Topband: Baker Island DXpedition on 160

[GEORGE WALLNER]

Rob,
You are right about the timing not being good, but it is way too late now to 
postpone the operation. Most of us are already in the Pacific or on a plane, 
the boat is being loaded, etc., etc.
This is the time we could get and these are the limitations we must live 
with. The circumstances at the FWS were conducive to issuing a permit this 
year. There was no guarantee that those circumstances would remain the same 
in the future. Please remember that, for Navassa we had to wait 18 years for 
the official "stars to line up". Also, fewer sunspots are supposed to be 
good for TB conditions.
As for antennas, of course taller would be better, but...we got the permit 
by agreeing, not arguing.
We have a new 160 m antenna design that I have been testing from C6AGU. With 
the help of a salt-water "ground" it will work OK. (NEC indicates a gain of 
6 dBi.)
73 and CU,
George


On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:55:10 -0500
  Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I respectfully suggest the Baker Is. dxpedition be postponed for a few
> years until band condx improve.  It makes no sense to me to mount this
> costly undertaking to a limited access location when propagation is in
> the toilet.   If USFWS is managing access, they've lately shown that
> they'll only approve trips to islands under their custodianship every
> 10 years or so.  If this is the case with Baker Is., then this trip
> will make another one in a few years impossible.
>
> Another point I'd like to make is that a later trip might afford a
> chance to renegotiate what I consider a ridiculous antenna limit,
> which seems to be based on a ridiculous antenna design, namely the "43
> foot all-band vertical."    Such a height with top loading might work
> okay on 80 meters but on 160 its efficiency will be poor.
>
> 73
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband