Re: P Hifer 13555 khz
Thanks for confirming that, Bill. There was certainly no mistaking P late this afternoon in SE Kansas, Didn't copy it this morning when the eastern HiFERs were doing well, but it was the loudest thing on the band around 4 PM--at times, stronger than the mid-band ISM racket.
When I first tuned down there, I thought it was a local, since it was running between S3 and S5 on the meter. That's comparable to the strength of the groundwave I got when I operated my beacon in town and monitored it out at the farm. Over the course of time, however, it became apparent that this one wasn't local, as it ranged from a low of S2 up to S9. A 42 dB QSB range is typical of a skywave signal originating outside the first skip zone; and combined with complete audibility the whole time, that suggests a power level which might be, shall we say, inconvenient to express in milliwatts. Even CODAR couldn't compete with it.
I'll do a more complete report on the day's monitoring tomorrow. I had some success with a few HiFERs I hadn't heard in a while...much better than I can say about the LowFER band today, where a couple of puzzling issues apparently cropped up since my last trip to the field.
John
Re: P Hifer 13555 khz
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 01, 2018 at 16:53:47.
In reply to Re: P Hifer 13555 khz posted by John Davis on February 01, 2018
John, Thanks for the info.
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927Khz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Posted by Jerry Parker on February 02, 2018 at 18:35:08.
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927Khz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Or listen online at:
WEB SDR KFS
http://69.27.184.62:8901/?tune=3927lsb
click on the autonotch to get rid of heterodynes
Hope to see you there
KFS WebSDR in California
69.27.184.62
Jerry Work in progress re. the binders of western Update; reply to JD
WA6OWR
Posted by Steve McGreevy on February 04, 2018 at 00:50:20.
In reply to Re: Big Giveaway of all... (Email & Spam Concern) posted by John Davis on January 04, 2018
Hi John,
Yeah, sri for long time to reply, but thinking about it, yes, why would I worry so much. Anyway, for now and the future those concerns are no(w) MOOT! [edit 02/04/2018] I would like to be able to offer my long-time expriences in LF to others old and newcomers alike.
Thanks for your entertainaing articles and for your longtime, stalwart LOWDOWN work! Without yourself I think the LWCA would be massively poorer. Your efforts remind me of Jim Ericson (EK) / (sk) long time friend I met in the Bay Area in 1985 and we began chatting on the ham radio and did TLX to EK experiments. He re-made the Western Upddates into a similar upgrade you did to LOWDOWN.
I STILL am getting all of the old WESTERN UPDATE binders ***scanned*** before I give them to RICK and the project is tedious and LONG!! I started a long ago thread begun with mention of this, and I have been awfully pre-occupied with non-radio and radio pursuits since then, a good radio project of late such as the improvement (nice keying no clicks) for op. on 474.7 kHz with 25w input - aN IRF-540 based xmtr that would make a nice tiny NDB today. I am going to do CW on 474.7 kHz (CW only) late tonight. I really upgraded the MF/LF xmting capabilities of antenna systems.
I overslept but will try someday/week on 75m sat. net. I used to be on it a lot but not in 8 yrs. time marches on... 73 John - sri but thanks again for my complaints but your addressing it- concerns MOOT now, U did a nice job!
Steve McGreevy
I did a dumb typo last post; I am QRV on 630 meters tonight! (CW) 474.7 kHz
Posted by Steve McGreevy on February 04, 2018 at 01:02:41.
In reply to Work in progress re. the binders of western Update; reply to JD posted by Steve McGreevy on February 04, 2018
OOPS! - I meant my concerns re. spam, etc. from LWCA site scanning bots receiving spam is now MOOT, rather than my dumbly mispelled "not MOOT"
Hey - as such, I look forward to posting as much as I can if anyone has queries, and esp. help to newcomers of this incredible realm of electromagnetism. Steve McGreevy - N6NKS
Agn: QRV 474.7 kHz 630m A1A/CW with 25w input to 25 ft. vertical tied with a sloper-loop and exc. ground system. Alkaline soil nearby the Owens Lake makes for awesome groundwave until the next mountain ranges in this desert. The xmtr is homebrew 4060-based divide by 16 driver to booster pair of NPSs to an IRF-540 p.a. 25 watts input: - 1.3 amps DC input; 22.8 volt supply to p.a.; 900 mA antenna current now. Shades of my lowfering days and the stuff I learned beg. in the mid-80s!!
I WILL CALL CW beg at 0600z 04 Feb 2018 on 474.7 kHz CW/AiA about 10-15 WPM. I can listen via TS-480 and homebrew VLF-MF (SA602-based) converter. Hig sensitivity and lo-noise, happily now I axed the nasty malfunctioning UPS spewing noise and birdies all over...
I still put on LOWfer "R" on 182.448 kHz (simple NDB-like ident, no DAID) for DXing trips - it has good groundwave out 50 miles as rx'd on an active whip that is loop-coupled (slips over the radio's case and loopstick, to one of my 2 Sony ICF-SW7600GRs - the radios I take DXing around the world! 73 for now - Steve McGreevy N6NKS
www.auroralchorus.com
Owens Valley DX tunnel!!
Posted by Steve McGreevy on February 04, 2018 at 01:19:18.
A few weeks ago - actually back in August 2017, I noticed that Vancouver MW stations bomb in on my car rx. along a stretch of CA-190 south of Owens dry Lake (CBU 690 overrides XEWW; 730 peaks; others too. This is routine!! and recurring! Sigs peak by 10dB compared to Keeler with (which has) some mtn. blockage to BC. Same for NDBs via 2 expeditions to Dirty Socks Hot springs (where I will go monday a.m. to DX and ELF listen). NDBs from BC and WA as well as AK have a very low-angle (less than 3 deg horizon!) path along a line about 340 deg. true- brng. azimuth) to the listening-places along 190 highway and while driving. it is an *amazing enhancement* thanks to the "trough" of the Owens Valley, Calif. (eastern sirerra) -
Bishop, CA; Pyramid Lake, NV; Lakeview, OR; Madras, OR; Seattle/Puget sound/Vancouver and beyond all line-up and skip is wonderful to those areas.
I might even attempt a portable 630m trip over there to the 190 spots - likely DirtySocks HotSprings, and take advantage of the salty/alkaline soil/ earth for ground-plane, and a short vert. with my big honking 25 watt input- 630 M CW rig.
I would love to work VE7SL - Steve McDonald, with whom I chatted with on 6 meters for 1.5 hours a few summers ago "Hey Steve" I shouted on 6m 50.125 MHz: - he comes back: "I would not have answered another "6" but heard my name" -- OMG, Steve it is you! We chatted for a long time, asking whether the band had faded yet (naw, just long hour of S9 plus 20 dB over between myself in Keeler (N6NKS) to VE7SL in Mayne Isl, BC. on 50.180 MHz. So I hope to work Steve on 630m this winter!
Steve VE7SL, are U out there? SpM Re: Winter Field Day anyone?
====
QRV 474.7 kHz - CW / 0600z onwards - 04 Feb. 2018. I will make long CQs and might switch to QRSS and call CQ, then will listen for conventional CW but will record to decode QRSS too. 73 steve mcgreevy
=====
OK - maybe not 100% LWCA stuff, but I think ham 630m has relevance here, as I learned how to build good class-E/class-F switching MosFET power-/final-amps thanks to lowfering beg. in 1985! (TLX Marin 181.71 kHz beg in 1985...). Weak sig listening techniques also apply like they do to NDB DXing...-s-
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 04, 2018 at 02:25:42.
In reply to Winter Field Day anyone? posted by Chuck, N1KGY on January 25, 2018
Hi Chuck,
I was not aware but now I am! Good other than summer QRN-sity season, Hi! I am QRV on 474.72 kHz this evening after tuning-up an upgraded home-brew xmtr that puts out 25 watts input to p.a. - IRF-540 based with div. by 16 (4060-based) exciter. the thing can be a medfer bcn too - even can power it down to pt. 15 status, hi! the thing xmts down to the 1750 M band also. QRO though for new 630m privs.
73 Steve - N6NKS
agn tnx for the heads-up! -s-
68.5 is CHINA time sigs similar to 60 kHz WWVB
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 04, 2018 at 02:28:22.
In reply to VLF at Quartzfest posted by Ward K7PO on January 27, 2018
Ward,
I hear the Chinese BCD-time-stn. on 68.5 but not nearly as well as 40 kHz JJY (like 10 dB down from JJY usually) . I think it is BPM from Xian - a city I visited in Nov. 2013 -- was so amazing...
good catch - it is a weakie - Steve
3rd & 4th Feb Hifers
Posted by ed holland on February 05, 2018 at 17:34:26.
Just a quick report on Saturday's listening Around 15:15 PST/23:15UTC. At the watering hole, I noted a trace of NC and SIW using Spectrum LAb, but no others were detectable. However there was a big lift for PCO, and it was plain copy by ear - a lovely clean signal, with some slow fading minute to minute.
Sunday listening around 16:00 PST, often a fair time, revealed a quiet band - even the constant drones around 13,560 were subdued.
/Ed
Re: Winter Field Day anyone?
Posted by Chuck, N1KGY on February 05, 2018 at 20:06:47.
In reply to Re: Winter Field Day anyone? posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 04, 2018
Glad you're interested, Steve. WFD is a fun gig, particularly for neophyte CW OPs - the bands are less saturated than ARRL's June FD event, the categories and bonuses are pretty generous, and the pace is generally a bit slower than the 'big contests', so it's a perfect opportunity for those looking to get their feet wet in operating CW from the field.
Re: 3rd & 4th Feb Hifers
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 06, 2018 at 15:14:14.
In reply to 3rd & 4th Feb Hifers posted by ed holland on February 05, 2018
Ed Thanks for the PCO report...your the only one that ever hears it...your in the hot spot...PVC has eluded me every time I listen for it...and that is every day.
Re: 3rd & 4th Feb Hifers
Posted by ed holland on February 07, 2018 at 20:54:24.
In reply to Re: 3rd & 4th Feb Hifers posted by Bill Hensel on February 06, 2018
Thanks Bill,
PVC has received only two other reports than from you, so I guess that makes sense. It would be nice to reach further afield.
Listening might be problematic this weekend. I have the long-wire, but the coax to my trusty dipole was cut by accident yesterday. I plan to re-run it with new, better connections - If the parts arrive on time..
Cheers
Ed
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927Khz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Posted by Jerry Parker on February 09, 2018 at 16:32:01.
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927Khz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Or listen online at:
WEB SDR KFS
http://69.27.184.62:8901/?tune=3927lsb
click on the autonotch to get rid of hetrodines
Hope to see you there
KFS WebSDR in California
69.27.184.62
Jerry FCH Fresno QRT ?
WA6OWR
Posted by jimvm on February 09, 2018 at 18:31:41.
Blow torch NDB FCH on 345 kHz off the air.
Still listed on sectional chart.
jim vm Re: FCH Fresno QRT ?
Posted by jimvm on February 09, 2018 at 18:36:10.
In reply to FCH Fresno QRT ? posted by jimvm on February 09, 2018
Make that 344 kHz. I was listening on USB. PVC back on and some hifers
Posted by Ed Holland on February 11, 2018 at 04:34:28.
Hi Folks,
My apologies, PVC was accidentally switched off all week. Now back on
Meanwhile I had a short listening session Circa 16:30 PST/ 00:30z, catching rather little except a trace that lined up well with SIW and another for KC7MMI in the 13,563.XXX and nearby regions. Also something on GNK's frequency but which was unreadable. Checking the 13,555.xxx watering hole yielded nothing at all today.
This, after replacing the coax line to my favourite receiving dipole after a transgression by landscapers broke through the coax feed. I pulled a new cable, reburied, climbed a ladder into the tree to connect etc. etc. Also I replaced all connectors with new weatherproof upgrades. The result - I think a definite improvement in signal level which should be good news for HiFER listeing.
Cheers,
Ed
The Luxembourg Effect
Posted by Mike Terry on February 11, 2018 at 08:00:27.
An interesting article
http://wshu.org/post/luxembourg-effect
Re: Owens Valley DX tunnel!!
Posted by Steve on February 11, 2018 at 19:42:40.
In reply to Owens Valley DX tunnel!! posted by Steve McGreevy on February 04, 2018
Hey Steve...I'm here! Lets set up a 630m sked. It sounds like you can just do CW and not JT9, which appears to be the dominant two-way mode on 630 at present.... maybe drop me some e-mail: ve7sl at shaw.ca and we can give it a try. Twenty-two states worked from here so far on your new band!
73 Steve
Re: The Luxembourg Effect
Posted by John Davis on February 12, 2018 at 01:02:00.
In reply to The Luxembourg Effect posted by Mike Terry on February 11, 2018
A very interesting article. Much of the content will be familiar to readers of The LOWDOWN from our feature on Tellegen a year or two ago, in a segment on him and some of his contemporaries subtitled "The Era of the Bernards." I do have to disagree with the author on a couple of comparatively minor points, however.
First, it's true that the good professor was one of the workers who developed the tetrode, but many people were doing the same thing at that time. His own results were not early enough to give Philips patent rights to the device in the US; that honor went to the teams of Albert Hull and Irving Langmuir at GE. Ironically, Tellegen did provide the motivation for an Anglo-American invention, the beam tetrode, because of his success with the pentode tube. That one, Philips did manage to patent just about everywhere...and charged a pretty hefty license fee and royalties to manufacture!
Radio manufacturers glommed onto the tetrode in the 20s in hopes that higher gain per stage could be achieved (meaning fewer tubes/valves per set and thereby also lower royalty costs), and that neutralization might not be required (another necessary royalty when triode RF amplifiers were used). After investing time and money updating circuits, manufacturers were dismayed to realize that tetrodes came with a whole new set of instabilities all their own--mainly relating to secondary emission causing negative resistance effects at the screen grid. And, sometimes, neutralization was still necessary at higher RF. It didn't take long for Tellegen and Gilles Holst to invent the pentode in 1926, which readily overcame those problems. But by then, most radio manufacturers (at least, here in the States) felt "once bitten, twice shy" and turned up their noses at the newfangled gadget. Some American tube manufacturers got licensed to build them anyway, but didn't make a lot of money at it.
About a decade later, EMI had an alternative in the form of the beam tetrode, but didn't think it could be manufactured readily. RCA thought otherwise, bought rights to do so, and succeeded in 1936. Thus were born the 6L6 and 807 and their many descendants. (Shortly thereafter, the problem of secondary emission in non-beam tetrodes was also solved by the addition of coatings to the anodes, or replacing metal ones with graphite.) Pentodes thus lost their chance to dominate AF and RF power amplifiers, but remained relevant in receivers as HF and VHF coverage became more important.
Second, the author did not explain the physical action of the Luxembourg Effect very well, and jumps to some questionable conclusions as a result. Those will impact anyone trying to detect examples of Luxembourg Effect per his suggestions. As with HAARP experiments, the modulation results from thermal excitation of the ions. This has several consequences. One of these is that the effect is more likely to be seen on signals in the AM broadcast band than other frequencies, and is most likely to result from modulated carriers at even lower frequencies...of which there are now far fewer than in the 1950s.
Another consequence is that thermal processes have an inherent time constant that acts as a low-pass filter. Think of modulating a flashlight that has an incandescent bulb (remember them?) with an audio source, and detecting its light with a photocell. You can actually transmit voice that way, but the time constant of the filament suppresses higher frequencies, leaving the audio sounding muffled. The same thing is an oft-reported characteristic of Luxembourg Effect...important to remember if you think you're hearing an example of the effect.
When he states that an FM signal will not result in the effect, he is correct for two reasons: the amplitude envelope is constant, and the frequencies used for any kind of FM are well above the electron gyrofrequency and are therefore unlikely to cause much ionospheric heating except at the extreme power levels of HAARP when the antenna gain is included. But he claims that CW won't cause it either, which is not true if the modulating signal (a) is on-off keying, and (b) is at a frequency that will excite the ions adequately, such as LF. The catch is, to observe that kind of interaction, you'd probably need to do it visually with a sensitive S-meter; there won't be a beat note audible by ear, just a modest carrier level variation. It may have actually happened many times in the past, but so far as I know, nobody has ever actually searched for Luxembourg Effect that way. Nowadays it would be very hard to do, since there are no regular high-power CW LF stations any more.
It will be hard enough to detect Luxembourg modulation superimposed on AM signals anyway in modern times. Back in the Thirties, the modulation density of AM broadcasts was pretty low. Speech, and even most music, had a relatively low average-to-peak power ratio because audio compression and peak limiting were minimal...even non-existent at many stations. By the 1950s, most AM broadcasters employed peak limiting and at least some AGC, which increased the loudness somewhat; but since the Sixties, most broadcast audio processing has explicitly been for the sake of enhancing loudness. This alone may be a big reason Luxembourg Effect is seldom reported in modern times...the crossmodulation is probably a lot harder to notice under the main program.
Still, it should be fun to try.
John
Navtex T/A record for me
Posted by John Bruce McCreath on February 13, 2018 at 14:45:22.
The T/A last night wasn’t just for JT9 and WSPR on LF and MF. I managed to log five
full Navtex messages from $01K, GNI, Niton, England, over a distance of 5,847 km.
It’s not my furthest DX, but it’s a record for my log in T/A decodes!
73, J.B., VE3EAR
LowFER Beacon "EAR"
188.830 kHz. QRSS30
EN93dr
Re: FCH Fresno QRT ?
Posted by KR7O on February 13, 2018 at 19:14:36.
In reply to Re: FCH Fresno QRT ? posted by jimvm on February 09, 2018
FCH is QRT. According to a local ham and pilot, it was decommissioned a few weeks ago due to FAA cost cutting.
630m Beacon
Posted by Joe VO1NA on February 14, 2018 at 01:58:44.
Running a CW beacon for a few days on 477.7 kHz, ERP 2 watts. QTH GN37 eastern Canada.
Reports welcome.
73 Re: FCH Fresno QRT ?
Joe VO1NA
Posted by jimvm on February 14, 2018 at 02:45:15.
In reply to Re: FCH Fresno QRT ? posted by KR7O on February 13, 2018
That leaves only 2 daytime NDB's I can copy now (TCY & MOG).
FCH was always the strongest and I used to verify equipment was working.
Nighttime is really hot now with Canada beacons everywhere!
73 jim vm
LowFERs & HiFERs Note: CME Enroute
Posted by John Davis on February 14, 2018 at 02:55:44.
From spaceweather.com:
On Feb. 12th, the magnetic canopy of sunspot AR2699 exploded--for more than 6 hours. The slow-motion blast produced a C1-class solar flare and hurled a coronal mass ejection (CME) almost directly toward Earth. .... The CME could arrive as early as Feb. 14th, although Feb 15th is more likely. NOAA forecasters say there is a 60% chance of G1-class geomagnetic storms with isolated periods of stronger G2 storming. The effectiveness of the CME could be enhanced by a stream of solar wind that was already en route to Earth when the sunspot exploded. If the approaching CME sweeps up plasma from that stream, snowplow-style, it could strike Earth's magnetic field with extra potency.
John
The Very Late News: WV, PBJ, FRC, ESA, others on Jan. 31
Posted by John Davis on February 14, 2018 at 09:43:10.
Well, drat! I just spent over two hours composing the message I promised you two weeks ago today as a follow-up to my report on P pouring into Kansas (so to speak) on Wednesday the 31st, including more details on the LF watering hole debacle/mystery. When I went to send the message, I got a File Not Found response because I'd forgotten to rename one critical file on the server after some quick maintenance during the evening. My post went off into the cyber-afterlife, irretrievably and permanently! I sincerely apologize if the same happened to anyone else tonight too. All is fixed now. I no longer have time tonight to recreate the intended post, so please watch for more later.
Essential Headline: ESA COPIED LATE AFTERNOON JAN 31!
The reception of ESA was a prime illustration of why I once recommended that even CW beacon operators should ideally include a QRSS letter in their ID occasionally, or at least a long dash after some number of call signs. The fact is, QRSS can display carriers at levels that simply cannot be heard. Visual tools can be used by a monitor to provide a clue that he may be about to finally copy an elusive signal by ear!
When I tuned to the vicinity of ESA that afternoon, nothing of the signal was immediately evident to eye nor ear. I had no idea how close it might be to the listed frequency, or even whether it was on the air right then. All I started out with was the vague hope that propagation might be favorable, since K6FRC, which had been barely visible during the morning, was more consistently visible and frequently audible during the afternoon.
When the first dash of ESA appeared on screen, it could have been a stray carrier from any random signal source. And indeed, QSB for a time made it appear that might be the case. But I kept watching, and it became evident that through the fades a pattern of periodicity was emerging. Also, the dash had a downward curving of 1-2 Hz in frequency each time, characteristic of oscillators built around an HCMOS gate. As more time passed, I could see fuzz preceding the dashes, and finally it became clear to the ear that those were sidebands of on-off keying. Later I could detect one or two distinct letters per cycle, and once in a while, a full ID! It faded out entirely a little after 4 PM CST.
In the attached capture, I've designated examples of barely detecting keying with a k, partial IDs audible with a p, and fully audible IDs with an f.
Of course, it's also possible to identify the visual signatures of stations you've already heard at least once by various incidental properties of their keying sidebands, frequency drift, etc. I know that Ed H. often sees the distinctively symmetrical sideband pattern of PCO's ID before he can hear it, and that's also how I know when to spend time on the channel trying to obtain aural copy, too. We do the same with GNK's and FRC's sidebands, and with the ocean-swell frequency drifts of AZ and WV. That's all good and well once you've heard and seen them a time or two.
But when someone's hunting a station for the first time, especially one whose operating frequency might not be precisely known, it'd really be beneficial to transmit as little as a long dash or a single letter that can be recognized at QRSS3 (be it OOK, FSK, or DFCW) as part of their ID format along with CW. It'd give those of us who have the tools--but not necessarily unlimited time to wait for the evil pixies who control the ionosphere to favor us with luck--to use that information to find your signal more readily.
More on the rest of the reception from that day later.
John
---------------------------------------------------------------
File Attachment 1: 21jan-ESA.jpg
Re: The Very Late News: WV, PBJ, FRC, ESA, others on Jan. 31
Thanks for the signal report, John (my first).
The oscillator is always running and a single hc gate is used for the output to a
K3LR 5 section filter.
I am now using a hamstik loaded whip (7 feet) instead of the MFJ 17 foot telescoping whip. The MFJ kept collapsing with the wind and raised the resonant frequency.
73 jim vm Re: 630m Beacon
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 14, 2018 at 20:46:00.
In reply to 630m Beacon posted by Joe VO1NA on February 14, 2018
Hi Joe Re: 630m Beacon
I have been tuning around your frequency , nothing yet. Are you running QRSS or CW? I use spectran up around 477.7. I may make a sked to try a QSO on QRSS3 with John KB5NJD on 572.5.
later....
Sal, K1RGO
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 14, 2018 at 20:48:55.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 14, 2018
Correction, sked with KB5NJD on 472.5 kHZ, typo.....hi
Re: 630m Beacon
Posted by Joe VO1NA on February 14, 2018 at 23:57:31.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 14, 2018
Hi Sal,
It's 12WPM CW. We can try QRSS if you are interested.
73, Re: 630m Beacon
Joe
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 15, 2018 at 01:56:31.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Joe VO1NA on February 14, 2018
HJoe Re: 630m Beacon
I am tuned to 477.7 right now , not hearing ur cw beacon. I have spectranset for QRSS3 right now if you want to try .
listening for a while as of now
Sal
Posted by John, W1TAG on February 15, 2018 at 03:09:31.
In reply to 630m Beacon posted by Joe VO1NA on February 14, 2018
Joe,
Lots of QSB, but you're clearly readable on peaks here in central MA tonight. Using an Icom R75 with an external 30 Hz audio filter.
John, W1TAG
Re: 630m Beacon
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 15, 2018 at 03:11:47.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Joe VO1NA on February 14, 2018
Hi Joe Re: The Very Late News: WV, PBJ, FRC, ESA, others on Jan. 31
I did copy very weakly,with QSB,on 477.7 kHz, your beacon at 02:18 and 02:53 utc this evening.
later.
Sal
Posted by John Davis on February 15, 2018 at 03:58:08.
In reply to Re: The Very Late News: WV, PBJ, FRC, ESA, others on Jan. 31 posted by jimvm on February 14, 2018
I'd been wondering how the MFJ telescoping whip would hold up mechanically under different conditions. Sorry to hear about the wind issue...we've got a lot of that around here as a rule, so I reckon I'd best plan on something more durable for unattended operation, too.
I thought I saw a couple instances of the dash again this afternoon while I was out in the field, but CODAR was a real pest today and its lines made it impossible to be sure.
HiFERs 13 Feb: EH Invades USC; WV, PCO, FRC, AZ and RY Appear
Posted by John Davis on February 15, 2018 at 05:53:45.
Weather cooperated for another trip to the field again today. The morning session revealed EH up at 13555.500, stomping all over USC. NC was present around .580 with a fair signal. WV came in with some fades, a few Hz higher than usual today. RF was strong with appreciable QSB at times. Nobody else showed up before I broke to watch the SIW transition at 185 kHz; a report on this tomorrow.
By 3:30 PM CST, RY had joined NC and EH (still high in frequency) at the watering hole, and USC was gone for the day. No more WV, either. There seemed to be more activity in general, so I checked out more of the list than usual, but nobody out of the ordinary came in until I got to PCO, which appeared to be 20 or 25 Hz higher than the last time I saw it. Visually, it looked strong enough to be audible, but was surrounded by lots of stray carriers. Finally, I was able to discern a P and C by ear between the random beat notes, but just then it began to fade out again. RF was apparently gone for the day too.
Recalling an earlier observation that an appearance by PCO sometimes portends an opening to AZ, I first made a quick stop at FRC, my usual indicator of westward openings, but only a faint trace was visible. Tuning on down to 13,554.1 then (enroute I found "P" to be blasting in again), AZ was immediately audible right at 4:00 PM. After four or five minutes it faded away too, so I returned to K6FRC's spot in time to see and hear a nice signal there. All in all, worth the effort!
John
PVC and FRC from Pine, Co
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 15, 2018 at 15:55:39.
Feb 15 time 1443 utc PVC was strong for about 1 min. then faded out. First time in a while since I heard PVC...I guess it has to be on for anyone to hear it. Re: PVC and FRC from Pine, Co
At 1440 FRC was strong for about 1 min then faded out.
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 15, 2018 at 16:17:01.
In reply to PVC and FRC from Pine, Co posted by Bill Hensel on February 15, 2018
The time should have been 1543 for PVC Re: PVC and FRC from Pine, Co
and 1540 utc for FRC
as I type this PVC is back in there at 1616 utc
Posted by ed Holland on February 15, 2018 at 17:07:32.
In reply to Re: PVC and FRC from Pine, Co posted by Bill Hensel on February 15, 2018
Thanks for the report Bill,
Good job I had PVC turned back on. Absent minded fellow that I am, It had been off until Monday evening.
Operation must be suspended whilst I listen for others - and here is where I fall down, in forgetting to push the button at the end of the session.
Regards,
Ed
Re: 630m Beacon
Posted by Joe VO1NA on February 16, 2018 at 00:56:09.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 15, 2018
Hi John and Sal,
Many thanks for taking a listen and for your perseverance in getting a copy.
The beacon is qrv again tonight.
73 & TNX Re: 630m Beacon
Joe
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 16, 2018 at 03:16:06.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Joe VO1NA on February 16, 2018
Hi Joe Reminder: Lowfer net 3927Khz Saturday morning 0800 California time
There is a carrier on 477.7 here , when QSB takes it out then I have a window to copy you.
At some time we should try QRSS. If you can QSY a bit it can avoid that QRM.
Later...
Sal
Posted by Jerry Parker on February 16, 2018 at 15:01:39.
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927 kHz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Or listen online at:
WEB SDR KFS
http://69.27.184.62:8901/?tune=3927lsb
click on the autonotch to get rid of heterodynes
Hope to see you there
KFS WebSDR in California
69.27.184.62
Jerry PCO, RF
WA6OWR
Posted by Frank Cathell on February 17, 2018 at 23:25:56.
Copied PCO and RF Hifers about noon time today in Tucson. Very weak but ID easy copy.
Re: PCO, RF
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 18, 2018 at 20:48:37.
In reply to PCO, RF posted by Frank Cathell on February 17, 2018
Always nice to get a report on little PCO
E and H Field Measurements
Posted by Frank Lotito on February 19, 2018 at 13:32:17.
Maybe this topic has already been addressed? If not - Has anyone used "drones" to carry E and / or H field antennas into the blue sky in an attempt to measure the near and far field antenna pattern of short (dimensions short compared to the operating wave length) or full sized antennas? For short antennas this might be an excellent way to validate mathematical modeling results (eg EZNEC) by making in-situ real world measurements. 630 M sked with Steve in BC
..
73 Frank Lotito K3DZ / WH2XHA
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 21, 2018 at 11:39:26.
In reply to Re: Owens Valley DX tunnel!! posted by Steve on February 11, 2018
Hiya Steve,
Nice to hear from you since our long 6-meter chat quite a bitars ago... Yeah, only conventional old fashioned CW here - somehow I never got too excited at connecting a computer to a transmitter wither hamming or experimental radio work, so I remain old-school like Mike Mideke, and a few others. The wavery PSK signals I do hear - I even have to look up how "JT9" works... I just returned from an unexpected trip. My 630m xmtr does 33 watts input, with peerhaps a 300 mW output. The band is a noise-bath in Keeler - no way to get away unless a DXped., but then I can op the xmtr on 23 volts, only 12 unless I bring two 12v batteries - logistics I need to iron out and it is very cold again here (down to -3C lately). I need to do some planning - it sure would be good to link up. 22 states is impressive - I guess thay all have higher ERP than my estimated 300 mW - hi. Steve Mcgreevy - N6NKS
Re: FCH Fresno QRT ?
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 21, 2018 at 11:46:03.
In reply to Re: FCH Fresno QRT ? posted by KR7O on February 13, 2018
Indeed FCH was a big groundwave "pest" here in the southern Owens Valley but now gone - I last heard them early January. Way back in 1981 they were my first NDB DX from Marin County with TWEB back then. They will be missed for reasons such as cool short-skip effects (at 100 miles away/160 km) and dramatic QSB at sunset/sunrise (dusk/dawn periods) making for a cool propagation NDB for that kind of skip. The nearby Sierra Nevada Mtns. really attenuated their groundwave signal making these effects of QSB neat to observe. Steve
WSPR-15 overnight
Posted by John Bruce McCreath on February 21, 2018 at 13:40:52.
I set up for WSPR-15 on 137 kHz. last evening, using my VE7SL style 10 foot loop
aimed across the pond in the faint hope of logging someone. Alas, no such luck,
so it’s back to 474.200 and WSPR-2 for Wed/Thur night.
73, J.B., VE3EAR
LowFER Beacon "EAR"
188.830 kHz. QRSS30
EN93dr
Re: 630m Beacon
Posted by Joe VO1NA on February 21, 2018 at 17:44:59.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 16, 2018
Hi Sal,
Thanks for your efforts. The TX is on QRSS10 on 477.7 kHz until tomorrow 1100 utc.
Good luck if you wish to try a reception.
Joe
Re: 630 M sked with Steve in BC
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 22, 2018 at 00:32:27.
In reply to 630 M sked with Steve in BC posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 21, 2018
Steve in BC and others:
I can run about a ~300 mW ERP CW/A1A 5 WPM ident 630m beacon on 474.72 kHz is any one wishes... 73 steve (the freq is otherwise devoid of signals etc.) 73 steve m.
Re: 630 M sked with Steve in BC
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 22, 2018 at 00:37:37.
In reply to Re: 630 M sked with Steve in BC posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 22, 2018
Oh, the xmtr is an IRF-540 based unit divde by 16 4060 signal generator and gatg-shain to comp apir transistor driver to the IRF-540 in switching (90 % efic!) MosFET p.a., prety neat - does 33 watts input (22.8 volts at 14. amps input).
ERP is 20 dB down (~300 mW) hrd 100km and 160 km away fine...
steve N6NKS
Maybe we could do a slow QSO Steve if your ERP is high enough I could go out back and hear a CW reponse or trail a quiet wire out and see if I could hear your CW sigs - the old fashioned auroral way - me being so analogue in preferences... except for IT stuff... but I love the emote SDRS like SDR.HU.
73 all - Steve M. N6NKS
maybe some day JT9 as I have now studeid - hey real slow and narrow-band PSK how cool!!
Re: 630 M sked with Steve in BC
Posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 22, 2018 at 00:40:58.
In reply to Re: 630 M sked with Steve in BC posted by Stephen McGreevy on February 22, 2018
Oh Dear so many typoes - I am too sleepy, hi! The xmtr: 33 watts input to a maze of wire and 6 meter vert with unmbrlla. huge voltage on top of coil/variometer that was once H2 in Descanso by Frank cathell. I inherited his lowfer coil... the unit is now 22.8 volts on the IRF-540 and 1.4 amps draw, pardon the dufus typos above time for a pre sunset nap... pre DX session nap, hi!
QRV AiA bcn 474.72 kHz ~300 mW ERP if any one wishes...
73 thanks agn steve n6nks
Re: E and H Field Measurements
Posted by John Davis on February 22, 2018 at 00:57:30.
In reply to E and H Field Measurements posted by Frank Lotito on February 19, 2018
A very good question, Frank, and if you get a positive result from any inquiries elsewhere I hope you'll pass along the news here as well. I was looking into the matter myself a few months ago, and if health permits, I hope to be doing some RF studies later this year that would be facilitated if such a technique proves practical.
Up to now, all I've found are anecdotal reports of RF safety compliance instruments being flown around VHF and UHF antennas. Such devices tend to be lighter and more compact than your average Potomac FIM-22 or -41! :)
I considered custom designing suitable field meters, but even at best, the full package of measurement, location, and recording hardware will likely need a UAS of sufficient size to require an operator's certificate. I don't expect that to be a problem, but I do worry that electrical noise from a larger craft might be enough to affect readings at MF and LF.
For those reasons, I'd also been considering a somewhat lower tech alternate approach: a balloon. It might require one or two extra pairs of hands to navigate by tethers, but snacks and beverages for helpers could be less expensive than a drone if the project doesn't extend over too long a time.
John
ESA daid
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 23, 2018 at 00:53:40.
Feb. 22 time 0047 utc copied ESA ESA ESA with long dash 13565.85 khz Re: ESA daid
This is a new one for me...any info. on this hifer?
Posted by John Davis on February 23, 2018 at 01:37:28.
In reply to ESA daid posted by Bill Hensel on February 23, 2018
ESA is from WB6QZL in Olivehurst, CA. It's in our list. A couple of recent posts about it:
Jim's announcement - lwca.org/mb/msg/7513.htm
Received here Jan 31 - lwca.org/mb/msg/7599.htm
Jim's reply to report - lwca.org/mb/msg/7600.htm
John
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927Khz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Posted by Jerry Parker on February 24, 2018 at 01:03:12.
Reminder: Lowfer net 3927 kHz Saturday morning 0800 California time
Or listen online at:
WEB SDR KFS
http://69.27.184.62:8901/?tune=3927lsb
click on the autonotch to get rid of heterodynes
Hope to see you there
KFS WebSDR in California
69.27.184.62
Jerry Re: 630m Beacon
WA6OWR
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 24, 2018 at 02:40:07.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Joe VO1NA on February 21, 2018
Hi Joe iMac: Any ARGO-like software available?
I copied part of your QRSS10 on 477.7 tonight at around 02:10 utc a 1 on specrtan QRSS3 mode, switched to QRSS10 mode and copied part of N then A and V and one dash of the 1 and then the signal dropped out.I ran spectran for several minutes later with no copy.
later
Sal,K1RGO
Posted by Dave N4EF on February 24, 2018 at 11:49:40.
I use ARGO for hifer activity on an old noisy laptop -- but I've inherited my XYL's iMac and want an ARGO-like program for iMac.
Which software will perform like ARGO for an Apple computer?
Dave
Re: iMac: Any ARGO-like software available?
Posted by John Davis on February 24, 2018 at 21:55:06.
In reply to iMac: Any ARGO-like software available? posted by Dave N4EF on February 24, 2018
Dave wrote:
Which software will perform like ARGO for an Apple computer?
I haven't tried this myself, not owning a Mac, but I'd suggest doing what some Linux users do: run ARGO itself with the Wine emulator, which is also available for Mac OS X v10.8 or higher.
