Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 145, Issue 19
Chief Goswick
k5wg at swbell.net
Mon Jan 19 12:25:46 EST 2015
That's great news, Daryl. Thanks.
Bill, K5WG
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
topband-request at contesting.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 5:00 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 145, Issue 19
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: beverage on ice (Pete Millis)
2. Re: 160 VERT (Tom W8JI)
3. Re: Beverage on Ice (Tom W8JI)
4. Re: Beverage on Ice (Guy Olinger K2AV)
5. Re: Beverage on Ice (Mike Waters)
6. Beverage on Ice (Roger Parsons via Topband)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:34:50 +0000
From: Pete Millis <pete.millis at gmail.com>
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: beverage on ice
Message-ID:
<CAEf09xns-KStjdRZ74cid3RA6JPRr5u1nmVofFgKqPf-=KKzHw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Even a very thin wire shouldn't be left. Could easily slice a swimmer or
get tangled around wildlife.
Pete M3KXZ
On 18 Jan 2015 17:01, <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: Beverage on Ice (Ron Feutz)
> 2. Compact magnetic loop (Ignacy Misztal)
> 3. Re: Compact magnetic loop (Bill Cromwell)
> 4. Re: Compact magnetic loop (Arthur Delibert)
> 5. Re: Compact magnetic loop (Tom W8JI)
> 6. 160 VERT (Don)
> 7. Beverage on Ice (Roger Parsons via Topband)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:52:44 -0600
> From: "Ron Feutz" <feutz at wctc.net>
> To: "Topband" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage on Ice
> Message-ID: <012865CEF7284F718B9CAA230E728828 at OwnerPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I did this about 10 years ago. I live on the Wisconsin River and it's
about
> a half-mile wide in front of the house.
>
> I laid out 1000' of #14 stranded, insulated wire. I terminated it with a
> 200 ohm resistor to a 1/4 wave wire and several short radials running
nearly
> parallel to the antenna/grounding wires. At the feed end, I used a 4/1
> homebrew transformer using one of "Tom's" binocular cores. The
transformer
> was grounded to a conventional 8' ground rod.
>
> The antenna never worked at all, as far as I could tell. There was no
> discernable, certainly not usable, directivity. Why, I don't have a clue.
> The techniques chosen were the result of all the best advice I could get
at
> the time on the topband reflector.
>
> FWIW, the river averages about 10-15 feet deep under the antenna and is
> sand/gravel/bedrock. I would love to try this again if someone can help
> with an improved design.
>
> 73,
>
> Ron KK9K
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Parsons via Topband
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 3:51 PM
> To: Topband
> Subject: Topband: Beverage on Ice
>
> I know that Beverages on Ground have been discussed on a number of
> occasions, but:
>
> I live on the shores of a reasonably large lake, and at this time of year
it
> will be frozen to at least 2' and possibly 4' or 5' deep. I believe that
ice
> is a pretty good insulator, so I wonder about the effectiveness of a wire
> just laid on the surface? It would be impossible to retrieve the wire in
the
> spring so it would have to be fine enameled copper. Even that may not be
> very environmentally friendly? If the wire survived the first couple of
days
> it would be frozen into the ice - it would be at risk from snow machines
> until that happened.
>
> This is just speculation from enforced idleness - I cleverly managed to
> break my leg during a foolish last check of my receive antennas before
> Christmas - so I can't even get into the shack, let alone onto the lake. I
> was not very hopeful in any event that EP6T would be workable from here,
but
> I am determined somehow to get there for K1N...
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:06:33 -0500
> From: Ignacy Misztal <no9e at arrl.net>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Compact magnetic loop
> Message-ID:
> <CA+yG_kFJxjX09Z94ZTBcUjhKoPMHC=
0cirFGvx65b8keS5KCpA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I homebrewed a magnetic loop for diversity reception with Hi-Z 3 el. in
> K3. For perhaps up to 1000 miles the loop provides excellent separation
> between signals from Hi-Z. But it hears distant stations poorly, much
worse
> than TX inv L. Based on earlier reports I expected the loop to be very
good
> for DX.
