. First impressions can be everything.
>
>This is just my opinion, of course.
>
>73
>
>-- 
>Paul Kelley, N1BUG
>RFI Committee chair,
>Piscataquis Amateur Radio Club
>http://www.k1pq.org
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:42:22 -0500
>From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
>To: "Barry N1EU" <barry.n1eu at gmail.com>,    "topBand List"
>    <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Wideband interference
>Message-ID: <F4C8175B3BE946198984C6DA45CFA1CE at MAIN>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>    reply-type=original
>
>> I've had many helpful private emails from folks who've seen/listened to
>> what I posted.  An RFI occurrence may or may not have a characteristic
>> fingerprint, but you're not going to know unless you ask around or search
>> the Web for a similar recording.  If someone posted a recording of
>> interference similar to what I've personally identified in the past, I
>> could certainly respond with my past findings and potentially help them.
>
>That's correct. Some signatures are easily identifiable as a source type. 
>Some are not. If I were to guess, probably well over half are identifiable 
>by characteristics as a likely source type. That still leaves many that are 
>not.
>
>You have to put yourself in an open frame of mind and consider everything.
>
>Electric fences are easy as a group and type. Power lines are easy as a 
>group and general type. Fish tanks or other things with thermostats are easy 
>as a group containing thermostats. Switching power supplies are easy as a 
>broad group.
>
>Your noise appears to be on where people might be up and around, rather than 
>on like clockwork as a certain outdoor light level. I'd rule an outdoor 
>light out right away based on the times and the changing tone. It does not 
>appear to be laundry or cooking related, based on time, duration, and 
>changing sound. It does not appear to be home indoor light related because 
>it is not steady sound when on. It doesn't cycle off and on with a period 
>like a thermostat, so that rules out many things. It doesn't sound like a 
>battery charger.
>
>The noise I listened to did NOT appear to be periodic in change, but a 
>randomly changing frequency pitch for variable periods.
>This potentially indicates a load changing on something randomly over short 
>periods, something used when people are likely to be up, but off when they 
>are gone or doing something else. TV sets and video systems change supply 
>loads like that, and fit the pattern. It might be something else, but lots 
>of things can be ruled out based on the sound.
>
>For me, it does help to have some idea what it might NOT be. That way I can 
>drive past things I know it absolutely cannot be. Whatever it is, as Jim 
>suggested, you will eventually have to DF it and then walk or drive that 
>direction and find it. That is what ultimately matters.
>
>73, Tom 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:52:34 -0500
>From: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger at bellsouth.net>
>To: TopBand List <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>Message-ID:
>    <CANckpc2k7k4J2dLJ40y_CMpaV+0jDBu9vnGzLFDL5UCQnFLRiw at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>I screwed up and spent a couple of one hour stretches Saturday night CQing
>in the DX window until someone got my attention and convinced me that ARRL
>still had a DX window in their 160 contest, even though the CQ 160 and both
>all-band DX tests had dumped theirs years ago, and I thought I remembered
>ARRL HQ group voted to drop it from their 160 as well. [1]
>
>** But no excuses for not knowing the rules.** So that makes my entry
>invalid, and will be submitted this year only as a check log. My entry will
>not have an invalid advantage over anyone else's. Apologies to anyone I may
>have inconvenienced.
>
>73, Guy K2AV
>
>[1] Actually June, 2009, yes they did vote to drop it, and it was the ARRL
>Contest Advisory Committee. See:
>
>
>http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/July/29_Contest_Advisory_Committee.pdf
>
>An interesting read.
>
>Should note that the report phrases the current rule as a "recommendation",
>as if to indicate they don't consider it a hard rule, and *nobody* voted to
>make it a "requirement". They consider the rule unenforceable. From the
>report:
>
>"4. Vote: Rule 6.1
>A. Delete (9)
>B. Make it a requirement (0)
>C. Leave it as a recommendation (7)"
>
>The report lists in their committee discussion many of the issues brought
>up in a thread on the DX window on TopBand a week or so ago.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:03:29 -0500
>From: "chetmoore" <chetmoore at cox.net>
>To: "'Guy Olinger K2AV'" <olinger at bellsouth.net>,    "'TopBand List'"
>    <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>Message-ID: <003301cef868$4d6d77b0$e8486710$@net>
>Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>
>Hi Guy,
>
>I do not know if I was in the window.  I was not looking as I too thought
>there was no
>Longer a DX window any more. 
>
>73
>
>Chet moore  N4FX
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy
>Olinger K2AV
>Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 7:53 PM
>To: TopBand List
>Subject: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>
>I screwed up and spent a couple of one hour stretches Saturday night CQing
>in the DX window until someone got my attention and convinced me that ARRL
>still had a DX window in their 160 contest, even though the CQ 160 and both
>all-band DX tests had dumped theirs years ago, and I thought I remembered
>ARRL HQ group voted to drop it from their 160 as well. [1]
>
>** But no excuses for not knowing the rules.** So that makes my entry
>invalid, and will be submitted this year only as a check log. My entry will
>not have an invalid advantage over anyone else's. Apologies to anyone I may
>have inconvenienced.
>
>73, Guy K2AV
>
>[1] Actually June, 2009, yes they did vote to drop it, and it was the ARRL
>Contest Advisory Committee. See:
>
>
>http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/July/29_Cont
>est_Advisory_Committee.pdf
>
>An interesting read.
>
>Should note that the report phrases the current rule as a "recommendation",
>as if to indicate they don't consider it a hard rule, and *nobody* voted to
>make it a "requirement". They consider the rule unenforceable. From the
>report:
>
>"4. Vote: Rule 6.1
>A. Delete (9)
>B. Make it a requirement (0)
>C. Leave it as a recommendation (7)"
>
>The report lists in their committee discussion many of the issues brought up
>in a thread on the DX window on TopBand a week or so ago.
>_________________
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:17:50 -0500
>From: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger at bellsouth.net>
>To: chetmoore <chetmoore at cox.net>
>Cc: TopBand List <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>Message-ID:
>    <CANckpc0TTUy_49xWeyDQfwABB54LCUU44BFSMdJGYkLHYW_8VQ at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>I suspect "no DX window" is a fairly common perception.
>
>If you search the 160 rules on the string "dx window", you don't get a hit.
>Searching on "1.830" finds the text. It's listed under "Miscellaneous".
>You have to read it end-to-end to run into it.
>
>I also wonder what happened to the CAC's recommendation. I can't find any
>followup searching the ARRL site.
>
>73, Guy.
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:03 PM, chetmoore <chetmoore at cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guy,
>>
>> I do not know if I was in the window.  I was not looking as I too thought
>> there was no
>> Longer a DX window any more.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Chet moore  N4FX
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy
>> Olinger K2AV
>> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 7:53 PM
>> To: TopBand List
>> Subject: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>>
>> I screwed up and spent a couple of one hour stretches Saturday night CQing
>> in the DX window until someone got my attention and convinced me that ARRL
>> still had a DX window in their 160 contest, even though the CQ 160 and both
>> all-band DX tests had dumped theirs years ago, and I thought I remembered
>> ARRL HQ group voted to drop it from their 160 as well. [1]
>>
>> ** But no excuses for not knowing the rules.** So that makes my entry
>> invalid, and will be submitted this year only as a check log. My entry will
>> not have an invalid advantage over anyone else's. Apologies to anyone I may
>> have inconvenienced.
>>
>> 73, Guy K2AV
>>
>> [1] Actually June, 2009, yes they did vote to drop it, and it was the ARRL
>> Contest Advisory Committee. See:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/July/29_Cont
>> est_Advisory_Committee.pdf
>>
>> An interesting read.
>>
>> Should note that the report phrases the current rule as a "recommendation",
>> as if to indicate they don't consider it a hard rule, and *nobody* voted to
>> make it a "requirement". They consider the rule unenforceable. From the
>> report:
>>
>> "4. Vote: Rule 6.1
>>  A. Delete (9)
>>  B. Make it a requirement (0)
>>  C. Leave it as a recommendation (7)"
>>
>> The report lists in their committee discussion many of the issues brought
>> up
>> in a thread on the DX window on TopBand a week or so ago.
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:36:34 -0500
>From: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com>
>To: topband at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>Message-ID: <52ABB622.9030109 at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 12/13/2013 08:03 PM, chetmoore wrote:
>> Hi Guy,
>>
>> I do not know if I was in the window.  I was not looking as I too thought
>> there was no
>> Longer a DX window any more.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Chet moore  N4FX
>>
>Hi,
>
>There have been several discussions about "windows" (not software) right 
>here on the list. I'm pretty new to top band and the info about windows 
>is conflicted and vague. Some might be outdated or whatever. For my own 
>operation I will avoid getting in the way if I hear a DX pileup or 
>DXpedition. Unless of course I am trying to work the pileup. Even if I 
>can't hear the DX I'll know where he is because of the one or two 
>transmitting on his frequency. I'm usually more interested in ragchews 
>and making mutual QRM for a DX hunt in progress won't make any of us happy.
>
>As far as what the contest calls for as a DX window - well I can never 
>keep them sorted out so I read through the rules each time. Otherwise I 
>would always be doing something that doesn't fit. Every time I read the 
>rules for a contest or sprint I have already been in I get surprised by 
>details I had forgotten. I'm hardly even on the air right now anyway as 
>I have to rebuild most of my ancient gear.
>
>Just a couple of thoughts that might help.
>
>73,
>
>Bill  KU8H
>
>Sent by smoke signals from a firepit in my back yard and keyed with a 
>mylar "Space Blanket"
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:19:54 +1300
>From: Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix at inet.net.nz>
>To: Topband Reflector <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Topband: Insulator problems
>Message-ID: <52ABC04A.3030304 at inet.net.nz>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>The Tx antenna I have been using very successfully for the last 8+ 
>years, is a top-fed vertical.  This feed arrangement requires the yagi 
>used for top loading to be insulated from the mast.  I have been using a 
>nylon insert between the two halves of the stub mast as my insulator.  
>This morning I noticed high SWR, firstly only on high power, but then at 
>any power level.
>
>Today I brought the mast down for inspection, and the only sign of 
>trouble I can see is in the insulator, which has bubbled visibly. This 
>may (or may not) be the problem, but I propose to change the insulator 
>even if only to eliminate it as the culprit.  I have a couple of 
>questions for this group.
>
>1)  Does anyone know if I can upload a jpg file to contesting.com, so 
>that guys can see what I am talking about?  Tree, I guess I can't attach 
>a photo to a post to the group?
>2)  I always thought that nylon was a pretty good dielectric, and did 
>not expect problems, especially at 1.8 MHz.  The gap in the insulator is 
>7.5mm, or about 0.3".  I estimate that there will be around 2 kV across 
>this gap.  Is nylon perhaps not as good as I thought it was?
>3)  If I replace the nylon with Teflon, will I lose anything in 
>mechanical strength?
>
>Unfortunately this problem means that I will not be able to enter the 
>Stew.  We are going away for a week for the festive season, next 
>weekend, so won't have time to fix the issue.
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>73, Greg, ZL3IX
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 12
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:07:38 -0800
>From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>To: topband at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: Well, Duh... (Apology re: ARRL160)
>Message-ID: <52ABCB7A.50802 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>This entire discussion strikes me as comical. I can recall several quite 
>extensive discussions about the DX Window, and most of them have come to 
>a consensus that that the DX window on topband was dead and buried. I 
>haven't bothered to check the archives, but if I did, I'll bet that I've 
>find that at least some of those speaking out so strongly in favor it it 
>now said exactly the opposite back then.
