[TowerTalk] Wire Antennas Only For Field Day

Wed Jul 5 16:44:20 EDT 2017

I know -- its not a contest. But is IS a gateway to the hard stuff
(contests).

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Tom Osborne <w7why1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nothing to level.  It's not a contest :-)  74
> Tom W7WHY
>
> On Jul 5, 2017 11:07 AM, "Russ Dearmore via TowerTalk" <
> towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> >   I was wondering if in the past FD was regulated to only wire antennas.
> > It would seem to be a way to level the playing field for all participants
> > and add a stealthy aspect to the weekend.  There's something about
> aluminum
> > beams and even verticals that seem a bit out of place when considering
> that
> > we are practicing for dire emergency situations.  Although I don't see us
> > being invaded anytime soon (Hi) the added consideration would give a bit
> > more meaning to the exercise...  Possibly an additional weekend contest
> > with these points emphasized or additional points awarded in some manner
> to
> > the existing field day.  (I haven't read all the rules on FD so please
> > forgive me if those rules already exist).  By the way I'm not suggesting
> > that anyone is doing anything improper by using aluminum.     A fun
> sprint
> > type contest would be to use battery powered radios like military models
> > until all batteries expired.  Just some ideas to challenge us to improve
> > our sport...   Russ  K5ZZR
> >
> >
> >
> >       From: "towertalk-request at contesting.com" <
> > towertalk-request at contesting.com>
> >  To: towertalk at contesting.com
> >  Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 11:01 AM
> >  Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 175, Issue 10
> >
> > Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> >     towertalk at contesting.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >     towertalk-request at contesting.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >     towertalk-owner at contesting.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: Field Day (Kim Elmore)
> >   2. Re: Field Day (Ed Sawyer)
> >   3. Re: Field Day (Kim Elmore)
> > At our club we make certain that our dipoles are strung end-to-end at
> > nearly the same height. We also make liberal use of common mode chokes
> > on both ends the the transmission lines for each station. This seems to
> > work for us relatively well as we can usually operate phone and CW on
> > the same band without much, if any, interference. I always run CW and I
> > sometimes hear some trash form the phone station. This year we traced it
> > down to a philosophy of "all knobs to the right" on the phone
> > transmitter (an IC-7300). I was using  my Kenwood TS-930S with the INRAD
> > roofing filter in the 40 MHz IF. With that mod, it has become a pretty
> > stout receiver, on par with my Orion II ( which I've had to FD in the
> > past) if the signals are ~100 kHz apart. More separation would always
> > help, but we'd still strive to keep the dipoles end-to end and at nearly
> > the same height.
> >
> > Kim Elmore N5OP
> >
> > On 7/3/2017 11:13 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 06:52:42 -0700
> > > From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
> > > To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Field Day
> > >
> > > <We (N7KE) haven't had the lack of interference others note re same
> band
> > > <operation on FD.  So am looking for ideas about what to chase or
> > improve.
> > >
> > > <Operating 2A on two separate generators - Honda inverter 1000EU, no
> > > <interconnections of stations
> > >
> > > We experience lot's of buzz from cw into ssb, need to get as far up the
> > > band as possible.  Reverse also true.  About the same level of trouble
> > > as last year with the beams 75' closer together.
> > >
> > > Tried a new vertical 40m dipole this year on ssb and noticed less
> > > problems, which was expected with the crossed polarization.
> > >
> > >
> > > Any designs for 100w same band filters appreciated.
> > >
> > > Grant KZ1W
> > >
> > > ##  band pass filters, each being 7000-7300, probably are not going to
> > do much good,
> > > if 2 x xcvrs used on the same band, say 40m cw..and 40m ssb.  Heres a
> > thought though.
> > > I see ICE and others make band pass filters for the warc bands, like
> 100
> > khz wide for 17+12M,
> > > and only 50 khz wide for 30M band.    If they can make a 50 khz wide
> > band pass filter for 30M
> > > band, they, or somebody should be able to make any BW  filter you want.
> >   IE:  say 7000-7050,
> > > or  7000-7075  for  40m CW.... then  perhaps 7100-7300 for  40m ssb, or