>
> The loop is made from coax, is tuned and has a transformer. About 50 KHz
> 2:1 BW. A low-noise preamp does not improve S/N.
>
> Any experiences with the loop here?
>
> Ignacy, NO9E
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:27:03 -0500
> From: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Compact magnetic loop
> Message-ID: <54BAE1B7.3070009 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> That small mag-loop has a small aperture and so all of the signals
> delivered to your radio will be lower levels than from a bigger antenna
> (in terms of wavelength. A preamp should improve the signal strength but
> not improve the SNR over what you get with the loop and no preamp. The
> mag-loop reduces the noise with it's high Q and decreased bandwidth and
> those nulls contribute to reduced noise, too. I have excellent luck with
> mine but there just isn't any silver bullet. The mag loop I use on 160
> meters is four and a half feet in diameter. The receiver I use on 160 is
> easily overloaded without some attenuation so the reduced signal levels
> from the mag-loop are *ideal*.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill KU8H
>
> On 01/17/2015 05:06 PM, Ignacy Misztal wrote:
> > I homebrewed a magnetic loop for diversity reception with Hi-Z 3 el. in
> > K3. For perhaps up to 1000 miles the loop provides excellent separation
> > between signals from Hi-Z. But it hears distant stations poorly, much
worse
> > than TX inv L. Based on earlier reports I expected the loop to be very
good
> > for DX.
> >
> > The loop is made from coax, is tuned and has a transformer. About 50
KHz
> > 2:1 BW. A low-noise preamp does not improve S/N.
> >
> > Any experiences with the loop here?
> >
> > Ignacy, NO9E
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:30:33 -0500
> From: Arthur Delibert <radio75a3 at msn.com>
> To: Ignacy Misztal <no9e at arrl.net>, "topband at contesting.com"
> <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Compact magnetic loop
> Message-ID: <BLU177-W144735CEA64A4703B281FDE44C0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I've been playing with an amplified Wellbrook ALA 1530S+ loop antenna for
about 10 days now. It does a very good job on both close-in and
long-distance signals across the SW spectrum, and its ability to knock down
the local noise is a great benefit in my dense suburban location.
>
> Compared to my two pennant antennas, which have DX Engineering
amplifiers, both my ears and my display tell me that the Wellbrook signal
is a few dB lower, although the better S/N ratio often makes the signal
more readable on the Wellbrook. The difference in signal level is not
surprising, given the larger size of the pennants; in fact, the surprising
thing is that the difference isn't greater.
>
> Given my age and the continual loss of tall trees on the property, it's
clear that I'm going to need a replacement for the pennants someday that
doesn't require trees or ladder-climbing. The Wellbrook may be it.
>
> Art Delibert, KB3FJO
>
> > Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:06:33 -0500
> > From: no9e at arrl.net
> > To: topband at contesting.com
> > Subject: Topband: Compact magnetic loop
> >
> > I homebrewed a magnetic loop for diversity reception with Hi-Z 3 el. in
> > K3. For perhaps up to 1000 miles the loop provides excellent separation
> > between signals from Hi-Z. But it hears distant stations poorly, much
worse
> > than TX inv L. Based on earlier reports I expected the loop to be very
good
> > for DX.
> >
> > The loop is made from coax, is tuned and has a transformer. About 50
KHz
> > 2:1 BW. A low-noise preamp does not improve S/N.
> >
> > Any experiences with the loop here?
> >
> > Ignacy, NO9E
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:32:19 -0500
> From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
> To: "Bill Cromwell" <wrcromwell at gmail.com>, <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Compact magnetic loop
> Message-ID: <91BC8F7FDFE34CFDB4E8BBA738D1CF1C at MAIN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> Effective aperture is not size related.
> Effective aperture is exclusively tied to wavelength and gain.
>
> The only time effective aperture means anything for receiving is when
> external noise no longer significantly influences noise floor. Other than
> that, effective aperture is meaningless for S/N or hearing DX.
>
> The real issue with a small loop is it only has two very sharp nulls
through
> the axis. It all other directions, even straight up and below, it has
> response. This means the only points where it significantly discriminates
> against external noise are two points through the axis.
>
> Making it worse, many or most loops have terrible feedpoint designs. I
> measured a very popular expensive loop, and the pattern had considerable
> skewing because of feedline common mode response. While I had the loop
> thousands of feet from noise sources, the pattern told me the feedline
was a
> major part of the "antenna".
>
> That same antenna, near my house, was nearly dominated by conducted noise
> along the feedline. I determined the common mode "noise" sensitivity was
> only down 5-10 dB from the loop pickup when a 50 foot feedline was used.
>
> It could only be three things:
>
> 1.) The feedpoint or loop design was poor, resulting in local conducted
> noise dominating the background
>
> 2.) An inherent lack of directivity that comes with the wide peak response
> and narrow axis nulls of the loop
>
> 3.) The loop efficiency is too low for the noise floor of the preamps, and
> internal noise is limiting weak signal response (even a 3 foot loop has
> enough theoretical gain for use in a reasonably quiet location)
>
> All of those are reasonably easy to test.
>
> 73 Tom
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Cromwell" <wrcromwell at gmail.com>
> To: <topband at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Compact magnetic loop
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > That small mag-loop has a small aperture and so all of the signals
> > delivered to your radio will be lower levels than from a bigger antenna
> > (in terms of wavelength. A preamp should improve the signal strength but
> > not improve the SNR over what you get with the loop and no preamp. The
> > mag-loop reduces the noise with it's high Q and decreased bandwidth and
> > those nulls contribute to reduced noise, too. I have excellent luck with
> > mine but there just isn't any silver bullet. The mag loop I use on 160
> > meters is four and a half feet in diameter. The receiver I use on 160 is
> > easily overloaded without some attenuation so the reduced signal levels
> > from the mag-loop are *ideal*.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill KU8H
> >
> > On 01/17/2015 05:06 PM, Ignacy Misztal wrote:
> >> I homebrewed a magnetic loop for diversity reception with Hi-Z 3 el. in
> >> K3. For perhaps up to 1000 miles the loop provides excellent
separation
> >> between signals from Hi-Z. But it hears distant stations poorly, much
> >> worse
> >> than TX inv L. Based on earlier reports I expected the loop to be very
> >> good
> >> for DX.
> >>
> >> The loop is made from coax, is tuned and has a transformer. About 50
KHz
> >> 2:1 BW. A low-noise preamp does not improve S/N.
> >>
> >> Any experiences with the loop here?
> >>
> >> Ignacy, NO9E
> >> _________________
> >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >>
> >
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4257/8945 - Release Date:
01/17/15
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:49:57 -0500
> From: "Don" <w4dee at truvista.net>
> To: <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: 160 VERT
> Message-ID: <4E51229DF1534843B607936FD9304406 at DonPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I put up on of K6MM?s helically Wound 160 vert can not get SWR down
> I put up k6mm Helically wound vert for 160 but can not get SWR below 3:1
I have 8 - 1/4 wave radials of 16 awg wire out . Any suggestions you can
offer would be appreciated
>
> W4DEE
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:02:49 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Roger Parsons via Topband <topband at contesting.com>
> To: Topband <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Beverage on Ice
> Message-ID:
> <
818909102.2891473.1421593369343.JavaMail.yahoo at jws106124.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Many thanks for the comments received on this reflector and privately. A
few points:
> I don't think that the proposed antenna is just another BOG - there is a
large non-conductive layer of ice before there is anything conductive.
However, here on the Canadian Shield normal ground is not very conductive
either.
>
> It would be essential to build the antenna from a very thin wire for
environmental reasons. A thicker wire could cause all sorts of problems
when the ice melts in the spring.
> There is not that much snow machine activity on this lake - I would be
unlucky for the wire to be broken, particularly if I installed it on a
Monday - it would be well frozen into the ice long before the next weekend.
> Perhaps the most interesting observation was from KK9K - what Ron did was
pretty close to my intentions. Hopefully I will be able to corroberate or
otherwise next season.