>
>Another comical point -- everything written at HQ seems to be handed 
>down from on high as chiseled into stone.  How else to explain a rule 
>for this contest that flies in the face of the CAC's recommendations 
>from four years ago?  Or does it mean that nothing that members say 
>matters, and that nothing can ever change.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>
>On 12/13/2013 4:52 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
>> [1] Actually June, 2009, yes they did vote to drop it, and it was the ARRL
>> Contest Advisory Committee. See:
>>
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/July/29_Contest_Advisory_Committee.pdf
>>
>> An interesting read.
>>
>> Should note that the report phrases the current rule as a "recommendation",
>> as if to indicate they don't consider it a hard rule, and*nobody*  voted to
>> make it a "requirement". They consider the rule unenforceable. From the
>> report:
>>
>> "4. Vote: Rule 6.1
>>   A. Delete (9)
>>   B. Make it a requirement (0)
>>   C. Leave it as a recommendation (7)"
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 13
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:35:02 -0500
>From: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger at bellsouth.net>
>To: TopBand List <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Topband: K3 & some interesting noise lessons in the ARRL 160.
>Message-ID:
>    <CANckpc09io7oPdFMOHcSUT3K1KNzNyTC6cF987yxV7xT1tx1bg at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>This may be specific to a K3 and no joy for other rigs. But there might be
>parallels elsewhere.  Definitely YMMV.
>
>Usually in a 160 contest I try and get a run frequency down around 1815-20.
>For some reason in my locality that range is, and for a long time has been,
>a general garbage minimum in the noise floor around here, sometimes 2-3 dB
>better, so there is no incentive to CQ elsewhere. I have not had a problem
>establishing down around 1815-20, even when running 100 watts.
>
>But this year, off and on since late summer, and of course without any
>rhyme or reason or published schedule, I have had a really bad intermittent
>power line style buzz that was S7 to ten over S9, depending on only heaven
>knows what. I have not had any luck localizing it, largely because of it's
>variable and erratic nature. A lot of the time it has irregularly separated
>fast bursts, almost like it's trying to send Morse with its buzz.
>
>On the first night of the ARRL 160 contest, buzz was entirely absent. And I
>actually had the ARRL 160 weekend clear of family conflict for the first
>time in recent memory. Oh Joy! By the end of the first night I already had
>a personal best for the contest. The second night the noise struck half way
>through with a solid buzz. Ten over S9 in my usual hangout 1815-20-ish. A
>little less noise up higher but still covering all but the louder signals.
>No real help using my newly repaired and pattern-verified NE RX antenna.
>Loud there, too. Earlier work had ruled out a source in my or neighbor's
>houses. No quickie fixies.
>
>I was unable to hear anything except the louder signals, which I had pretty
>well worked out the previous day.  Forget operating. So I decided to
>experiment with the noise mitigation methods/settings on the K3.
>
>Usually in these buzz circumstances, you can't find a persistent weak
>signal on 160 far enough into the noise to let you experiment with noise
>mitigation settings based on signal to noise. You wind up using the reduced
>noise level as the only clue for settings.
>
>Reduced noise level method is fine if you are working strong signals and
>you just don't want to hear the noise. But to pull out weak signals what
>you really need is to restore signal to noise separation all the way down
>to the weak signals. It turns out best signal-to-noise and best
>level-of-noise do not always generate the same weak signal readability.
>Some methods/settings reduce noise well but also trash the weak signals in
>the process.
>
>But being the contest, 160 was *loaded* with weak signals to test with. So
>I spent a few hours experimenting with K3 settings on weak signals,
>optimizing for S/N. Came up with NB only (no NR) DSP T1-7 + IF NAR4 using
>"250" 8 pole filter, which clearly gave the best separation between weak
>signal and noise, without the usual weak signal obliteration from
>traditional noise blanking in a contest.
>
>Usually the buzz gating the NB will add a 180 Hz raspy modulation (center
>carrier and +180, -180), an irritating buzzy noise, and can mush the wanted
>signal.  Narrowing the CW width to 250 or 200 Hz (+/- 100 Hz) cleans off
>both the modulation (3 x 60 Hz), and signal-covering "hashy fuzz" caused by
>the irregular shape of the buzz waveform.
