Topband: KH1/KH7Z TopBand Ops Brief

[GEORGE WALLNER]

Dear OM,

The ones I have worked, I heard their signals, and they are in the log. 
That's real.

George,
AA7JV

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:23:19 +0300
  uy0zg <uy0zg at mksat.net> wrote:
>
>
> "> and Ukrainian stations also logged. (Remember, this was in July!)"
>
> Hi George !
>
>
> UY5VA and US4EX - tven in winter and summer they listen only on the Internet !
>
> They do not have receiving antennas.
>
> QSO with Ukraine are not real.
>
> 73 !UY0ZG
>
>> andUkrainian stations also logged. (Remember, this was in July!)
>
> GEORGE WALLNER писал 2018-07-13 05:19:
>> Dear Top Banders,
>> Here is a brief descriptionof the recent Baker Island (KH1/HK7Z)
>> 160-meter operation.
>> Among the numerouslimitations the USFWS placed on us, being only
>> allowed on the island in June was the most onerous. A long way from
>> ideal from a low-band point of view, but we were determined to make
>> itwork. The result was over 1500 QSO-s on Top Band.
>> Transmit Antenna and Gear:
>> The location of the 160 m TXantenna was close to the north-west corner
>> of the island, but not as far north and clear of the land as we would
>> have liked it. Also, we were not able to place our TX antenna fully
>> inthe water, due to the pounding surf. (Which did destroy our 80 m
>> antennathe first night.) Instead, the 160 m TX antenna stood just at
>> the high tidewater-line, with the metal base buried in wet sand. At
>> low tide the antennabase was 30 feet from the water’s edge, but
>> fortunately the sand below theantenna was always saturated with
>> salt-water. Luckily, the tide was mostly uparound the times we were
>> working NA on TB. We were only allowed a maximum antennaheight of 43
>> feet. To meet this requirement, we designed a “fat” 160 mvertical,
>> which had three vertical wires, two of them on spreaders to make
>> theapparent diameter of the vertical conductor larger. The antenna
>> also had two12.5 m top-loading wires, which sloped down at 45-degrees.
>> The antenna had 8 radialsof various lengths, with three of them going
>> directly into the salt-water. Takeoff to the west and north-west was
>> clear over open water, but to thenorth-east (towards NA) it was over
>> land, with a 20’ high sand berm directly inthe way. The antenna was
>> fed via a remote-controlled coupler. I want to pointout that even this
>> simple, and far less than ideal, arrangement took atremendous effort
>> to build, as we had to haul the all the gear for the CW tentabout ¼
>> mile from the boat landing, working in 100 degree heat under
>> theEquatorial sun. Transmitter power was around 800 W (but
>> occasionally reduced400 W to leave more generator power for the other
>> bands). The radio was a K3S.
>> Receive Antenna: After thesecond night of operation we built a 60 foot
>> long DHDL facing north-east. Theantenna had a high-performance
>> filter/pre-amplifier. After the fourth night weadded a second DHDL
>> that faced towards Europe.
>> We were expecting easyconditions for JA (who were closer) and
>> difficult for NA. We got the opposite.The band would open to NA soon
>> after our sun-set (around 18:00 local time) withvery little noise. NA
>> callers were initially weak but easy copy. Noise wouldstart rising
>> about two hours after sun-set. Fortunately, that was about thetime the
>> gray-line was reaching the East Coast, which brought up the
>> signalswell above the noise. Some East Coast signals were quite loud.
>> As the eveningprogressed, noise continued rising as more of the
>> equatorial thunderstorms toour west came under darkness. By the time
>> the JA-s would show up (about 5 hoursafter our sun-set) noise was way
>> up, and receiving conditions were becomingdifficult. Still, some West
>> Coast stations kept coming in strong, well over thenoise, and quite
>> able to work among the numerous JA callers. Occasionally, wehad to
>> listen up for NA above 1825.00 to avoid the JA QRM, but on the long
>> runthat proved to be unnecessary. Overall, working NA was a pleasure,
>> whileworking JA (and SE Asia) was a pain due to the noise. By midnight
>> local timethe lightning crashes on the TX antenna were becoming
>> painful. Later, the DHDLRX antennas would help, but even then, many
>> signals were a better copy on theTX antenna. Almost every call was
>> different, some would be strong and clear onthe TX antenna, while
>> others could only be copied on the RX antenna. There wasalso a large
>> variation in RX conditions from night to night. On our secondnight the
>> noise was much higher than on the first night. Also, as we wereworking
>> progressively weaker stations, things were getting harder.
>> Although we knew that thechances for working western EU were basically
>> nil, we made a big effort to workas far west possible. On most
>> mornings the noise was just too much to copyanything below S7. A few
>> nights, however, conditions were favorable, and we gotas far as
>> European Russia. Conditions were the best on our last night, whenjust
>> at sunrise we got as far west as Serbia, with numerous Russian
>> andUkrainian stations also logged. (Remember, this was in July!)
>> After operating 7 straightnights on 160, my ears were ready for a
>> break. We switched to FT8 for about 5hours, using the regular QSO mode
>> (not hound-and-fox). With N1DG operating, wemade about 120 NA QSO-s in
>> about 5 hours! Just before midnight, we switched backto CW for the
>> JA-s, who are not allowed to operate FT8 in the lower part of theband.
>> The FT8 operation revealed three things: There is serious demand for
>> FT8on TB, the mode gets through the noise very well and gives modest
>> stations achance to work serious DX on TB, but it is easily dominated
>> by the strongsignals.
>> An interesting lesson fromwhat happened to our 80 meter antenna.
>> Initially, it stood on a sturdy metalbase in the water. During the
>> first night we had a storm and the surf broke upthe base (snapping ¼”
>> bolts like they were matchsticks). The surf knocked theantenna down
>> and soaked the tuner with salt-water. The next morning, we rebuiltthe
>> antenna further up the beach, but without the metal base which
>> originally connected it to the salt-water ground. Although we added a
>> good number ofradials, performance was poor, especially when compared
>> to the 160 m antenna,whose metal base was in contact with the
>> salt-water below.
>> The key lessons learned:
>> 1.  160 m DX is morethan possible in June and July.
>> 2. For good results, you mustbe on the band every night, otherwise you
>> may miss that special night when theconditions line up just perfectly.
>> 3. A salt-water ground helps,and where possible, vertical antennas
>> should stand in the water. Being up thebeach is not the same.
>> 4. RX antennas are needed towork the weaker stations.
>> 5. DXpeditions should have astation dedicated to 160 m (at night) with
>> operators who want to work 160.
>> 6. FT8 is now part of AmateurRadio, even on TB.
>> Happy DX-ing and 73,
>> George,
>> KH1/KH7Z (AA7JV)
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> -- 
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband