[TowerTalk] Wire Antennas Only For Field Day
Mike Ryan
mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com
Fri Jul 7 10:07:47 EDT 2017
Regulating field day antennas? ...more like a microcosm of the "dumbing down" of society. Where is the challenge? How and/or what do ops learn by such a move? Soon MFJ would market an officially sanctioned Field Day dipole, etc. Why not just pre-judge the logs and contacts DETERMINED by how high the sanctioned dipole was strung, how many ops were reported to have been using it, the bands they were reported to have been on, and the power they were reported to have used? Field Day in a can. Just add boredom and stir. I'll pass... -Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom Osborne
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 4:29 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Wire Antennas Only For Field Day
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
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list