> > perhaps  7150-7300,etc.
> > >
> > > ##  Or perhaps an LP filter  for 40m CW..with a sharp cut off at
> > whatever upper freq u want, like perhaps
> > > 7050, 7070, etc.    Then say a HP  filter, again with a sharp cut off,
> > for  40M  ssb, like 7100 khz.
> > >
> > > ##  6 or 8 pole xtal filters, custom made, might be of some
> benefit...on
> > RX only. Same deal, like  7000-7070
> > > etc, for cw....and something similar for 40m SSB.  But if the 40m  SSB
> > station has broadband TX IMD,
> > > the CW station  will still RX the imd,  but less of it.
> > >
> > > ##  I believe a band pass filter is just a combo LP + HP filter in
> > series.  Perhaps a bandpass filter for 40M
> > > cw use, but with a sharper cut off for the LP filter portion.  And a
> > band pass filter for 40M SSB, but with a
> > > sharper cut off for the HP filter portion.  Band pass  filters that
> > would handle 100-200 w, with the above
> > > narrow widths, might well chop off some of the broad band trash, hash,
> > buzz, imd,clicks, etc on  TX.
> > >
> > > ##  A stand alone, tunable high Q RX pre-selector might be of some
> > benefit.  The TX imd on ssb, with the K3
> > > running 100w out, will not be wonderful on the CW stations K3...on RX.
> > This is where you want  real low TX
> > > IMD...on ssb....and no clix at all on cw.
> > >
> > > Jim  VE7RF
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TowerTalk mailing list
> > > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
> > SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
> >
> > /"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
> > practice, there is." //– Attributed to many people; it’s so true that it
> > doesn’t matter who said it./
> >
> >
> > I have done quite a bit of "in band" low power 2 radio work.  At 100 W, 2
> > A4
> > tribanders, tip to tip, 225ft separation  should have still audible
> sounds
> > on the cross band portion CW vs SSB - maybe 2 - 3 S units.  However 10 -
> > 15dB of attenuation on the receivers should kill it if it becomes
> > bothersome.  If you are not seeing that, consider grounding the systems
> > together and trying other radios (making sure the SSB radio is not over
> > driving).
> >
> >
> >
> > I have cross polarized 10, 15, 20M systems that are separated by 200 -
> 400
> > feet and they are virtually silent on the noise floor 25khz away - same
> > mode
> > band - using 100W.  Using amps, you can hear them but the 15dB of pad
> kills
> > it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 40 - 160, try running a long - directional beverage, separated and to
> > the
> > side of the antenna if you have the room.  At 100W, and with the improved
> > S/N ratio, you should do really well.  Potentially both stations could
> use
> > the same beverage for receive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed  N1UR
> >
> >
> >
> > 'Zactly. The value of 10-15 dB of attenuation can work wonders.
> >
> > Kim N5OP
> >
> >
> > On 7/4/2017 5:48 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> > > I have done quite a bit of "in band" low power 2 radio work.  At 100 W,
> > 2 A4
> > > tribanders, tip to tip, 225ft separation  should have still audible
> > sounds
> > > on the cross band portion CW vs SSB - maybe 2 - 3 S units.  However 10
> -
> > > 15dB of attenuation on the receivers should kill it if it becomes
> > > bothersome.  If you are not seeing that, consider grounding the systems
> > > together and trying other radios (making sure the SSB radio is not over
> > > driving).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have cross polarized 10, 15, 20M systems that are separated by 200 -
> > 400
> > > feet and they are virtually silent on the noise floor 25khz away - same
> > mode
> > > band - using 100W.  Using amps, you can hear them but the 15dB of pad
> > kills
> > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 40 - 160, try running a long - directional beverage, separated and
> to
> > the
> > > side of the antenna if you have the room.  At 100W, and with the
> improved
> > > S/N ratio, you should do really well.  Potentially both stations could
> > use
> > > the same beverage for receive.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed  N1UR
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TowerTalk mailing list
> > > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
> > SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
> >
> > /"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
> > practice, there is." //– Attributed to many people; it’s so true that it
> > doesn’t matter who said it./
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>