(I know, I know...Wine is one of those self-referential acronyms that are so beloved in the X-world, and like GNU standing for "Gnu's Not Unix," WINE originally meant "Wine Is Not an Emulator" according to the organization behind it ( www.winehq.org ). I agree when they say it's not a virtual machine, but IMO, calling it a compatibility layer does it an injustice. If all it had to do was convince the installed operating system that the executable file was legitimate, that would be compatibility; but it also translates Windows API calls to POSIX calls on the fly, and has to convince the app that it's receiving Windows Messages and data in the proper format in return. As someone who has done some coding of that sort myself, I'd call that emulation in its best and purest form!)
Anyway, semantics aside...I recommend using good old ARGO that way if it works for you. It's very hard to find anything similar for the Macintosh, where most spectrum analyzers seem to be for music recording workstations. And the search itself can be dangerous--see the paragraph after next!
As for radio-specific applications, Black Cat Systems offers the Godafoss QRSS viewer for iPhones, but nothing similar for Mac. There's a Mac program called iSpectrum, but it's customized for bandwidths and speeds more suited to satellite tracking. I've run across a couple of SDR spectrum display programs, too, but didn't find any that appeared to do QRSS. And, there are some that provide displays for external RF spectrum analyzer hardware, but those are not helpful.
In fact, one of the Web pages Google found for the latter (Touchstone by RF Explorer) is corrupted and tried to install malware the moment I opened it! It was one of those attacks that starts with a message that "Microsoft has found a virus on your computer that is uploading your credit card information," etc., and you're supposed to give permission to install an alleged fix...which actually is malware. Problem is, any button you click will do that, except for the [X] in the corner of the browser window, which is disabled. I've seen that sort of attack before and knew that the only way out is a hard shutdown of the machine, followed by a thorough scan after restarting. I was fortunate in three ways: there is NO credit card information on my computers, I've seen the attack before, and I was using "ancient, insecure" IE 11 that asks before re-opening a crashed browser session, rather than "safe" Firefox which simply goes ahead and immediately tries to open the crashed page again (see: definition of insanity). :)
Re: 630m Beacon
Posted by Joe VO1NA on February 25, 2018 at 01:19:08.
In reply to Re: 630m Beacon posted by Sal,K1RGO on February 24, 2018
Hi Sal,
Thanks for the report. I just started the TX again for tonight (0041 25 Feb UTC). Hopefully conditions will be better tonight.
73 List of 2200m QSO Stations
Joe
Posted by Paul N1BUG on February 25, 2018 at 12:12:51.
Continuing work started by Roger, VE7VV, I am maintaining a list of stations who have made or are capable of making two way amateur radio QSOs on the 2200 meter band. The list has three categories: one for those who have completed at least one QSO, one for QSO capable in search of their first QSO, and one for building with intent to be QSO capable. Where known, it also includes mode capability and EIRP info, best DX, and kilometers per watt.
I always have an ear to the ground but I cannot know everything that happens without help from the community. If you have information which would help complete this list, please let me know! The accuracy and success of this list will only be as good as the support received. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.
2200 Meter QSO Stations List
Re: iMac: Any ARGO-like software available?
Posted by Dave on February 25, 2018 at 13:37:17.
In reply to Re: iMac: Any ARGO-like software available? posted by John Davis on February 24, 2018
Thanks John!
I'll give it a go and will file a report for others who may want to know if I'm successful.
Dave GNK the big dog this morning
Posted by Bill Hensel on February 25, 2018 at 14:57:54.
Feb 25 Time 1440utc GNK armchair copy. It has been a few weeks or more that
GNK has floated into Pine, Co and landed on my antenna. I keep a paper log of the 22 mtr band and it is always fun to look back in time and see what was happening with the
little Hifers a year ago.
No other beacons were heard except PCO which resides in my back yard. It will be interesting to see beacons are heard later in the day. You have to love photons. Re: List of 2200m QSO Stations
Posted by Joe VO1NA on February 25, 2018 at 21:43:02.
In reply to List of 2200m QSO Stations posted by Paul N1BUG on February 25, 2018
Hi Paul,
I've been following your work on the LF reflector. Well done!
2200m here: 1 watt EIRP, best DX 6600m, several 2x QSOs, CW, DFCW and QRSS.
73 WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test
Joe VO1NA
Posted by Paul N1BUG on February 26, 2018 at 20:35:18.
Yesterday's release of WSJT-X 1.9.0rc2 came with this note:
"Improved decoding performance for WSPR mode, especially effective
at LF and MF". I wanted to put this to the test so overnight I ran
four instances of WSJT-X:
1.8.0 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG/1
1.9.0rc2 on both LF and MF using the call sign N1BUG
All spots were uploaded to WSPRnet.
Both decoders on LF were fed the same audio stream. The setup is a simple SDR providing I/Q input to a physical sound card, HDSDR software output into a virtual audio cable, both versions of WSJT-X taking input from the output of that virtual cable.
The MF setup was the same except using a different SDR feeding a different physical sound card.
I used identical settings in all four instances of WSJT-X with the exception of different input audio source (virtual cable) for LF and MF.
All of this was running in Windows 10.
I watched incoming spots very closely for the first several hours.
There was not much activity on LF at the time but on MF I saw 1.9 decode many WSPR transmissions that 1.8 failed to decode. Some of these were extreme weak signal down to -32 with barely visible traces on the waterfall. Others were not with some clearly visible and decoding up to -23 in 1.9, yet no decode in 1.8 despite being very clear on the waterfall in that version. I did not see a single instance where 1.8 decoded something that 1.9 failed to decode.
This morning I took a quick look at statistics:
MF - During a 12 hour period ending 1145z, 1.9 decoded a total of 933 WSPR transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 883.
LF - During a 12 hour period ending 1150z, 1.9 decoded 253 WSPR transmissions while 1.8 decoded only 183.
In all of this I do not see any obvious spurious decodes from either version. No strange call signs or stations displaced on the map from where you would expect them to be.
I was not expecting to see such a large difference. I make no claim that this result is representative of what others will see. I am simply reporting the results of an experiment carried out here.
73, Re: List of 2200m QSO Stations
Paul N1BUG
Posted by Paul N1BUG on February 27, 2018 at 02:51:16.
In reply to Re: List of 2200m QSO Stations posted by Joe VO1NA on February 25, 2018
Hi Joe,
Excellent! I will get you added first thing in the morning when I get my eyes open. I would be very interested in trying to work you on CW.