>
>After the determination of those settings, I scanned the band with those
>settings in NB. I discovered a narrow "null" in the noise or sweet spot
>between 1831 and 1833, sounding almost normal, with clear rendition of weak
>signals, which was up to 2 s-units better than the NB improvement in the
>least effective spots, which included my normal hangout of 1815-20.  Don't
>ask me how that works, because I haven't a clue.
>
>1831.5 was unoccupied, as was 1832.5 in a later stretch, where operating
>with the blanking on, it was as if the noise was not there at all. (See an
>earlier post about my unfortunate adventure with the DX window rule.)
>
>That narrow sweet spot in the blanked noise was still there Tuesday, at
>1830-1832. With the noise back solid, and using the NB settings above,
>Tuesday night I was hearing LZ2DF on 1832 clearly, at what I would call 559
>or 549. He was not hearing me running 1.5 kW, so this was clearly a normal
>state of affairs, controlling noise was on his end, not mine, even though
>the buzz was full on.
>
>Wednesday the buzz was there with separated bursts, but not quite so loud,
>and the aforementioned NB settings killed it at least semi-decently across
>the band. Go figure. I was able to clearly pull out way-down birdies and
>such, simply not there without the NB.
>
>Thursday the noise-blanking sweet spot was at 1.838, and a little broader
>than during the contest. The RX antenna clearly hears a weak birdie at
>1.838 much stronger than on the TX. Yes, Virginia, the RX antenna has been
>working correctly the whole time.
>
>Today the buzz is gone at my noon-time opportunity for driving around and
>trying again to locate it with my K2.
>
>Tonight the buzz is back, mostly steady. The sweet spot is at 1.828 tonight.
>
>We will be renewing the search for the noise when it decides to come back
>steady in the daytime.
>
>But regardless, now I have noise blanker settings for the Stew and CQ 160
>which actually do improve signal to noise for weak signals in power line
>noise -- just in case the noise is still with us.  And I know now to look
>for the wandering-around sweet spots where the K3 does some real magic,
>before I go for a run frequency.
>
>73, Guy
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 14
>Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:29:20 +1300
>From: Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix at inet.net.nz>
>To: Topband Reflector <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Insulator problems - attempt at attachment
>Message-ID: <52AC08D0.5030209 at inet.net.nz>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 15
>Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 10:30:17 +0100
>From: Petr Ourednik <indians at xsmail.com>
>To: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger at bellsouth.net>,    TopBand List
>    <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: K3 & some interesting noise lessons in the ARRL
>    160.
>Message-ID:
>    <1387013417.26097.59511745.497F4664 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>Hello Guy,
>
>Thank You for an interesting analyse. 
>Which s/w and f/w do You have on K3 loaded please?
>
>73 - Petr, OK1RP
>
>On Sat, Dec 14, 2013, at 05:35 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
>> This may be specific to a K3 and no joy for other rigs. But there might
>> be
>> parallels elsewhere.  Definitely YMMV.
>> 
>> Usually in a 160 contest I try and get a run frequency down around
>> 1815-20.
>> For some reason in my locality that range is, and for a long time has
>> been,
>> a general garbage minimum in the noise floor around here, sometimes 2-3
>> dB
>> better, so there is no incentive to CQ elsewhere. I have not had a
>> problem
>> establishing down around 1815-20, even when running 100 watts.
>> 
>> But this year, off and on since late summer, and of course without any
>> rhyme or reason or published schedule, I have had a really bad
>> intermittent
>> power line style buzz that was S7 to ten over S9, depending on only
>> heaven
>> knows what. I have not had any luck localizing it, largely because of
>> it's
>> variable and erratic nature. A lot of the time it has irregularly
>> separated
>> fast bursts, almost like it's trying to send Morse with its buzz.
>> 
>> On the first night of the ARRL 160 contest, buzz was entirely absent. And
>> I
>> actually had the ARRL 160 weekend clear of family conflict for the first
>> time in recent memory. Oh Joy! By the end of the first night I already
>> had
>> a personal best for the contest. The second night the noise struck half
>> way
>> through with a solid buzz. Ten over S9 in my usual hangout 1815-20-ish. A
>> little less noise up higher but still covering all but the louder
>> signals.
