Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 147, Issue 25
Rune Øye
runeegil at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 24 15:48:45 EDT 2015
Hi All,
I have sent some direct mails, however info can be downloaded via filemail.com. This was done since the document was more than 200MB.
If all work as it should you should be able to download the info via this link I hope :-) Just copy and paste the link.
https://www.filemail.com/d/nrrtyfaszkbnpbb
73 Rune LA7THA
> From: topband-request at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 147, Issue 25
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:01:10 -0400
>
> 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: Rune ?ye shared (Lee K7TJR)
> 2. Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems (John Crovelli)
> 3. Re: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems
> (Bob Garrett)
> 4. Re: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems
> (Victor Goncharsky)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:32:03 -0700
> From: "Lee K7TJR" <k7tjr at msn.com>
> To: <runeegil at hotmail.com>
> Cc: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Rune ?ye shared
> Message-ID: <COL402-EAS42756FD4235221C550F21B1F50D0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Greetings Rune,
> Your selection of 30 ohms for the 90 degree cable is likely the cause.
> If you calculate 90 degrees of cable looking into 16.5 ohms you actually
> get 54.55 ohms transformation.
> If you had a cable combination that was 28.7 ohms instead of 30 you would
> get your near perfect match.
> Or if your antenna was actually 18 ohms and a 30 ohm cable you would have a
> match.
> I don?t think just changing your matching cable length will help that much.
> Someone else may have more information on that.
> Perhaps a little extra length on your element with a bit of parallel
> capacitance at the driving point to get the resistance up to 18 ohms would
> work.
> Parallel capacitance could be made up with extra length on the matching
> cable.
> Lee K7TJR OR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rune via
> Dropbox via Topband
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:47 AM
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Rune ?ye shared "1_4wave_transformer.docx" with you
>
> Rune's message:
>
> "Hi all,
>
> Regarding 1/4 transformer I sent earlier today
>
> I sent an mail earlier today but didn't know that I couldn't add attachment,
> however here is a link to drop box to share the document.
>
> 73 Rune LA7THA"
>
> Click here to view:
> https://www.dropbox.com/l/0QSKn8NZifyHPLW1iSjnzg?text=1
>
> (Rune shared this file using Dropbox. Enjoy!) _________________ Topband
> Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:07:47 -0400
> From: John Crovelli <w2gd at hotmail.com>
> To: "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX Systems
> Message-ID: <BLU174-W2119421A901CBCE5BF3A47890A0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> This has been a great discussion.....nearly 50 posts on the remote RX question this week....nice job everyone.....we even managed to keep it fairly 'civil'.
> I went back and read all of your posts a second time, and selected some of the observations and suggestions for this summary discussion which is solely contest oriented. I am purposely avoiding any discussion of comments about concerns with DXCC rules, proliferation of full remote station operation (private or public), rule changes designed to change contest scoring systems, etc. This is simply about how using remote RX solutions impact contest results.
> 1. There are many traditionalists among us who sum up their feelings about top band operation with this phrase:
> "160 Is Hard....And We Like It That Way" .
> 2. Many feel there is a legitimate "price of entry" for success on top band.....there should be no free ride nor few plug and play solutions. This concept takes different forms, whether it be securing property in a quiet RF location, designing and building bigger or more efficient antenna systems, etc. Few hold the belief or have the expectation that there should be equality among 160 stations, either geographically or technically.
> 3. If you are or expect to be a serious competitor in the major 160 contests, you want those in your class of entry to abide by the letter and spirit of the rules as written. Shame on you for running excess power or for using remote receivers in EU, JA, SA or the USA.
> 4. Noise problems are an almost universal problem for top band operators, casual and serious alike, and this represents a rather significant hurdle for many in their quest to participate in 160 meter contesting. Some station owners feel it is so important they go to extreme lengths to "borrow' or purchase a quiet location...often at significant personal expense. Some concentrate on building the best TX and RX antennas possible within their location's space limitations. Some work diligently with power companies and neighbors to reduce the noise floor. And so far a relative few 160 operators use internet enabled solutions (such as remote RX systems) to make 160 meter operation minimally viable. There are many paths that can be taken.
> 5. There seems to be agreement among respondents that a valid CONTEST QSO occurs when the TX and RX antennas of the two stations involved are co-located within a 500 meter circle at each end of the circuit.
> 6. There is general agreement that remote station operation is acceptable in contesting as long as all TX and RX antennas of the remote station are co-located at the same remote station location, and all applicable government regulations are followed by the owners and operators.
> 7. There is general agreement that the use of HYBRID RX antenna systems, e.g. a mix of both on-site and remote RX antenna systems, would significantly change the competitive environment under existing rules and entry classes, effectively creating an unfair advantage for entrants/stations that achieve effective full duplex operational capability (a technical achievement which is exceptionally difficult to accomplish on 160 meters at stations where RX and TX antennas are co-located).
> 8. There are situations (particularly in urban areas) where the noise problem is so overwhelming that 160 meter operation at a meaningful competitive level is impossible. Operators in this situation are seeking relief through the rules, specifically requesting permission to use remote RX systems connected to the TX location via the internet or other means.
>
> Below are possible rule changes I would feel comfortable with since they maintain the current competitive environment, yet address special situations where remote RX would increase contest participation and enjoyment:
> A. Create NEW and SEPARATE entry classes for SO, SOA and multi-operator entrants who use remotely located RX systems for 160 meter contest operations.
> B. Remote RX systems must be no more than 100 km from the TX antenna location.
> C. HYBRID RX antenna systems are NOT PERMITTED (see #7 above).
>
> Thanks again for your interest in this subject and your thoughtful comments.
> Regards,
> John, W2GD
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:18:46 -0400
> From: "Bob Garrett" <rgarrett5 at comcast.net>
> To: "'John Crovelli'" <w2gd at hotmail.com>, <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX
> Systems
> Message-ID: <007301d065e1$3de10b30$b9a32190$@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello John et al,
>
> Nice summary.
>
> As someone who is certainly new to contesting but not to chasing DX on 160
> meters, here are my thoughts regarding remote receivers.
>
> Yes, Topband is hard! If it was easy, everyone would do it and those of us
> who have achieved numbers over 300 countries worked would be plentiful.
> I've always said, it takes hours of listening, constantly looking to
> improving RX antennas and taking the time to do your best to figure out when
> propagation will be best for your area and the DX. If remote receivers are
> permitted, like John stated, they should be severely restricted to close
> proximity to the transmit antenna. Perhaps another category should also be
> considered but, I'll leave that up to the true contest guys. I don't feel
> qualified to comment on that issue.
>
> In closing I repeat, Topband is hard! That is part of the challenge and
> attraction to the band that keeps us TB enthusiasts coming back year after
> year trying to work "another one" loosing many hours of sleep and being
> totally dedicated to this fascinating band. I would truly hate to see a
> change in the rules that would take away the TB challenges and attraction.
>
>
> 73, Bob K3UL
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:21:34 +0300
> From: Victor Goncharsky <us5we at bk.ru>
> To: John Crovelli <w2gd at hotmail.com>, Topband <topband at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Additional Comments on Impact of Remote RX
> Systems
> Message-ID: <1427178094.374915725 at f343.i.mail.ru>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi John,
> I vote for solution B
>
> >B. Remote RX systems must be no more than 100 km from the TX antenna location.
> >
> >Thanks again for your interest in this subject and your thoughtful comments.
> >Regards,
> >John, W2GD
> >
> >?
> >_________________
> >Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> --
> 73, Victor Goncharsky US5WE/K1WE (UW5W in VHF contests, ex UB5WE), P.E.
> UARL Technical and VHF Committies
> DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone)
> DXCC card checker (160 meters).
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 147, Issue 25
> ****************************************
More information about the Topband
mailing list