Lowfer SIW QRT for the summer
Lowfer SIW is now sitting on my workbench after a good winter season of operation (thanks to Bob, NK9M for providing a great QTH for the antenna and hardware). Will do some preventative maintenance and possibly change a few things over the summer before putting it back on-line next fall.
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
TAG WOLF 185.800 kHz
Posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on May 11, 2014 at 18:33:14.
Lowfer TAG is running WOLF(10) mode on 185.800 kHz until this fall. There will be some interruptions for weekends and vacations. Reports are always welcome.
John, W1TAG
Re: info 49 mhz
Posted by robert on May 11, 2014 at 19:29:50.
In reply to Re: info 49 mhz posted by John Davis on April 17, 2014
FYI:
for those who may be interested but not familiar with the regulations for 49mhz they are located under Part 15.235 there are two different provisions under this rule part one is F/S the other is antenna and total input power limitation.
the rule is located here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2012-title47-vol1-sec15-235.xml
and is quoted as the following.
-------------------------------------------------
HiFERs May 11
§ 15.235
Operation within the band 49.82-49.90 MHz.
(a) The field strength of any emission within this band shall not exceed 10,000 microvolts/meter at 3 meters. The emission limit in this paragraph is based on measurement instrumentation employing an average detector. The provisions in § 15.35 for limiting peak emissions apply.
(b) The field strength of any emissions appearing between the band edges and up to 10 kHz above and below the band edges shall be attenuated at least 26 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier or to the general limits in § 15.209, whichever permits the higher emission levels. The field strength of any emissions removed by more than 10 kHz from the band edges shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in § 15.209. All signals exceeding 20 microvolts/meter at 3 meters shall be reported in the application for certification.
(c) For a home-built intentional radiator, as defined in § 15.23(a), operating within the band 49.82-49.90 MHz, the following standards may be employed:
(1) The RF carrier and modulation products shall be maintained within the band 49.82-49.90 MHz.
(2) The total input power to the device measured at the battery or the power line terminals shall not exceed 100 milliwatts under any condition of modulation.
(3) The antenna shall be a single element, one meter or less in length, permanently mounted on the enclosure containing the device.
(4) Emissions outside of this band shall be attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.
(5) The regulations contained in § 15.23 of this part apply to intentional radiators constructed under the provisions of this paragraph.
(d) Cordless telephones are not permitted to operate under the provisions of this section
Posted by John Davis on May 12, 2014 at 03:44:20.
The farm has become a place of physical labor lately, so I was in no hurry to go out there today, even for recreational listening... but I eventually made it there about 4 PM CDT. Despite high solar flux today and the 13 MHz MUF contour well to our north, signals were not plentiful and QSB was rapid and deep. In the first session, though, I did see USC, EH (seemingly atop another signal too weak to identify), and NC at the watering hole. There was a faint hint of another signal about 20 Hz below NC, but not enough pieces came through to identify. Up a ways, I saw PBJ and heard it a fair amount of the time. I also saw, but seldom heard, MTI.
For an hour or so, I tried for MP on 137.7805, but I knew it would be futile with S9+20 static in the way.
Returning to HiFER around 6 PM, there was definitely another signal just below NC, but still too little of it to identify. EH was definitely astride another signal, which turned out to be SIW in slant mode, and USC was still there. This time, up the dial, I could copy MTI by ear some of the time, as well as see and hear PBJ. There were lots of faint carriers where AJO should have been, and on the high side of the band the same was true where SZX and GNK should have been. Bits and pieces of what was probably FRC, but no complete call.
John
Re: HiFERs May 11
Posted by Ward K7PO on May 12, 2014 at 23:31:15.
In reply to HiFERs May 11 posted by John Davis on May 12, 2014
John,
Dayton Roadtrip 2014 has started, and I'm not doing any better than you with Hifers. Today from Estes Park, CO I heard GNK in and out about 2200Z. That's been the only Hifer since leaving AZ last friday. We went from 90's in Gila Bend, AZ to a foot of snow here north of Denver. Quite a shock for us flatlanders! Planning on heading out across Kansas tomorrow towards Dayton.
Ward K7PO
Re: HiFERs May 11
Posted by EdWSlidell,LA on May 13, 2014 at 02:05:13.