> 73 RogerVE3ZI
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 145, Issue 18
> ****************************************
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:39:09 -0500
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
To: "Don" <w4dee at truvista.net>, <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 VERT
Message-ID: <8BBDEE6B30D54A68B801D082776B50FC at MAIN>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=original
There is no matching system at the base, and the antenna is pretty short.
The SWR should be higher than 3:1 except losses are involved. System loss
will tend to lower the SWR. The worse antenna efficiency becomes (within
limits), the lower SWR will become.
You could add a shunt capacitor from the feedpoint to ground (directly
across the coax) or an inductor across the coax. You probably are going to
need 35 ohms of capacitive or inductive reactance shunting the coax, and to
retune the antenna with that reactance there. That would be a 2400 pF
capacitor or a 3.1 uH inductor shunting the coax. The inductor would be
about 10 turns 2 inches in diameter, and might be easiest.
Then you just retune it to resonance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don" <w4dee at truvista.net>
To: <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 8:49 PM
Subject: Topband: 160 VERT
>I put up on of K6MM?s helically Wound 160 vert can not get SWR down
> I put up k6mm Helically wound vert for 160 but can not get SWR below 3:1 I
> have 8 - 1/4 wave radials of 16 awg wire out . Any suggestions you can
> offer would be appreciated
>
> W4DEE
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4257/8948 - Release Date: 01/17/15
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:57:25 -0500
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
To: "Ron Feutz" <feutz at wctc.net>, "Topband" <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage on Ice
Message-ID: <3738775A41544F02818CC4E5D687C475 at MAIN>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
> I laid out 1000' of #14 stranded, insulated wire. I terminated it with a
> 200 ohm resistor to a 1/4 wave wire and several short radials running
> nearly parallel to the antenna/grounding wires. At the feed end, I used a
> 4/1 homebrew transformer using one of "Tom's" binocular cores. The
> transformer was grounded to a conventional 8' ground rod.
>
> The antenna never worked at all, as far as I could tell. There was no
> discernable, certainly not usable, directivity. Why, I don't have a clue.
> The techniques chosen were the result of all the best advice I could get
> at the time on the topband reflector.
>
I'm afraid antennas like that are severely length constrained, because they
are slow wave structures.
The velocity factor of an antenna laying on or surrounded by ice is pretty
slow. This will limit how long you can make an antenna before the pattern
falls apart.
Insulation will not mitigate this problem, because the issue is the
proportion of electric field in the media (ice) around the antenna compared
to other dielectrics.
If we consider the dielectric constant 3, maximum length would be 250 feet
and it would be quite length critical. Too short or too long and pattern
would fall apart.
The impedance is also a lot higher than you might expect. It is nothing like
a BOG laid on normal dirt. It doesn't even act like a Beverage because of
the extremely slow wave velocity.
73 Tom
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:27:18 -0500
From: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy at gmail.com>
To: Tom W8JI <w8ji at w8ji.com>
Cc: Ron Feutz <feutz at wctc.net>, Topband <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage on Ice
Message-ID:
<CANckpc1NJY4exbcCa244SvfMu6Fas2oxLHEp-ge-Z3YXwq-pTQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The 1000 feet of wire trenched in ice was doomed from the start.
160m BOG's longer than 220 feet start to not model well, and start to not
perform well. One can easily model a BOG that has a pattern *reversal*. The
various serious quirks of BOG's make them unpopular. And so they are not
well-researched.
Based on BOG-related measurements and experience (not modeling) I can
pretty well guarantee that an Ice-BOG of 1000 feet would not work well. It
has been interesting to figure out how to model a BOG so that the model
agrees with reality. The most accurate results require NEC4, which can
handle wires which are slightly underground.
The beverage technique of terminating the far end of a wire in what amounts
to a characteristic impedance, to zero the standing wave on the wire, does
not produce an optimum BOG.
As Tom has stated, the antenna is dominated by the fact that signals on the
wire and incoming from the air move at vastly different speeds.
Understanding the velocity factor on a BOG wire in its *individual* setting
is key to success. The best modeled patterns USE that difference to
advantage, to optimize pattern. Not at all like a beverage.
To that end, "beverage on ground" is a misnomer. What is called a BOG is
really a ground mounted low velocity factor RX antenna, which has its own
set of rules.
