Topband: Strange propagation

Mike Waters mikewate at
Thu Jan 14 17:42:51 EST 2016

Dave, Herb, et al:

Respectfully, RHR is likely here to stay, like it or not. If you want to
try and change that, fine. But I am not going to let that --or how others
use RHR to their advantage-- bother me. :-)

I get a warm fuzzy feeling of deep contentment operating the 160 meter
station that I built --and largely designed-- at minimal cost with my own
two hands and with what's left of my brain. (Well, my XYL, KD0LAJ helped
with those antennas. ;-) The inverted-L and the tuner. Both 2-wire Beverage
antennas and the control systems for them. The preamps.
The only things I paid money for were parts, such as ferrite cores,
connectors, wire/coax, and other components. I also built a unique
legal-limit amplifier for 160 from junk and hamfest parts.

Others might disagree (and I have no problem whatsoever with that), but
that's why I enjoy amateur radio: build something, and then get on the
radio and see how well it works. And when it does (like breaking a DX
pileup with only 100 watts), I run upstairs all exited so that I can share
my excitement with my wife.

And I'm not alone.* So, why should we let what others do upset us?
Gentlemen, let's just have fun doing our own thing on 160 (at least most of
the time. :-)*

Having said that, I can appreciate that you might want to win a contest,
and feel that RHR is unfair. I don't disagree with that. But is it
realistic to think that anyone can change that? From what I've read, that's
not likely. (End of psychology dissertation. ;-)

On another note ...

I'm now at the point where I'm actually getting somewhat bored with 160m.
It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing.
The "new" has worn off; after operating for over 5 years with the same
setup, I now pretty much know what to expect from my existing antennas now.
(Spectacular band openings are nice; however, they just don't 'pop my
clutch'. It's what we can accomplish during "normal" band conditions that
excites me.)

The only thing that will change that and restore my enthusiasm is modifying
what I have here. And I have several things on the list:

 - Modifying our Beverage antennas so that I can remotely switch the
lengths from 580' to over 800', and perhaps adding a third E-W Beverage.

 - Adding the ability to phase them against the inverted-L during receive
to null out unwanted signals and noise, using the MFJ-1025 that I've hardly
ever used

 - And adding a few more elevated radials to the inverted-L

When some of that is done, it'll be SO EXCITING again! I won't even care
about getting involved in discussions like this! ;-)

I'm not at all against anyone trying to change the RHR (or any other)
rules. *But let's keep in mind that at least part of the time, we can shut
that out of our minds and enjoy 160 meters like we used to.*

73, Mike

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs at>

> ... a former 160 meter DX pioneer ... used a 1/4 wave bent Marconi and 25
> watts to work a G station.  This is what we are or what we used to be. RHR
> I am afraid is the end of an era were perseverance and not vast amounts of
> QRO muscle and money decided who was on top. ...
> On 1/14/2016 12:43 AM, Dave Blaschke, w5un wrote:
>>   ... operating a remote station (for money) owned and managed by someone
>> else will never be as satisfying as operating your own station, built by
>> your hands. But than again, if you have no station, and are unable to build
>> one up, what's your choice? [snip]

More information about the Topband mailing list