In reply to Re: HiFERs May 11 posted by Ward K7PO on May 12, 2014
Hello JD and Ward. 12 May, 2014, 2045/2100 UT. The noise here on 22m is a constant S5/S7, but GNK on ~13564KHz is getting thru, with surprising consistency. Above it, the K6FRC beacon is also being heard fairly well, but a little weaker, so the full call is only heard now and again. The Vaisala lightning counter is showing nearly 1/2 M strikes in the past two hours. The trip through Kansas might be interesting tomorrow night Toto. The line stretches from TX up through WI, but not supposed to get here till Weds. PM. Drive carefully Ward. Ed WSlidell, LA EM50cg
Re: HiFERs May 11
Posted by Ward K7PO on May 13, 2014 at 18:13:29.
In reply to Re: HiFERs May 11 posted by EdWSlidell,LA on May 13, 2014
Conditions were much better this morning, 13 May ~1520Z. Heard AZ, a new one for me, GNK, AJO, and FRC. All except AZ were weak, about a db above ESP. AZ reached 529 for a few minutes. An hour later, just east of Denver on I-70, started hearing RR on ~13.563. I don't see it in the list. Did I hear that one correctly? So far WX is fine. Tonight might be different.
Ward K7PO
Re: HiFERs May 11
Posted by John Davis on May 13, 2014 at 20:50:12.
In reply to Re: HiFERs May 11 posted by Ward K7PO on May 13, 2014
RR, eh? Must be a pirate, matey. :)
Seriously, though, that's one I haven't heard of myself. Anyone got a clue about it?
That was a pretty good selection of signals, Ward. As for AZ, was that the one that signs only 'AZ' in conventional Morse around 13.554? I'm sort of guessing so, because the 'AZ' that HiFER 'NDB' sends/sent as an alternate ident on 13,562.02 is in QRSS. It will be the first report we've received in several months for either station.
73 Re: beacon repaired
John
Posted by John Davis on May 13, 2014 at 21:15:34.
In reply to beacon repaired posted by James-AG6YM on April 30, 2014
Hi James. I'd like to include your beacon in the list, but in going over the past posts, I'm not clear on exactly which frequency and mode you are using now. Please advise. Thanks!
John
Re: HiFERs May 11
Posted by Ward K7PO on May 14, 2014 at 00:04:55.
In reply to Re: HiFERs May 11 posted by John Davis on May 13, 2014
John,
Yes, AZ on ~13.554, conventional CW. RR was pretty clear, with a long dash after each set of R's. Interesting. . .
Ward K7PO Re: HiFERs May 11
-I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto-
Posted by John Davis on May 14, 2014 at 03:21:55.
In reply to Re: HiFERs May 11 posted by Ward K7PO on May 14, 2014
Thanks, Ward. Very interesting indeed! We'll have to hope someone steps forward and claims RR.
John
Re: HiFERs May 11
Posted by Ward K7PO on May 14, 2014 at 21:26:30.
In reply to Re: HiFERs May 11 posted by John Davis on May 14, 2014
Made it to Dayton without any weather problems. No Hifers heard today except MTI. I think I've been hearing bits of MTI for the last couple days, but finally got a good ID. Part of the problem is the very slow CW. Because of the slow speed, I was missing too much in the fades to get a good ID.
Now it's time to go into hamfest mode. . .
Re: info 49 mhz
Ward K7PO
Posted by Robert on May 15, 2014 at 14:55:33.
In reply to info 49 mhz posted by Robert Rode W9ESX on April 25, 2014
Hi Robert,
i believe that group died a long time ago. i think i am still registered in that group and haven't seen activity on it in years. it was a dying group when i was approved to join back in i think 2006.
Robert / kc8gpd
Along with HiFERs...
Posted by John Davis on May 16, 2014 at 19:34:44.
Ward, when you're returning from Dayton, here's something you might want to listen out for--and anybody else, too.
You may recall that on April 26 I wrote about hearing male and female voices a few hundred Hz above 13560 in AM mode, here in SE Kansas. I couldn't tell exactly what they were talking about, other than that it was in English and they sounded like radio professionals. Heard another program at the same spot, just barely, last week. Turns out I'm not the only one "hearing things." Noted DXer Glenn Hauser, who lives a little over a hundred miles west of me in north central Oklahoma, has also heard such a signal several times over the past month or more, and has caught a few more identifiable snippets of it than I have. According to posts forwarded to the qth.net reflector (by someone who mocks Web boards such as this as archaic, while ironically getting his news through e-mail) Glenn heard references to a network specializing in big band music and old time radio shows. The latter is consistent with what little I've heard thus far.