For just one, notching the BOG into the ground at installation prevents a
large change in velocity factor as over seasons the wire gradually works
itself through the grass and into the dirt. To get the BOG adjusted and
with a somewhat constant behavior really requires that the BOG be UNDER
ground, notched into the actual dirt, not up in the grass.
In truth, both "beverage" and "on" the ground, the "B" and "O" of BOG, are
misnomers for optimal installations. If you want the acronym to actually
mean something correct, what we call a BOG is a GLVF ( Ground installed Low
Velocity Factor) antenna, following its own set of rules. Doing a GLVF
antenna in ice would imply possible issues, also correct, reference Tom's
commentary.
The BOG's pattern will also vary with the ground's water content, which is
in turn varying the velocity factor and the best termination strategy. This
IMHO, along with the wire gradually growing down into the grass, is mainly
responsible for the difficulty in obtaining repeatable results and
unsatisfactory results. This implies setting up the BOG in wet conditions
anywhere other than desert. At contest time, a dried out BOG can be brought
back to the setup performance with a garden hose. Try doing that in reverse.
I stand by my original statement of 220 feet for an Ice-BOG. And for
mechanical reasons, notched into the ice, using insulated flexweave.
73, Guy.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Tom W8JI <w8ji at w8ji.com> wrote:
> I laid out 1000' of #14 stranded, insulated wire. I terminated it with a
>> 200 ohm resistor to a 1/4 wave wire and several short radials running
>> nearly parallel to the antenna/grounding wires. At the feed end, I used
a
>> 4/1 homebrew transformer using one of "Tom's" binocular cores. The
>> transformer was grounded to a conventional 8' ground rod.
>>
>> The antenna never worked at all, as far as I could tell. There was no
>> discernable, certainly not usable, directivity. Why, I don't have a
clue.
>> The techniques chosen were the result of all the best advice I could get
at
>> the time on the topband reflector.
>>
>>
> I'm afraid antennas like that are severely length constrained, because
> they are slow wave structures.
>
> The velocity factor of an antenna laying on or surrounded by ice is pretty
> slow. This will limit how long you can make an antenna before the pattern
> falls apart.
>
> Insulation will not mitigate this problem, because the issue is the
> proportion of electric field in the media (ice) around the antenna
compared
> to other dielectrics.
>
> If we consider the dielectric constant 3, maximum length would be 250 feet
> and it would be quite length critical. Too short or too long and pattern
> would fall apart.
>
> The impedance is also a lot higher than you might expect. It is nothing
> like a BOG laid on normal dirt. It doesn't even act like a Beverage
because
> of the extremely slow wave velocity.
>
> 73 Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:36:58 -0600
From: Mike Waters <mikewate at gmail.com>
To: Topband <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage on Ice
Message-ID:
<CA+FxYXiYPeKxjg7kGfrPHjG4iBvojeN5X9V-2qUoWzfZLpVTzg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
IIRC, the dielectric constant of pure ice is over 80. :-) While looking it
up, I found that it varies with frequency, temperature, and any dissolved
content.
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/64D/jresv64Dn4p357_A1b.pdf
This begs the question, Exactly how much might the performance of a
Beverage vary between summer (the ground under a Beverage completely
thawed) and winter with a frost depth of several feet?
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Tom W8JI <w8ji at w8ji.com> wrote:
>
> The velocity factor of an antenna laying on or surrounded by ice is pretty
> slow. ...
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:58:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Roger Parsons via Topband <topband at contesting.com>
To: Topband <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: Beverage on Ice
Message-ID:
<712418824.3036606.1421625515559.JavaMail.yahoo at jws106113.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think I give up on this project.
Firstly, I can think of no way to reliably retrieve the wire in the spring,
no matter what gauge it is and as has been pointed out that could be
hazardous to wildlife.
Secondly, it would seem unlikely that it will work very well, and as I have
plenty of space for real Beverages I will concentrate on those.
73 RogerVE3ZI
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
------------------------------
End of Topband Digest, Vol 145, Issue 19
****************************************
More information about the Topband
mailing list