>> No real help using my newly repaired and pattern-verified NE RX antenna.
>> Loud there, too. Earlier work had ruled out a source in my or neighbor's
>> houses. No quickie fixies.
>> 
>> I was unable to hear anything except the louder signals, which I had
>> pretty
>> well worked out the previous day.  Forget operating. So I decided to
>> experiment with the noise mitigation methods/settings on the K3.
>> 
>> Usually in these buzz circumstances, you can't find a persistent weak
>> signal on 160 far enough into the noise to let you experiment with noise
>> mitigation settings based on signal to noise. You wind up using the
>> reduced
>> noise level as the only clue for settings.
>> 
>> Reduced noise level method is fine if you are working strong signals and
>> you just don't want to hear the noise. But to pull out weak signals what
>> you really need is to restore signal to noise separation all the way down
>> to the weak signals. It turns out best signal-to-noise and best
>> level-of-noise do not always generate the same weak signal readability.
>> Some methods/settings reduce noise well but also trash the weak signals
>> in
>> the process.
>> 
>> But being the contest, 160 was *loaded* with weak signals to test with.
>> So
>> I spent a few hours experimenting with K3 settings on weak signals,
>> optimizing for S/N. Came up with NB only (no NR) DSP T1-7 + IF NAR4 using
>> "250" 8 pole filter, which clearly gave the best separation between weak
>> signal and noise, without the usual weak signal obliteration from
>> traditional noise blanking in a contest.
>> 
>> Usually the buzz gating the NB will add a 180 Hz raspy modulation (center
>> carrier and +180, -180), an irritating buzzy noise, and can mush the
>> wanted
>> signal.  Narrowing the CW width to 250 or 200 Hz (+/- 100 Hz) cleans off
>> both the modulation (3 x 60 Hz), and signal-covering "hashy fuzz" caused
>> by
>> the irregular shape of the buzz waveform.
>> 
>> After the determination of those settings, I scanned the band with those
>> settings in NB. I discovered a narrow "null" in the noise or sweet spot
>> between 1831 and 1833, sounding almost normal, with clear rendition of
>> weak
>> signals, which was up to 2 s-units better than the NB improvement in the
>> least effective spots, which included my normal hangout of 1815-20. 
>> Don't
>> ask me how that works, because I haven't a clue.
>> 
>> 1831.5 was unoccupied, as was 1832.5 in a later stretch, where operating
>> with the blanking on, it was as if the noise was not there at all. (See
>> an
>> earlier post about my unfortunate adventure with the DX window rule.)
>> 
>> That narrow sweet spot in the blanked noise was still there Tuesday, at
>> 1830-1832. With the noise back solid, and using the NB settings above,
>> Tuesday night I was hearing LZ2DF on 1832 clearly, at what I would call
>> 559
>> or 549. He was not hearing me running 1.5 kW, so this was clearly a
>> normal
>> state of affairs, controlling noise was on his end, not mine, even though
>> the buzz was full on.
>> 
>> Wednesday the buzz was there with separated bursts, but not quite so
>> loud,
>> and the aforementioned NB settings killed it at least semi-decently
>> across
>> the band. Go figure. I was able to clearly pull out way-down birdies and
>> such, simply not there without the NB.
>> 
>> Thursday the noise-blanking sweet spot was at 1.838, and a little broader
>> than during the contest. The RX antenna clearly hears a weak birdie at
>> 1.838 much stronger than on the TX. Yes, Virginia, the RX antenna has
>> been
>> working correctly the whole time.
>> 
>> Today the buzz is gone at my noon-time opportunity for driving around and
>> trying again to locate it with my K2.
>> 
>> Tonight the buzz is back, mostly steady. The sweet spot is at 1.828
>> tonight.
>> 
>> We will be renewing the search for the noise when it decides to come back
>> steady in the daytime.