73 OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners
Paul N1BUG
Posted by John Bruce McCreath on February 27, 2018 at 14:47:47.
I know it's off topic, but I want to tap the brain trust here for suggestions. I'm in need of a four-port amplified splitter to use with my scanners. Frequency coverage of 30 to 50 mHz., 108 to 174 mHz., and 400 to 450 mHz. is required.
73, J.B., VE3EAR WSJT-X 1.9 v 1.8 second night
Posted by Paul N1BUG on February 27, 2018 at 22:05:55.
In reply to WSJT-X 1.9 vs 1.8 WSPR decoding test posted by Paul N1BUG (fwd) on February 26, 2018
Last night 1.9 continued to have a clear advantage but by a much
narrower margin that the first night.
In 12 hours ending 1100z:
LF 178 decodes with 1.9, 174 with 1.8
MF 890 decodes wtih 1.9, 838 with 1.8
Maybe propagation is the reason? Joe Taylor offered this information regarding the new WSPR decoder:
You may be interested to know a bit more about how this enhancement works -- and why it's so effective at LF and MF but provides little or no advantage at HF. All of the JT modes use continuous-phase frequency-shift keying (CPFSK), but with the exception of MSK144 the software demoduators estimate soft-symbol values independently for each symbol interval. In other words, we generally do not take advantage of the phase continuity that should exist across symbol boundaries. The new WSPR demodulator treats received data coherently in blocks up to 3 symbols long. If the radio channel is stable enough, we find the resulting WSPR sensitivity threshold is approximately -31.5 dB. The scheme provides no benefit at HF because even a block size of two symbols (about 1.4 s) generally exceeds the coherence time of the HF channel.
My parallel 1.9 vs 1.8 test will continue on both LF and MF.
73, Re: WSJT-X 1.9 v 1.8 second night
Paul N1BUG
Posted by Garry K3SIW on February 27, 2018 at 22:09:32.
In reply to WSJT-X 1.9 v 1.8 second night posted by Paul N1BUG (fwd by JD) on February 27, 2018
Paul, I ran a parallel WSJT-X1.9 vs 1.8 test last night too, listening mainly on 474.2 kHz (1333 decodes) but also copying some signals on 136.0 kHz (28 decodes) and 74.1 kHz (16 decodes). I found the difference to be NIL for SNR on the single station active on 74.1 kHz and only 3 of 16 decodes differed from zero DT. On 136 kHz I copied 4 different stations whose SNRs agreed exactly on 27 of 28 cases (1.9 decoded one case at SNR=-31 dB that 1.8 missed). There was a small DT difference in just one of the 27 shared cases. On 474.2 kHz 1.8 decoded 2 signals at SNR=-32 dB while 1.9 decoded them and 3 more. At SNR=-31 dB 1.8 decoded 5 cases while 1.9 decoded them and 3 more. Version 1.9 decoded 1333 cases in common with 1.8 but also included 18 more. Both programs erroneously decoded the call VG4FSE once and each program had one more bogus decode (ED5/086JQX for 1.8 and RSB/BP1LSV 1.9). Overall the decoding ability of 1.9 was only slightly better than 1.8, but it can pull through weak signals that otherwise would be missed. Earlier in the afternoon one station not a part of the current data set regularly decoded via ground wave at -32 dB SNR with 1.9 while 1.8 gave nothing. And of course there are other reasons like features, ease of use, more information displayed, etc. to make 1.9 a desirable upgrade. -- Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
Re: OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners
I wonder if the radio shack amplified TV distribution amplifiers would be suitable, they often had four outputs and one input and even a grain control and FM trap on/off switch. The number is 15-1168C. Maybe look on ebay. For 75ohm system with F-connectors.
VE7BDQ Re: OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners
Posted by John Davis on February 28, 2018 at 03:55:32.
In reply to Re: OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners posted by John BDQ on February 28, 2018
Your suggestion for John brings back some memories, John. In the 90s I used such amplifiers in a couple of ways at a small radio station in Georgia that was striving to modernize with absolutely no budget. I don't remember if it was the 15-1168 or the 15-1119 or maybe the 15-1107 we used for splitting a discone antenna to multiple scanners...one for our remote pickup (outside broadcast) unit, and a couple for news monitoring. It worked pretty well, and if I recall, even better after we added another FM band notch ahead of it. But we had no law agencies using 30-50 MHz in the area, so I cannot address whether or how well it would have worked in that low VHF band.
Another unit similar to it was employed at the 70 MHz IF output of a home-type C-band satellite receiver to distribute multiple-carrier-per-channel FM signals of radio networks with which they were affiliated. One network furnished its own demodulator, but a Radio Shack TV audio tuner and an FM tuner did the demodulating for the other networks, and a consumer-grade dbx noise reduction system (sorta) decompressed the companded audio. The homebrew arrangement involved a lot of ongoing fussing, but did the job for several dozens of dollars instead of a few thousand.
The noise figures of the RS models we used, whichever they were, could have been better and they were subject to overload, but the essential point is that they mostly worked OK for us. Today, there are inline VHF-UHF amplifiers with more modest gain that (at least claim) considerably better noise figures, which might be usable with an inexpensive TV splitter...or better yet, a Mini-Circuits 4-way splitter. (However, "reversible" cable preamps may have gain farther below 50 MHz, but only in the opposite direction.) Just a thought.
John
Re: OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners
Posted by John BDQ on February 28, 2018 at 05:04:02.
In reply to Re: OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners posted by John Davis on February 28, 2018
Years ago our cable vision company was wanting to charge extra each month for each TV set outlet connected to their system, so using one of those instead of the usual 5dB loss splitter worked good. JB's message reminded me of my hookup here, tried it with a couple of vhf/uhf receivers, think it worked okay but subject to overload from the paging systems rattling away at the time.
VE7BDQ OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners
Posted by John Bruce McCreath on February 28, 2018 at 14:27:57.
In reply to Re: OT - Amp/Splitter for scanners posted by John BDQ on February 28, 2018
Hi guys....thanks for you suggestions. I found a HDTV 4 port distribution amplifier at Walmart which I have ordered and am expecting delivery next Monday. I'll let you know how it works after a few days of listening.
73, J.B., VE3EAR
potrzebie