In his reports, Glenn supposes the station to be a pirate, though he found no listings of it on certain notorious pirate-oriented sites. A reply from one Harry Smith suggested the possibility of a Part 15 microbroadcaster, which I consider rather likely as well. You may remember several years ago when Ed Gelinas amplitude modulated both his former LowFER and HiFER (KLFB and KHFB) with programming for anyone in his neighborhood with suitable receivers, and achieved a useful range of a few miles--although, perhaps, this latest one may be only quasi-Part 15, considering that the signal is sufficient to hold its own for brief periods of time against the Part 18 and RFID hash in the center of the band. The times of day when Glenn has heard the signal (evening, late night, early morning) don't quite match mine (mid-day, late afternoon, sorta-evening), and he hears it somewhat better overall. To me, this suggests that it is probably in the middle part of the country, just far enough away from both of us to be arriving by skywave, but enough closer to him to account for the greater number of times he can copy some of the program content.
For both its audibility in AM bandwidth amidst that noise, while being from enough distance to certainly be skywave, it cannot be compliant with the field strength limits. (In this band, the Part 15 limit is measured with a quasi-peak detector, meaning that if you amplitude modulate to 100%, your resting carrier power can only be 1/4 what it would be for a CW signal.) And yet, this signal is never so audible as to suggest it's an intentional pirate. Some of the ditters and beepers that haunt the band put out much stronger carriers.
So, Ward, Ed, and the rest of the gang, how about giving a listen to 13560.5 or thereabouts in AM or USB mode some time, and see what you come up with too? The more locations we can hear it from, the greater the chance we'll find out who or where it is.
John
Re: beacon repaired
Posted by AG6YM on May 17, 2014 at 23:43:53.
In reply to Re: beacon repaired posted by John Davis on May 13, 2014
The other frequency is the other XMTR, the back up. I returned the original to the air so it is still ~ 13564.28 as far as I know. It drifts quite a bit as the temperature can swing between 50 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit between day and night this time of year. As I mentioned in an earlier post the mode is FSK, but it can take on several different forms depending on temperature and supply voltage -- although most of the time it is between a sine wave and a triangle wave. I also plan to move it soon and get it up higher than 10 feet. I suspect it is not nearly as effective as it could be at this height. Also it is no longer powered by batteries. I hooked it up to a solar battery charger, and is seems to be working nicely although with a little less power 6V vs 7.2V.
Re: Along with HiFERs...
Posted by John Davis on May 18, 2014 at 08:30:34.
In reply to Along with HiFERs... posted by John Davis on May 16, 2014
The mystery station could be running enough power to be considered a deliberate pirate, after all. It was coming in remarkably well at times here in SE Kansas during the first half of the 2 AM hour.
The only other stations copiable on the band at that time were NC and USC with great faintness and intermittency, and EH with surprising strength at times, considering that the path from NJ is well outside the 13 MHz MUF contour tonight. FRC had finally begun being audible, which it hadn't done all day. Neither had the quasi-pirate, for that matter. The middle of the night boost in levels predominating from the west or southwest suggests that perhaps the mystery station is located in that general direction as well.
Comparing its signal levels with those of actual Part 15 stations of known distance during the day and earlier this evening, I would now estimate the power to be around 5 watts, give or take a factor of 10 in either direction.
Give it a listen for yourself. Maybe with enough reports, we can find out where it's coming from.
More details on the HiFER reports later in the day.
John
Re: Along with HiFERs...
Posted by EdWSlidell,LA on May 18, 2014 at 20:05:52.
In reply to Re: Along with HiFERs... posted by John Davis on May 18, 2014
GA all. I'm hearing the station now, 1945 UT, 18 May, 2014. It seems to be running an old time type AM radio broadcast, such as used to be on during the 40's and 50's. Just above the noise(which is unusually low today), and at times the spoken words seem to have some multipath, or warbling on them. Complete with music of the Novachord type. Neither the 21 ft vetical nor the 22m dipole are receiving it very well, but the 143 ft LW, going basically E-W, is doing OK. The frequency seems to be about 13560.65 KHz. Can't seem to hear it on LSB, but on USB with a carrier it is OK. Something like the old A3H mode in marine use. 1500 UT, 'The Great Gidersleeve" just came on, and the signal is improving if anything. Ed W Slidell, LA EM50cg
Re: Along with HiFERs...
Posted by John Davis on May 18, 2014 at 20:35:51.
In reply to Re: Along with HiFERs... posted by EdWSlidell,LA on May 18, 2014
Hi Ed. They seem to be running conventional AM, as I can usually copy both sidebands when I hear them at all, but other times the gentle white noise that has been common here lately at (and just below) 13560 obscures the lower sideband. I concur with your 13,560,650 Hz frequency reading; that's where I found them early this morning, too. On other days, they've seemed to be as low as 13,560,500.
The Great Gildersleeve at 2000 hours tends to confirm that they are carrying a feed of the 1920s Radio Network. At 2 o'clock this morning, CDT, they were running Big Town, which is also the right time for that series on the network's program grid #2.
I'd sure like to catch whatever passes for their station ID at the top of the hour and see if they give a location. :)
John
Re: Along with HiFERs...
Posted by John Davis on May 21, 2014 at 19:27:35.
In reply to Re: Along with HiFERs... posted by John Davis on May 18, 2014
Haven't heard the mystery signal for about 48 hours now. Wonder if anyone else has?
John
Re: Along with HiFERs...21 May, 2014
Posted by EdWSlidell,LA on May 22, 2014 at 00:17:54.
In reply to Re: Along with HiFERs... posted by John Davis on May 21, 2014
Hi John. No, havn't heard it for the past couple of days. I believe it was on till about 2335 UT on 19 May, but went off the air/or disappeared as heard from here in EM50cg, right after starting a 'new' program. It never was strong enough to provide good listening quality. I did recognize a Sargent Preston segment once, as well as the Great Gildersleeve, but unless I was familiar with the program music, etc., what was on was unknown. I never got any indication of the top of hour ID you were wondering about. Never noticed significant QSB on the signal when it was on, and it seemed to be there day and night. I was wondering if it could have been leakage from the IF of a sat. receiver system, which might be in general use? Nothing on now, except for the MTI CW ID on ~13557 KHz, which has some deep QSB at times, and at other time is a good 3/4-3/5-9. Ed W Slidell, LA EM50cg
630m
Posted by Steve on May 22, 2014 at 19:56:51.
Are there any Canadians here building for 630m.....or U.S. amateurs that would like to have a crossband QSO?
I'm attempting to keep track of Canadian activity here:
http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl/136.html
I sure hope that U.S. hams can get access to the band soon but I don't see much movement of late.
Steve / VE7SL 73
HIFER roadtrip
Posted by Ward K7PO on May 24, 2014 at 18:49:31.
Left Florida this morning, heading back to AZ on I-10. I'll be sure to wave at Ed on the way by. . . No Hifers heard the last few days. I have a small loop I use on the balcony for 10-20m, and 20 has been alternating between bad and worse than bad, so I'm not surprised at the lack of Hifers. I'm hoping there will be something to log in the next 1800 miles or so.
Ward K7PO
Re: HIFER roadtrip
Posted by Ward K7PO on May 26, 2014 at 18:04:00.
In reply to HIFER roadtrip posted by Ward K7PO on May 24, 2014
Back in AZ, almost home. Only heard 1 Hifer since last post, GNK, at the I-10/I-12 transition north of 'Nawlins. Despite pretty good 6m conditions, didn't hear a thing out of 7P on 49.86. All in all, another fair to poor roadtrip for beacons.
Ward K7PO
10 meter antenna and mast for free
Posted by Chris McQuiggan on May 27, 2014 at 17:50:23.
Hello, I am not a ham radio operator, what i do have is a 40 foot tall 10 meter antenna and mast for the taking. One issue it is still standing and needs to be taken down carefully. I am giving the whole thing away to whoever can come, take it down, and remove it from my property. Please be aware that it is close to incoming power lines and it is mounted right against the back of my house. I am located in Levittown. If anyone is interested please contact me via my email.
Re: WWII, Germany and Their 170KC C.D. Net
Posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014 at 04:01:07.
In reply to Re: WWII, Germany and Their 170KC C.D. Net posted by John Davis on March 31, 2014
170 KHz? This is inside the longwave broadcasting band!
Pictures of former OMEGA-transmitting stations
Posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014 at 04:09:18.
Interesting pictures of former OMEGA-transmitting stations can be found on:
www.haikuvalley.com/History/OMEGA-NAVIGATION-SYSTEM
- Tsushi-Wan, Japan
- Paynesville, Liberia
- La Moure, North Dakota
- Saint Paul, La Reunion
- Aldra, Norway
- Trelew, Argentina
- Woodside, Australia
- Haiku, Hawaii
[Moderator's note: these links open in new browser windows or tabs, but may not display the pictures on older browsers.]
Only from the former station on Trinidad, no pictures are available!
Former Herzogstand Radio Station
Posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014 at 04:12:03.
Near Kochel, Bavaria, Germany, there was from 1920 to 1934 a VLF-transmitter using a span between two mountains, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzogstand_Radio_Station !
Valley Span antennas
Posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014 at 04:21:17.
Are valley span antennas better or worse than comparable normal VLF-antennas? Which stations use or used them?
According http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spans#Antenna_spans_across_valleys these were respectively are:
* Herzogstand, Bavaria, Germany
* Jim Creek Naval Radio Station, Oso, Washington, USA
* OMEGA-Aldra, Norway
* OMEGA-Haiku, Hawaii, USA
* Malabar Radio Station, Indonesia
* JXN, Gildeskål, Norway
* ICV, Tavolara, Italy
Portofino transmitter is a mediumwave transmitter using a vertical wire antenna, which is fixed on a rope spun between a lattice tower and a rock anchor, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portofino_transmitter
Which other stations use or used valley spans? Are or were antennas spun across valleys also used by amateurs?
Re: WWII, Germany and Their 170KC C.D. Net
Posted by John Davis on May 29, 2014 at 05:42:12.
In reply to Re: WWII, Germany and Their 170KC C.D. Net posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014
I wish we could find more information on that report to confirm or clarify some of the details. However, I suspect there were not quite as many broadcasting stations active in the longwave band during the war, so it might have been feasible to have civilian defense communications there.
You probably know that the Swiss used 150-350 kHz for carrier current broadcasting over telephone circuits for many years, apparently as a way of coping with the shielding effect that mountains caused to mediumwave broadcasting. I seem to recall that this was still being done there into the late 1990s, and it may still be true in parts of Italy today. Other countries tried the technique as well in the 1920s and 1930s, including Germany.
That makes me curious whether the civilian defense network was truly over the air, or whether it might have been a system based on conduction via telephone or power lines. I hope someone will be able to shed more light on this matter.
John
Re: Valley Span antennas
Posted by John Davis on May 29, 2014 at 06:11:34.
In reply to Valley Span antennas posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014
It's hard to say better or worse. As with all antennas that are electrically small at the intended operating frequency, valley span antennas involve engineering compromises.
For VLF assignments above 20 kHz, most large military transmitting stations find it more practical to use tall masts... either supporting umbrella antennas, or else organized as an array of multi-tuned vertical antennas. Such antennas work best if they can be installed on flat terrain with plenty of moisture content.
Below 20 kHz, it is difficult to build masts tall enough for adequate efficiency, so hillsides and peaks offer a logical way to boost height. Other times flat, moist terrain simply isn't available. In those cases, a valley span antenna may be more practical than tall masts. These, too, are actually vertical antennas, with the top section supporting the radiating wire(s) and providing extensive top loading.
The trade-off of valley span antennas is that, despite their generally greater size than any umbrella-type antenna, they suffer from a certain amount of shielding from being surrounded by mountainous terrain. That tends to remove some of the performance advantage that they might otherwise have.
For example, it is my understanding that the Herzogstand antenna was somewhat more efficient than the VLF antenna system at Nauen, but could not come close to the efficiency of the remarkable umbrella antenna system used by the Goliath transmitter at Kalbe an der Milde, where the river itself was basically part of the earth system.
John
Re: Valley Span antennas
Posted by John Davis on May 29, 2014 at 06:31:21.
In reply to Re: Valley Span antennas posted by John Davis on May 29, 2014
The Portofino antenna appears to be something of a special case.
You would not need top loading for an antenna at the upper end of the mediumwave AM band when you have such a tall mast available to begin with. Therefore, after examining photographs at one of the links in the Wikipedia article, I believe they are simply using the span as a convenient way of supporting the vertical wire from the transmitter shack, rather than having to build another mast of their own in that scenic valley.
John
Re: Pictures of former OMEGA-transmitting stations
Posted by Douglas Williams on May 31, 2014 at 12:33:48.
In reply to Pictures of former OMEGA-transmitting stations posted by Thomas Schneider on May 29, 2014
Very interesting pictures, Thomas. Thanks for the links.
I remember very well hearing the tones of the Omega stations on whistler receivers in the early 1990s.
potrzebie