>> 
>> But regardless, now I have noise blanker settings for the Stew and CQ 160
>> which actually do improve signal to noise for weak signals in power line
>> noise -- just in case the noise is still with us.  And I know now to look
>> for the wandering-around sweet spots where the K3 does some real magic,
>> before I go for a run frequency.
>> 
>> 73, Guy
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 16
>Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:05:56 -0500
>From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
>To: "Greg - ZL3IX" <zl3ix at inet.net.nz>,    "Topband Reflector"
>    <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Insulator problems
>Message-ID: <921BBF707958451A803D715E3C26F514 at MAIN>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>    reply-type=response
>
>> 2)  I always thought that nylon was a pretty good dielectric, and did not 
>> expect problems, especially at 1.8 MHz.  The gap in the insulator is 
>> 7.5mm, or about 0.3".  I estimate that there will be around 2 kV across 
>> this gap.  Is nylon perhaps not as good as I thought it was?
>
>Nylon is one of the worse dielectrics for RF. This shows when the electric 
>field density is high, so it does not mean nylon won't work in some 
>applications. For example, a nylon spacer in a typical linear amp with a 
>screw protruding down in it will sometimes bubble and smell around the screw 
>on the vacuum tube side of a tank circuit, but will be perfectly fine on the 
>50 ohm side where voltage is low.
>
>The 1 MHz dissipation factors are around:
>
>nylon = .022 or worse
>Delrin = most types .005
>Teflon = less than .0002
>
>
>> 3)  If I replace the nylon with Teflon, will I lose anything in mechanical 
>> strength?
>
>Teflon is soft, but wear resistant and reasonable with compression loads. It 
>has the least tendency to carbon track. Delrin is the best mechanically, 
>unless it does not have to be rigid.
>
>I would think either Delrin or Teflon would be OK electrically, if you got 
>years of service out of nylon. 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 17
>Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:22:05 -0500
>From: Don Kirk <wd8dsb at gmail.com>
>To: Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix at inet.net.nz>
>Cc: Topband Reflector <topband at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: Topband: Insulator problems
>Message-ID:
>    <CAKtW65fc9F4EgaN-+U-PoaEZV1p+d+xgXH1y5Ndi8nDXaTScYw at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Greg,
>
>One property you should look at when deciding the material to use for your
>insulator (especially if exposed to water) is a property called water
>absorption and normally it's listed as a weight percent.  Some nylons are
>better than others, but nylon in general absorbs a lot of water and
>therefore probably not your best choice of material.
>
>73,
>Don (wd8dsb)
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix at inet.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> The Tx antenna I have been using very successfully for the last 8+ years,
>> is a top-fed vertical.  This feed arrangement requires the yagi used for
>> top loading to be insulated from the mast.  I have been using a nylon
>> insert between the two halves of the stub mast as my insulator.  This
>> morning I noticed high SWR, firstly only on high power, but then at any
>> power level.
>>
>> Today I brought the mast down for inspection, and the only sign of trouble
>> I can see is in the insulator, which has bubbled visibly. This may (or may
>> not) be the problem, but I propose to change the insulator even if only to
>> eliminate it as the culprit.  I have a couple of questions for this group.
>>
>> 1)  Does anyone know if I can upload a jpg file to contesting.com, so
>> that guys can see what I am talking about?  Tree, I guess I can't attach a
>> photo to a post to the group?
>> 2)  I always thought that nylon was a pretty good dielectric, and did not
>> expect problems, especially at 1.8 MHz.  The gap in the insulator is 7.5mm,
>> or about 0.3".  I estimate that there will be around 2 kV across this gap.
>>  Is nylon perhaps not as good as I thought it was?
>> 3)  If I replace the nylon with Teflon, will I lose anything in mechanical
>> strength?
>>
>> Unfortunately this problem means that I will not be able to enter the
>> Stew.  We are going away for a week for the festive season, next weekend,
>> so won't have time to fix the issue.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> 73, Greg, ZL3IX
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>_______________________________________________
>Topband mailing list
>Topband at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Topband Digest, Vol 132, Issue 13
>****************************************
>
>
>