Topband: Baker Island DXpedition on 160

[Gary Smith]

I only have 20 & 15 confirmed, sure hoping 
for 160, might not be around for the next 
DXpedetion.

73,

Gary
KA1J

> Granted that summer is not the best time but your efforts in
> activating this rare country are greatly appreciated. Good luck and
> "god speed".
> 
> 73,
> Larry
> N7DD
> 
> Sent by Larry
> 
> On Jun 13, 2018, at 12:26 PM, GEORGE WALLNER <aa7jv at atlanticbb.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband