Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
hi Ed ,thanks for the reports that you send my way..i really look forward to them. I may try a dipole. The vertical is similar to what you are using...mine is ground mounted and i made it from an old cb base station somebody gave me for parts...when i change the antenna i will make a post.I use an mfj antenna analyzer. I tune the homemade tuner to 1:1 swr and then connect the antenna back to the transmitter.I will try and make a link on my website with pictures sometime....the transmitter is build into a altoids container.....mike
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Paul on June 01, 2012 at 06:00:23.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by EdWSlidell,LA on May 31, 2012
It has a loop built-in to the lid, just like the Model 41.
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by John Davis on June 01, 2012 at 13:56:05.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by michalel tyler on June 01, 2012
Of course, the thing to remember about a dipole is this: if it's working to its theoretical best as a dipole, then you will lose about half your potential audience!
If you recall, I used to see SIW most any time I looked, depite Garry's dipole being aligned end-ward in this direction. After he remedied some connector problems and apparently restored the antenna's directivity, he started getting into Australia fine, but now sometimes he's rare DX where I am.
A vertical doesn't have to be anything fancy, but it does work best at HF if you can make it independent of ground losses. Fortunately, the ground plane doesn't have to be very high above the earth to do that...a few feet is fine. For taller installations, having the base around 36 feet is geat--but not odd multiples of 18 feet, where low angle radiation tends to cancel.
The radiating section itself doesn't even have to be 1/4 wavelength long, either, so long as it's conveniently tunable. The efficiency difference between 1/8 wavelength--say, a 102" CB whip--and 1/4 wave is negligible. And if you have access to an FIM, like some lucky people, you can run whatever power is necessary to radiate the allowed field strength, regardless of actual losses.
For those who really like dipoles, however, I would urge them to consider running two at right angles to each other, fed in phase quadrature. The resulting turnstile antenna is nicely omnidirectional.
John
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 01, 2012 at 23:34:31.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by John Davis on June 01, 2012
John, my dipole is aimed at 150/330 degrees. That puts the ends nearly toward Dex (NC) but I still copy his signal most times I look. Your heading is 229 deg based on grid EM27kc (I'm in EN52ta) and that puts you pretty much in the theoretical main beam. I saw theoretical because one of the nearby support points is my 64' foldover tower and the hifer dipole is just above a 3-WARC band dipole. I figured our closeness was the reason for poor copy. I know I have trouble seeing MP, COM, and WV at 372, 501, and 490 mi, respectively.
Your statement that a dipole would lose half the "audience" might be based on the -3 dB bandwidth, but that's arbitrary and very conservative. The way NC, EH, and RY often come in they could fade way more than that and still be copied. Nonetheless, the natural omnidirectional characteristic of verticals is attractive. My lowfer beacon uses a vertical and the best signals I've copied from other beacons have used verticals too (WEB and EMP). I resisted using a vertical for the hifer because I didn't want to take up yard or roof space with radials.
But thinking about it I realize that I have a trap vertical antenna sitting nearly unused in the back yard. Since 20 meters isn't too far from 13.5 MHz and the antenna is not very high Q I tried it out on receive. Compared to a 20 meter beam and the hifer dipole it received poorly when coupled to my SDR-IQ via an antenna tuner (matched to 1:1 SWR at 14.0 MHz). However, when I attached the SDR-IQ directly to the feedline it received comparably well. I'll have to figure a way to measure SWR with mW rather than W or look into the field strength meters that have been discussed here.
For the moment I have the QRSS6 signal going to the dipole as before but now the sawtooth signal is going to the trap vertical antenna directly. It will be interesting to see if that makes it out of the back yard.
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012 at 00:30:03.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Paul on May 30, 2012
G'day Paul (K6FRC),
I doubt you will be 'over the limit' if you are using a 'hamstick'. All the HF mobile helical whips I have exhibit a feed impedance fairly close to 50 ohms. A 20M band mobile helical whip of about 1.6m length tuned to 13.5MHz would have a Rrad of about 3 to 6 ohms (depending on the how the wire winding is distributed) which gives an efficiency of about 5% to 10% (-13dB to -10dB loss or about 1.5 to 2 Guessunits down). If I was running a standard mobile helical whip vertical I would be comfortable with running about 50mW into it and be pretty confident it would be generating roughly the same FS as 5mW would to a full size antenna - give or take a couple of dB.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by John Davis on June 02, 2012 at 00:50:01.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 01, 2012
my dipole is aimed at 150/330 degrees...your heading is 229 deg
Ah, OK, I was erroneously remembering the alignment as 50/230 degrees for some reason. To quote one of Gilda Radner's most famous characters, "Well, that's different, isn't it. Never mind." :)
And I originally meant to say a person could lose "up to half," rather than "about half," because there are so many variables. The null might fall in the direction of significant population, or it might not. The null might or might not be deep enough to affect coverage significantly, anyway.
Overall, though, I like the idea of maximizing potential audience with omnidirectional coverage wherever practical, be it by means of verticals, crossed dipoles, or loops.
Regards, Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
John
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 02, 2012 at 01:37:01.
In reply to what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by michael tyler on May 30, 2012
I use an elevated ground plane 1/4 wave vertical. At 13 mHz the 1/4 wave element is relatively short and you can elevate the antenna high above ground. I use 4 sloping 1/4 wave radials sloped at approximately 45 degrees and get a match of about 48 ohms resistive. The antenna is very similar to a scaled 2 meter ground plane antenna. The antenna is held in place with a TV tripod mount at the peak of my roof and the radials run down the roof. Being mounted at 30 feet above the ground rather than at ground leveis is an advantage.
Pat Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
N4LTA
Posted by Paul on June 02, 2012 at 01:43:28.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the input.
I know the Hamstick on the metal building is far from efficient, but I think 50 mW would put the field way over the limit.
Running the power I am now, the maximum field is just 15% below the maximum allowed in part 15.225.
I set the transmitter power by field strength, then down just a little more for headroom (in case of drift). I didn't set it by making calculations based on predicted (in)efficiency of the antenna, etc. Using actual field strength, my T.P.O. came out to about 2.2 mW into the Hamstick.
As mentioned earlier, I'm losing a little over half the transmitter power through a narrowband helical resonator type bandpass filter and a harmonic filter. Since the HiFer is co-located at a commercial radio site, rules about bandpass filtering all transmitters must be met in addition to FCC field limits. If I didn't have to run the filters on the output, I'd still end up with about 2 mW into the Hamstick to stay under the maximum field strength limit rule.
73, PS Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012 at 02:46:14.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Paul on June 02, 2012
G'day Paul S,
While not disputing your measurements I reluctantly have to say I cannot see how 2.2mW into a hamstick is equivalent to 2mW (approx) into a full size vertical. Looking up the physical size of a Hamstick reveals it is about 7' (2.1m - a bit more than the 1.6m I assumed). Using three different methods of analysing assuming the unmatched feed impedance is near to 50 ohms shows an efficiency at best of 10%. Making a roughly 1/10 wavelength antenna mobile whip antenna close to 100% efficient as your measurements indicate is, IMHO, physically impossible.
The one test I did 11 years ago with a 1.6m mobile whip showed it was down by about 9dB in FS @ 40m on a full-size vertical with tuned radials. That result roughly agreed with theory and lately with modelling, so I have to say I remain unconvinced.
If it were true I would get my hands on a Hamstick pronto - but sadly the company has gone out of business (proprietor SK ?).
I say all this not to start an argument (any further comment by me will go on my blog), but merely to be honest with you about my opinion - right or wrong. Feel free to give me the 'one fingered salute' mate.... ;-)
In any case it is of little consequence to both of us.
73 Steve VK2XV
HiFER "USC" seen in VK - Positive ID.
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012 at 06:38:11.
One full "USC" ID seen on ARGO at 0547utc.
This makes 5 US HiFERs seen here in VK.
Thanks guys!!!
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: HiFER "USC" seen in VK - Positive ID.
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 02, 2012 at 13:32:52.
In reply to HiFER "USC" seen in VK - Positive ID. posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012
Steve,
Thanks for the report. I received a new Epson chip on Wednesday and put it into the new board and set up the frequency shift to test it. Seemed to work ok so I soldered a temporary BNC connector to the board and attched a 20 meter dipole only up about 12 feet. I was leaving town for the rest of the week so, I hooked up the bench supply to it and pulled the power cord to the "old" USC and left town. I am amazed to find it received in VK land.
The new board uses a LM317L and a transistor that switches in a added resistance to shift the Vcc on the Epson chip.
It uses a PIC509 8 pin microprocessor to generate the QRSS.
and a 100 ohm trimmer to set the output power level into a 5 pole high pass filter.
When I get home Sunday, I will mount the board in a cast box with heaters and connect it to a oven board to keep it frequency stable long term. I will mount it at the base of the ground plane antenna.
Pat Re: HiFER "USC" seen in VK - Positive ID.
N4LTA
Posted by John, W1TAG on June 02, 2012 at 17:22:42.
In reply to Re: HiFER "USC" seen in VK - Positive ID. posted by Pat Bunn on June 02, 2012
Pat,
Absolutely beautiful signal here in central Massachusetts this afternoon 1700-1720 UTC. Hardly any complete fadeouts, and audible most of the time.
John, W1TAG (FN42ch)
Re: Gathering at the waterhole...
Posted by Neil on June 02, 2012 at 18:19:17.
In reply to Gathering at the waterhole... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on May 31, 2012
Which Argo are u using? When I use the Large Argo I get 200 hz on qrss3 mode. The origingal has only 100 hz..
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by John Davis on June 02, 2012 at 19:56:18.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012
Steve, I don't think anyone here will be offended by questions or differing viewpoints so long as discussions remain civil. Most folks here are pretty easy-going.
With that in mind, I'd like to submit that the possible flaw in applying analytical methods lies in the assumption that "the unmatched feed impedance is near to 50 ohms." That would automatically build a lot of loss into the calculation, which isn't necessarily the case in practice.
Electrically short vertical antennas in the 1/10 wavelength vicinity have only a small pattern loss relative to a resonant 1/4 wave vertical. What most affects their efficiency (or lack thereof) is the overall loss resistance of the entire system relative to the antenna's radiation resistance. The latter decreases significantly as the radiating element is shrunk, of course; but in principle, if the loss resistance is also kept low enough, most of the available power is still radiated into the ether rather than being lost as heat.
A large enough metal roof--especially if there is nothing particularly absorptive sticking up within the near-field zone of the radiator--makes an excellent ground plane that can exhibit very low loss at 22 meters. Close in to the antenna, such an arrangement should act more like an ideal monopole and be much less dependent on interactions with the earth beneath than radials usually are.
For Paul's operation, this seems to be confirmed by measurement, which is our FCC's ultimate yardstick for operation in the band. The rest of us have to make comparatively conservative engineering assumptions in planning our stations. The overriding concern is not whether we're getting every last microvolt-per-meter we're permitted, but to ensure that we won't exceed the specified field intensity (in any direction) if we are actually measured some day in an official capacity.
While that is not a terribly likely event, it is definitely easier to catch the Commission's attention with questionable operation in this band than at 1750 meters, for instance; partly because of the clearer signals that are possible, and partly because of past shenanigans the FCC has had to deal with in this region of the spectrum.
It has always intrigued me that among the various "alternative provisions" for intentional radiators in Part 15, the 13.56 MHz band is the one with the most flexible specifications--and which simultaneously require a greater degree of technical discretion on our part.
LowFERs and MedFERs have strict limits on input power and antenna length (regardless of the occasional squirming around basic definitions of length) that are deemed sufficient in and of themselves to ensure non-interference in most cases. In the process of simplifying compliance certification, though, a lot of flexibility in system architecture is lost.
But HiFERs can put their transmitters in a nicely temperature controlled environment if they like, and run any necessary length of transmission line to any type of antenna at any location that is convenient--provided only that emissions within certain frequency bands do not exceed certain levels at 30 meters from said antenna, and a nominal level of frequency stability is maintained. That's a lot of flexibility when you consider the FCC is not requiring formal type acceptance of DIY builders to ensure compliance. But the obvious tradeoff for such a relaxed regulatory stance is that they're placing a lot of trust in both our willingness and ability to "do the right thing" in this band. IMO, it therefor behooves us to be scrupulously worthy of that trust if we wish to retain the flexibility we've got.
John Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by John Davis on June 02, 2012 at 20:07:40.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c on May 31, 2012
Sorry, Robert, doesn't look as if that solves the problem. Horizontal or not, shielded or not, a ground lead connection still counts in the 3 meter total.
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c on June 02, 2012 at 20:34:40.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by John Davis on June 02, 2012
my issue is I'm in an apartment but have a porch. I'm 9ft above dirt ground level. even if 9ft ground passed muster i doubt apartment would allow a ground rod and wire pounded into ground and run up side of building. i have to hide my 440 and scanner antenna behind wood railing to not be visible from street.
problem is there is no way to run these transmitters without a ground whether at ground level or elevated. if you dont have a ground then the audio/power lead turns into a ground if you run no ground the thing (hamilton rangemaster) won't tune.
this is why i am trying to find a solution to the problem for people in hoa's, condo's under apartment lease restrictions or in places where due to vandalism ground level installation is not possible.
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012 at 21:49:13.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by John Davis on June 02, 2012
G'day John,
I have a direct way of expressing my opinion which sometimes gets peoples dandruff up. It comes from an intense desire to get to the nub of things. If I am wrong I am just as quick to acknowledge it - once the penny drops - as I have learnt something new. Unfortunately, at the moment the penny hasn't dropped.
I understand all the explanations you have given. I have spent way too much time learning about trying to make small antennas efficient, mostly for MF and LF. All the things you mention are consistent with that.
But my experience with mobile HF whips is that they invariably are designed to give a 'good' SWR of 1.5:1 to 2:1 when mounted on a car. The radiation resistance is inescapably in the order of 5 ohms or so. The helical coil of small diameter covered in plastic wrapping is usually allowed to be of low 'Q' in order to give a wider bandwidth to the electrically short antenna than might otherwise be obtained. All the whips I have in my possession have no base matching and so the fact that they exhibit around 1.5:1 SWR suggests to me that losses (capacitive, ground, coil dielectric and wire losses make up at least 30 ohms. If they didn't the manufacturer would be getting complaints from users of not being able to get a 'good' SWR, especially when they use the whips in good installations. There is no way I can imagine an efficiency of nearly 100% as indicated - unless the hamstick used there is a special one with high-Q coil, top hat and base matching. My assumption, perhaps incorrect, is that the hamstick used has none of these.
The base for the 20M whip I used 11 years ago is still in place in the middle of a metal roof panel. Although I have cut off the lead underneath the verandah roof (request from XYL...:-) I can fix that. I now have more test gear available than 11 years ago. I also think I remember discussing this with a colleague of mine who worked in the mobile radio field for 20 years or so, and makes his own mobile antennas. I will bother the poor fellow again... ;-)
Oh dear - I see I have lied - I said last post anything further would be on my blog. The good thing is that I don't have anything else to suggest on the subject and so I will let it go until I do repeat measurements and check with my colleague.
And finally on the note of compliance. The difference of opinion expressed here is only of academic interest if you like, being that I merely think the hamstick setup is not as good a radiator as indicated. It is NOT intended to encourage someone to go against their own measurements. The bottom line there, as is the case here, is that you must be able to demonstrate the methodology of how the field strength limits are being adhered to. In the case of FRC this has been done absolutely correctly as the methodology used matches exactly the parameters of the radiated field strength limit. I have absolutely no argument with that. Maybe that is all that is to be said on the subject.
In my case (where the limit is 100mW EIRP) I would use modelled patterns and Rrad referred to the base input combined with measurements of base impedance to arrive at a legal limit of power applied to the antenna. This will likely result in me being accused by some of going over the limit, which is a much less pleasant situation than being thought of as going well under the limit. Maybe the smart thing to avoid that is to use an antenna whose operation is more widely understood.
I'll shut up - for now... ;-)
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Paul on June 02, 2012 at 23:57:32.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 02, 2012
Hi Steve,
Please feel free to dispute or discuss anything you like. In fact, discussion is good for all of us.
I am positive that a Hamstick is nowhere near 100% efficient, not even close. I never stated any such thing (nor would I ever, unless I went nuts). In fact, the only reason I chose a Hamstick antenna for FRC is because I needed something to install into the mount on the roof of the metal building that would withstand the high winds and horrible weather that hilltop sees. It is not uncommon to go from ice to 100 MPH winds overnight there. I didn't want to use a wire antenna or any other antenna that would easily be damaged by the conditions, so I looked at mobile antennas instead.
At 13.565 MHz., the Hamstick comes out to about 8 feet overall. Luckily, the whip supplied with the Hamstick was plenty long enough to work without having to source a longer one. There is an inch or two of whip still in the ferrule. Then, I sealed it up well so moisture wouldn't get in. So far, the antenna has stood up well for over 3 years. Return loss is still better than -30 dB, even when covered in ice, rainwater, or dry as a bone.
Rather than try and calculate the inefficiency of that antenna installation, and since I have the proper calibrated instruments available, I chose to set the transmitter power by field strength. Measuring a distance of 30m from the antenna, I put a mark on the ground and set the FIM at that spot. With transmitter power adjusted so the field at 30m was under 10,000 uV/m, then a little less for good measure, I set everything there and called it good.
I don't honestly care what the transmitter power output is, since I am measuring the actual radiated field strength, it is what it is. Although, for the sake of curiosity, I did measure the transmitter power later on and it is about 8 mW. Like I mentioned, the helical bandpass filter has about 4 dB loss, and additional losses for the Polyphaser, cable, etc., I was ESTIMATING the actual power to the base of the antenna to be around 2.2 mW. Could be more, could be less. Who knows? And, my attitude is, why should I even care? As long as the field is under 10K uV/m at 30m, then it's legal.
I know you guys get 100 mW (lucky!!), and at that kind of power level, your field strength would be far greater than mine, even with a lousy antenna. Over here, we are limited by the field strength, not the power. Very few people have the correct calibrated instruments to measure the field at 13.5 MHz., so you do see a lot of discussion about TPO and antenna gain (loss), etc. I just took a short-cut and measured the field, and done! Nice and simple.
73, PS
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by Paul on June 03, 2012 at 00:05:29.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c on June 02, 2012
Do you have access to the roof (from your balcony)??
Could you mount the transmitter in a outdoor weatherproof box and run a 102" mobile CB whip mounted to the box (like the talking house boxes do it), then mount the box to something metal (like an air conditioner unit on the roof) it can couple to? AC units on the roof are connected to ground through their electrical and/or gas pipes (if combo units).
Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 03, 2012 at 00:30:02.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Paul on June 02, 2012
G'day Paul,
Fair enough - I took your quoted values on face value - which you have pointed out is not correct. And indeed you did not state the hamstick was 100% efficient. I just took the quoted (but estimated) 2.2mW producing the same FS as a full-size vertical as implying that it must be.
I agree - this discussion has gone way beyond (my fault entirely) the point of caring of any party.
And, as you correctly point out, you are doing the correct methodology, matched directly to the regulations. As I have mentioned in the previous post, I would not like anyone to think I am saying that method is nothing other than the correct way of doing things.
I'll go back to just hunting for more QRSS HiFERs... ;-)
73 Steve VK2XV
Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here
Posted by John Davis on June 03, 2012 at 05:11:06.
Today was the first time in two weeks that I'd been able to get out to the field with just the radio, and not a car load of landscaping tools. After an extraordinary fight to the finish with an aggressive field mouse who didn't want to be evicted from the antenna, then cleaning a few connections that weren't working so well after prolonged disuse, it quickly became apparent there was already too much QRN to hear/see anybody on LF in the final couple of hours of daylight. Even my benchmark NDBs from Winnipeg and Mesquite (Texas) were hard to discern from the noise.
So the logical thing to do was switch to HF...which was also experiencing static, but not nearly so badly. Everybody I could think of who was previously at (or has recently moved to) the watering hole was visible here this afternoon...MP, USC, RY, SIW QRSS6, SIW sawtooth, EH and NC, in ascending order. Not all were present simultaneously, naturally, but signals became a little more consistent with fewer extremes of QSB after sunset. (Most consistently present today was EH, and least often present was RY.) There was sometimes a weak trace between EH and NC, but I could not determine whether it was a signal or noise.
In regular Morse, I managed to hear WV a couple of times, but it tended to be present only for one or two ID cycles, then absent for several. I had somewhat longer stretches of copy from AJO, and moderately frequent copy of GNK. No luck this time with MTI or FRC.
I hope to retrieve and post captures from the notebook machine some time Sunday.
John Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using???
Posted by Paul on June 03, 2012 at 05:40:01.
In reply to Re: what kind of hifer antenna are you using??? posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 03, 2012
But, if you hadn't brought it up, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to discuss it! So, thanks for that. Was a good discussion, and we got some great info from John too.
Re: Gathering at the waterhole...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 03, 2012 at 11:08:48.
In reply to Re: Gathering at the waterhole... posted by Neil on June 02, 2012
G'day Neil - at the moment I am using v139. You can always see that by going to the VK2XV grabber and reading the version/build number. The window is about 170Hz high using QRSS3.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c on June 03, 2012 at 14:34:00.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Paul on June 03, 2012
what i have now is a horizontal 15ft ground that runs from the tx on porch to hot water pipe indoors and enters building through wall unit a/c. i'm at far end of property on bottom floor above a parking garage and ground wire runs from tx in a direction that heads in a direction pointing to interior of property to put most of signal toward interior of the property. i had a reading of 8mV @ about 400ft on my nems clarke 120E but i have yet to match it up to a potomac for accuracy and i'm not used to using it yet and might be messing up on one of the steps. i use tx's with a series tuned internal toroid / cap network to tune a 102" whip to resonance. in my case porch is 8ft of clearance floor to ceiling so i can't fit a full 102" vertical whip.
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c on June 03, 2012 at 14:57:34.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c on June 03, 2012
that 8mV was from a point off the side with the radial/ground in middle of property.
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by Paul on June 03, 2012 at 16:40:48.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c on June 03, 2012
If you could get permission to run your DC power wires up to the roof, you'd be in business. An outdoor box to house the transmitter and tuner, then tune up that CB whip against something metal on the roof.
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c on June 03, 2012 at 20:07:02.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Paul on June 03, 2012
there are swamp coolers on roof. that would be nice as i am looking to cover complex outdoors with 219 and indoors using neutral loaded carrier current
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c on June 03, 2012 at 20:11:05.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c on June 03, 2012
my big issue here is being fcc kosher they are only 15 miles from here and can be here in 30 minutes as opposed to nj where i lived was 3 hr drive for langhorne and nyc offices. there are also numorous major broadcasters studios within few blocks of here along with tx sites again nj was all mom and pop stations in my area and were sparse in that area at that.
Hifers heard today
Posted by Sal, K1RGO on June 04, 2012 at 15:22:31.
A good day for hifers, at 10:55 through 11:20 local, I heard WV and MTI come through 539 peak. Now for the hole, I saw NC,COM,RY and USC. My first time copy of USC and MTI. Re: medfer elevated install
later........
Posted by Paul on June 04, 2012 at 19:27:14.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c on June 03, 2012
Ahha.
Well, I am sure you have read the rules by now, so no need to re-hash.
Some of the 'professional' part 15 AM transmitters take advantage of a small loophole in the rules about the "ground lead". They run as much power and sudio wiring as necessary to reach the transmitter inside a small outdoor box with a CB whip on it, mounted to something very tall and very metal.
Some of the "talking billboards" out west here reach several miles very clearly, and they still meet the rules. Although, there is great argument about this in some groups, each FCC inspected sign out here has passed.
Assuming you can mount your transmitter and ATU into an outdoor style weatherproof box, just mount it to something big and metal out in the clear, making sure to use the shortest posible "ground lead" between the grounded box and the big metal swap cooler (preferable mount right to the swap cooler itself). Then, just tune your 102" CB whip antenna, and off you go. HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 05, 2012 at 08:27:04.
I am currently running the VK2XV HiFER grabber with approximately 240Hz from top to bottom - an increase of about 41% with an extra 70Hz in the up direction. The window is set to the same bottom limit of about 13555380Hz and a top limit of about 13555610Hz. The are some downsides to this here, but if it proves to be of sufficient use I will persist.
I would appreciate some feedback about the results of this from those who are regular viewers of the grabber.
Related to this I would like to put forward a suggestion. In doing so I am aware that the US is the center of HiFER activity and I do not want to be seen as the tail that wants to wag the dog - nevertheless I will be bold...
I make the suggestion that the waterhole area above 13555500Hz be populated by, at the risk of offending, the 'wanderers', while the space below 13555500Hz be populated by the more stable beacons. This is essentially the case now. As a placation I might add at this point that, if and/or when I implement a beacon it will be most likely be a bit of a wanderer (Epson SG8002 based) as I am inclined towards a minimal installation. Accordingly I will be operating above 13555500Hz.
The distinction between a wanderer and a stable beacon would naturally be a matter of opinion, but perhaps a diurnal variation or long-term drift of less than 5Hz would allow efficient packing of the area below 13555500Hz - it is getting a little crowded lately.
Comments appreciated.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by John Davis on June 05, 2012 at 17:47:47.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Paul on June 04, 2012
We're entering territory here that not only makes me uncomfortable, but also starts to stray outside the type of hobby uses of Part 15 for which this board was set up.
The uncomfortable part first: At the risk of quibbling over terms, I don't think there ever was a loophole regarding ground leads--just a failure on the part of some field inspectors to read the Rules the way the Commission intended. The recent crackdown on the use of supporting structures as "ground connections" (which Robert himself commented on a few months ago here) tends to indicate any such interpretations were overly generous to begin with.
Just because something has been gotten away with in the past doesn't mean it will be overlooked in the future. I've written in the past about a visit to a TV station where I was working, from the Engineer in Charge of the Atlanta field office, at a time when we were running a Part 15 AM rig on the roof to relay weather information to the nearby roadside park. It was clear that we were using the metal roof as the ground system itself, which the antenna was working against directly for the return of displacement current, not as an oversized radiating connection to the ground.
He was OK with that, but plainly hinted he would not have been happy if we had been using the tower as a radiating support. That became the basis for my own interpretation of the grounding rules for many years: if it's a metal surface that completely contains the near-field energy so that the antenna does not "see" the earth or return any current through it--a self-contained monopole situation, if you will--then that surface is the ground system, and is not a connection to ground.
I firmly believe that distinction is still valid from a technical standpoint, but nowadays I would not install such a system myself and would no longer be comfortable advising anyone else to do so. That's entirely due to the changed enforcement philosophy, which in turn is entirely due to the cheaters who kept granting themselves more and more lenient personal interpretations of the Rules, up to the point where somebody finally took notice. "Anything goes as long as you don't get caught" is an unsupportable legal theory in the long run. And drawing attention is an issue in more ways than one.
Which leads us to the other concern I mentioned, appropriateness of the subject matter. What the folks in this forum are most skilled at is the use of equipment under Part 15 limitations (for the most part, so we hope) for beaconing, local communication, and/or pure experimentation with various transmission modes. Hobby broadcasting is a very different kettle of fish. There's really a lot more involved than just the technical issues, and one of Robert's recent messages touches on part of it:
"...there are also numorous major broadcasters studios within few blocks of here along with tx sites again nj was all mom and pop stations in my area and were sparse in that area at that."
Sounds like you're right in the lions' den, Robert. Playing in the big guys' back yard is exactly what has tripped up many other no-license broadcasters. When a person goes from "playing radio" between his own house and a neighbor's home, to intentionally covering a whole neighborhood, he risks stepping on someone's toes. Interference or no interference, they will take notice. Consider: They've taken the time and spent the money to get licensed. They pay actual wages and spectrum fees, and some of them pay taxes on their profits (except for certain foreign media moguls who renounced their US citizenship as soon as they no longer needed it to own American broadcast licenses). They even pay music royalties--something most hobby broadcasters never even think about, but which can get you in big $$$ trouble with the copyright act these days, even if there's no monetary gain on your part!
Yes, it may simply be a case of the fat cats coming down hard on the little guy, or any other way you want to view it. But the fact remains that they've got the law on their side, so you've got to be squeaky clean. Even if you are entirely kosher from the FCC's perspective--which IMO is going to be very difficult to demonstrate from the setup as described thus far--you are treading outside areas where we are competent to advise you, Robert. Please be very careful.
John
Re: HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window...
Posted by John Davis on June 05, 2012 at 17:55:11.
In reply to HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 05, 2012
Sounds like a very good band plan to me, Steve!
I would have only one other additional suggestion, and that would be for operators using FSK modes to watch the captures of their signals over time, and consider whether they might do just as well with a little narrower shift. I would not say that we're plagued with excessively wide signals right now, by any means, but I wonder if slightly narrower shifts might prove advantageous in fitting more stations into the window in future. Just as an example, wherever NC is on a given day, it's pretty distinctive even with only a 4 Hz shift.
John
Re: HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window... clarification...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 05, 2012 at 19:35:59.
In reply to HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 05, 2012
On re-reading I see it is not entirely clear I am referring only to the narrowband modes (QRSS, etc..) and only the 'waterhole' frequency band of approximately 13555500Hz +/- 100Hz.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c. on June 05, 2012 at 19:54:40.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by John Davis on June 05, 2012
if i owned private property with a yard it would be cut and dry with no worries.
the tx mounted on a 1 meter mast above a huge buried radail system and a tx set to 100mW input. i would be good to go but here the issue is no dirt ground access and the need for hidden antenna systems because of management. not so cut and dry.
the key is to find a way to shield that ground lead into not radiating so the tx will have a ground return connection but not a long radiating ground.
i have a am fim so luckily i can test these far out theories.
i only need/want to cover 326 apartment units situated on private property.
the interior will be served by carrier current.
the 219 would be for the lot about 1000ft furthest distance.
wish we had the canadian standards here.
they are on am the same as part 15.219 or a f/s of 250uV/m @ 30m (100ft) and fm 100uV/m @ 30 meters
and they treat trailer parks and apartment complexes as fully private properties for f/s measurement purposes.
i think decade tried to get the fcc to adopt those standards but NAB responded by shoveling more money into lobbyists as a result fcc wouldn't budge.
funny thing canada has a 1 watt special events lpfm license available to individuals granted in 29 day blocks.
i have the talking house main unit but still need to get the ATU. it has provision for a ground but it was fcc certified with a 100ft piece of coax to hook between TH2 unit and ATU. i can't see how it was certified that way but it is and would solve my issue as i would think it would ground via that coax and main unit. but im not about to spend 295.00 on it. i'm waiting to get it from someone at a more reasonable price. i got the iAM/THII NIB for 100.00
the copyright cartels all tried to extort the part 15 guys most told them to stick it. the big three dropped that attempt. thought it was kinda funny that they would even waste the paper on it even funnier when the part 15 community told them where to get off at and no lawsuits ensued.
as long as you are legal the fcc will keep coming and going till they get tired of the complainant making obviously unfounded complaints then they will take a hard look at the complainant and this is not guess work i have really seen it happen. again that was pretty funny too. my friend covers 2-3 miles with his rangemaster installed in the manner i explained in this post as being acceptable to inspecting agents. i set his tx up for him and tuned it to 100mW input. no issues with fcc since i set it up in that manner. all part 15 stuff is certified in a rf dampened chamber using a scott lp-3 loop, an hp analyzer with unit under test situated on a table 3 meters high with a 3 meter ground lead attached to a copper ground system on the floor so in essence they are certified with a 3 meter antenna and a 1 meter ground lead.
i am very well versed in all this but trying to operate part 15.219 from an elevated apartment legally is new territory for me and if i can find a legally accepted practice for elevated installed in this situation without running afoul of the ground lead it will not only help me but help many in my situation operate and do it legally. the fcc does not shut down stations purely because of a licensed station. if they come and the complaint is unwarranted they'll just check and go. now if you are running anti government, rap music with foul language or racist hate mongering speech they won't care if you are legal or not the fcc will find a way to put you off the air and these are the only situations where i have seen an fcc agent go the extra mile to shut down a part 15 beyond the obvious blatant violators and operators who did not cooperate with the agents.
the fcc when arriving can clearly see i'm not looking to run pirate. if i was, i certainly would not buy a nems clarke fim, a spec analyzer and other RF test equipment to make sure my system is of legal f/s and spectrally clean.
i would just say to @#$% with rules and crank the power and not worry about spectral purity field strength ground leads or input power.
it must have been nice back in the 50's, 60's and 70's when you could just call up the fcc field office pose a scenario to them ask their opinion and get an honest answer back from them. the days of lawyers and lawsuits ended that though
these days it seems with everyone in government it's us versus them mentality and everyone is a criminal till proven otherwise.
i think i was born in the wrong time.
i would have been much better back in the days of things that glowed and hummed.
sorry for some of the seemingly political undertones.
they were not meant that way but im more of an engineer than public speaker.
a note:
i only need to cover the picnic/pool/mailboxes area 400ft away under 219.
i have thought of a self contained solar powered 15.239 unit with a part 15.247 or 249 microwave link put on top of mailbox building if i could talk the maintenance into helping me put it there.
i only really need to cover a 50ft circular area if that was the case which is easily done under 15.239 fm rules.
and the interiors would be covered as originally planned and those i have plenty of experience in and have dealt with several people running carrier current in an off college campus situation. i may just have to run C-C and forget about the other until i can hammer out the issues on it's legalities or get cooperation from complex. sadly even if i could ground mount the 15.219 some the the ghetto heads here would either vandalize it or sell it to a pawn shop for crack money.
john thank you for your time, use of forum and tolerating my ramblings.
robert
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert c. on June 05, 2012 at 19:55:52.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by robert c. on June 05, 2012
ps: i still have all those lowdowns i got from that lady here and read them for antenna and tx ideas.
i enjoy them very much
robert
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by Paul on June 05, 2012 at 20:49:11.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by John Davis on June 05, 2012
Good points, John.
I agree completely (believ it or not).
Here's where I blew it- Somehow, I had the impression this was a MedFer beacon, I totally missed the part about this being a hobby broadcast station.
I think I am already on record as being a broadcast station owner and long time engineer myself. I also engineer radio and microwave systems for public safety and a lot of government work. Sometimes, it even involves TIS stations.
My focus is also beacons, not hobby broadcasting. I thought I was helping a guy set up a MedFer beacon. Please excuse my infraction of the "beacon fans code of ethics".
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by robert on June 05, 2012 at 22:35:44.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Paul on June 05, 2012
didnt even know there was a difference between beacon and broadcast except the modulation mode. to me part 15 is part 15 regardless of mode. if a broadcaster is trying to be legal it should be treated no different than beacon by other hobbyists or fcc. and for most part it is by fcc from what i can tell in nouo and nov reports.
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by John Davis on June 06, 2012 at 00:08:32.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Paul on June 05, 2012
"Please excuse my infraction of the 'beacon fans code of ethics'."
LOL. Not a problem at all, Paul.
Actually, I have no problem with someone interested in doing no-license broadcasting, either. It's just that there seems to be such a gulf between the two types of operation. At times they appear to be completely separate cultures.
For beaconing, we start with a known set of regulatory limitations and try to find practical technical solutions within them. Unfortunately, there seems to be more incentive among would-be broadcasters to find rationalizations for going beyond, perhaps because they start with a set of coverage expectations that may not be realistic and expect to make them happen anyway.
Not that there aren't beacon fanatics who don't rationalize about excessive antenna lengths too, but there don't seem to be quite as many. For the record, I don't support the stretches of logic involved in those efforts either. IMO, the simplest interpretation of a text as it is written, without bringing in outside concepts or sources, is generally the best interpretation. In theology, philosophy and law, that process is called exegesis.
(Lengthy philosophical digression alert!)
Example of exegesis: When the FCC says, "The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall not exceed..." followed by the applicable number of meters for the band in question, there is no stated exception for parts that don't radiate. In fact, the transmission line shouldn't radiate if properly installed, but it specifically DOES count as length anyway, the way the rules are actually written. So any interpretation that says a top hat doesn't count because it doesn't radiate, or that says a ground lead doesn't count if it could somehow magically be made not to radiate (which it can't), has no legs to stand on within the plain wording of the Rules.
That's not to say exegesis necessarily prevents extrapolation into "what if" scenarios, but it does require the meaning to be teased from what the text says, without introducing new concepts not already and directly applicable to the existing wording.
What happens by way of example, then, if we wanted to exegesize (sorry, classical purists) about a hypothetical loop antenna? If "total length" is stated to include any combination of the three elements "antenna, transmission line, and ground lead (if used)," then we will have to understand a loop in those terms. What common properties or methods of those three elements do we already know, or can we at least infer from the strictest reading? Well, they are all mandmade electrical conductors. And, they each carry RF current away from or back to the transmitting device. From this, we can legitimately conclude that when the Rules say "length," they talking about the path of RF current through wires or similar intentional conductors from one terminal of the device, flowing both outward and back to the device. Not displacement current between vertical radiator and ground in air or space; not return current in a ground (but including any connection to the ground). The inescapable deduction is that the length in question is exactly the same thing as the RF path in any wires attached to the antenna and ground terminals of the device.
So, to pursue the example to its logical conclusion: if you have a loop antenna that carries RF current out of one terminal, 25 feet to the left, 50 feet up, 50 feet to the right, 50 feet back down, and 25 feet back left, the total length is...200 feet. I suppose you could try to weasel and call any one 50 foot dimension the "length" of the "antenna," but then you're obliged to accept that the remainder is transmission line, which adds another 150 feet to the total anyway.
For sake of accuracy, exegesis in not always the only tool for regulatory interpretation. Sometimes you have to take into account other rules that apply simultaneously--rules which actually state that they apply, I mean, not some that are taken out of context, or applied only in part. This was the flawed reasoning behind the so-called "free radiator" movement, which glommed onto one sentence about no radiated limits on campus, but which ignored the very next sentence that said the standard limits apply at the campus perimeter.
You can't interpret a rule strictly on its own if another also applies, so you have to check for that possibility. But no other Part 15 Rules lay claim to modifying the antenna length limitations of alternate provisions like 15.219, so those should be taken as literally as possible.
(End philosophical dissertation.)
My point being, even though there are some in both aspects of the hobby who rationalize about the FCC Rules, there seems to be a somewhat greater acceptance among experimenters of the technical and regulatory realities than there is among those who feel such a strong need to broadcast under Part 15 somehow. I don't mean that as a criticism of anyone, just a cautionary observation not to let oneself act out of wishful thinking, or let the worthiness of the goal override common sense.
John
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by Paul on June 06, 2012 at 05:19:09.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by John Davis on June 06, 2012
Well written, and point well made.
I used to be against guys that used a lot of metal wire to make a top hat. My belief, adding all wires and pipes together to come up with a total length should apply to the overall length of the radiator. However, there are those who believe that if a wire going around metallic extensions is bonded to the end of each, then it acts as one solid piece, and therefore not a sum of the total length.
That's one of those areas where it could be interpreted by one field inspector one way, and another way by someone else. But, why quibble? I simply turned my MedFer off since I refused to run more that a 102" whip and no top hat, and my results weren't as good as others with ginormous top hats on 9-foot masts over a ton of ground radials.
As for hobby broadcasters, if that's what turns them on, then God bless them. I get enough "radio" at work, I sure don't want to do it on my own time! I deal with plenty of on air "personalities" that think it would be really fun to do, but as an engineer, no thanks.
Beacons are what got me into radio at the ripe old age of 7. A beacon was the first "real" LW signal I ever heard on a SW receiver, and it was fascinating. Just a lone radio transmitter out there in the darkness sending its ID over and over and over for who knows what reason. As a kid, I thought that was really neat. As a kid inside an adult frame, I still think beacons are neato, and I still get giddy when I find a new one, or hear an old one I haven't heard in a long time. It makes me really sad when NDB's get decommissioned. And it makes me question why some beacon ops are "fair weather" ops, and don't leave their beacons on all the time. VK7 Grabber active
Posted by Bob VK7ZL on June 06, 2012 at 09:39:19.
My QRSS grabber is currently running on the 22M band. The antenna is an Inverted V @ 10M AGL with an Icom R75 receiver.
EH was visible this afternoon although my copy was not as good as Steve, VK2XV, who is located about 1000Km North of me.
My grabber page is at:
http://www.users.on.net/~bobw/lf/
Bob VK7ZL Re: VK7 Grabber active
Posted by Steve VK2XV on June 07, 2012 at 05:13:40.
In reply to VK7 Grabber active posted by Bob VK7ZL on June 06, 2012
G'day Bob - great to see your 22M band grabber online. Your path to the US HiFERs is about 500km to 700km longer than mine, so you could beat my distances for all the 5 HiFERs I have positively ID-ed. The US HiFERs 'grab' my attention as they are true QRP-ers and present a real challenge to the performance of the grabbers at this distance.
Even though you run a much higher contrast on your SpecLab captures than the normal ARGO setting I use, it will be interesting to compare the difference in the paths.
I hope you will become a regular grabber on 22M !!! I think there are only about three or so of us world-wide.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: VK7 Grabber active
Posted by Bob VK7ZL on June 08, 2012 at 09:57:12.
In reply to Re: VK7 Grabber active posted by Steve VK2XV on June 07, 2012
Hi Steve
I was pleased to see EH appear on the screen at my first attempt although the signal was quite noisy.
I have changed over to the new Argo to make visual comparisons between us easier.
Today I changed the orientation of my 20M dipole to favor the USA which resulted in a much stronger signal from EH and faint traces of two other stations (I think N4LTA on 400 was one of them)
I will keep monitoring for a while and see how it goes but probably only run the grabber when the band is open.
73's Bob VK7ZL
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by Robert C. on June 08, 2012 at 12:17:20.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Paul on June 06, 2012
Neil (Radio8z) on part 15 us has a possible solution for part 15 apartment dwellers to still operate and comply under 15.219
Back to the original question I suggest that conductors placed along baseboards or under carpet or even on the ceiling can perhaps be defensible providing they run equal lengths and opposite directions from the transmitter ground connection. The idea here being that such radials would not have a net radiation yet will function to return current to the transmitter.
Neil
this being said under this arrangement the ground plane can be considered ground and the lead between tx and ground the "ground lead".
if this works than it can be used for anyone in a neutered situation where there is no ground level access.
can be used in apartments, on roof's, etc from longwave to HF.
this is solution that could help many LP radio enthusiasts from beacons to broadcast.
just though i would update on that. i'm on many different LP radio forums and sometimes we can come up with solutions that help each other and since this solution seems to be universal and not frequency dependent it may work for many of you who want to do beacon work but may not necessarily have a ground level access. Re: VK7 Grabber active
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 08, 2012 at 20:46:47.
In reply to Re: VK7 Grabber active posted by Bob VK7ZL on June 08, 2012
G'day Bob,
I saw some positive IDs of "EH" on your grabber - at roughly 16,765km from your QTH that is further than any of the 5 US HiFERs I have positively ID-ed. Well done !!!
The "EH" beacon is by far the strongest and most consistent here (see http://vk2xv-hifer.blogspot.com ).
Conditions at the moment are not very good so if you keep monitoring, things should improve and allow you to positively ID more stations. I currently run the grabber 24/7 and go back through the captures each morning to see what I have netted.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by John Davis on June 09, 2012 at 19:35:55.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Robert C. on June 08, 2012
....
The idea here being that such radials would not have a net radiation yet will function to return current to the transmitter.Neil
this being said under this arrangement the ground plane can be considered ground and the lead between tx and ground the "ground lead"
....
This is pretty much what I mentioned before...my personal technical belief that a ground plane which captures substantially all the displacement current itself, and which is not simply a sneaky way of making an illegally long connection to the earth, is then the ground proper and not a "ground lead." But also remember that I said I would no longer try to make that case myself in the current environment.
If a person does deploy such an arrangement and ever finds himself inspected and having to defend that interpretation, I suspect his best bet is to stick with the distinction between ground system and ground lead, and try to convince the inspector he acted in good faith. I really don't recommend putting oneself in that position to begin with. You might come out OK...you might not. It's a gray area at best, and all the murkier now that the waters have been polluted by pseudo-Part 15 antenna cheaters.
The one justification I would absolutely NOT attempt under ANY circumstance, however, is the "no net radiation" argument! If I ever succeed in getting one message across to anyone about Part 15 antenna compliance, I hope it is this: "no net radiation" is not a criterion stated in, recognized by, or even remotely consistent with the LowFER or MedFER alternative provisions of Part 15. The FCC doesn't give two toots in a tornado whether any parts of our antennas ever radiate a peep--only that "(t)he total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall not exceed" the specified limit for the band in question.
Excluding a part of the RF path from the tally on grounds of "no net radiation" is pure rationalization. It's the first step on a (generally very short) path of obfuscation that leads to self-deception or outright pervarication.
That's clearly what happened in the forum you've been consulting, Robert. I see one thread where everyone managed to convince themselves a 2 meter long ground lead is not a ground lead if you magic it up somehow. But that doesn't change the reality. When you ask for advice, remember the old saying: "consider the source!" At this site, advertising is minimal and does not drive content. We don't make money selling people stuff we know to be illegal--like rigs consisting of 1W FM transmitters and quarter wave antennas and calling it "Part 15 compatible"--so we have nothing to gain by encouraging wishful thinking. (While the FCC doesn't have the power to censor misinformation on Web sites, they do at least have the authority to stop the marketing of illegal RF devices and thereby dry up the advertising revenue stream. The fact that they simply haven't done so yet does not mean those things are legit.)
John
Grabber in the US?
Posted by Larry Putman on June 10, 2012 at 21:00:13.
Hello Everyone!
Is there currently any grabbers active in the USA? I see mention of one in IL but no link to it?
Thanks
Larry WB3ANQ
Longwave Converter
Posted by Bill KB9IV on June 11, 2012 at 01:37:23.
Hi Group I recently picked-up a NrMnt late model Drake C line loaded with Sherwood Upgrades and loaded with Drake & Sherwood Filters 600 Hz roofing filter too.
I would like to buy a quality LW up converter for the 3.5 Mhz Ham band. Does anyone know of a source for one??
Bill KB9IV
See Saw
Posted by John Davis on June 11, 2012 at 04:42:06.
Conspicuous by its absence today was the slow sawtooth ramp from SIW just above the QRSS SIW signal. However, there was a newcomer higher up! Anybody want to claim it?
I'd been capturing the watering hole with a couple of "old" Build 134 Argo instances running simultaneously while I did some landscaping work, and finally decided to take a break and listen for the conventional CW HiFERs. While tuning upward from the watering hole, I ran across another audible signal--the one above, in fact. It was swinging from 13555.628 kHz to .633, give or take a Hz. I watched it for a couple of screenfuls with relatively little level fluctuation, then tuned away to listen to my other targets. When I returned later in the hour, though, it was gone.
John
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by Lee on June 11, 2012 at 05:14:55.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by John Davis on June 09, 2012
John you are preaching to the choir for me. I got obfuscation, and self-deception But I had to look up Pervarication. Keep up the good work! HiFERs on June 10
Lee
Posted by John Davis on June 11, 2012 at 05:32:39.
Never got around to posting last Saturday's (June 2) HiFERs on Sunday the 3rd as I thought I would. Sorry about that. Very, very busy week, and the images would no longer be as timely.
Finally made it out to the field again today, though. Visible at the watering hole were (in ascending order) MP, USC, RY, SIW (QRSS), EH and NC. This is two simultaneous Argo instances aligned in time and frequency and stitched together, with the frequency scale adjusted for 800 Hz = 13,555.400 kHz to the nearest Hz.
At the time of this capture, RY wasn't coming in as well as it had been earlier in the afternoon, nor as well as it did again later in the evening. RY and SIW seemed to have the most problem with fades today, and MP was close behind in that department. RY tended to be gone for several ID cycles at a time, while SIW would be fine for a letter or two at a time, then miss one or two. MP was experiencing shorter period fades, never gone for an entire character but often missing a dot or experiencing a chopped dash.
During this capture, though, there was one audible CW ID of MP (toward the left), and a couple audible IDs of SIW, including one particularly good one at the right. EH and USC were generally the strongest all afternoon and evening, frequently audible and producing beat notes between them and occassionally the other stations too.
See a separate post for another graphical capture of a symmetrical sawtooth (triangle wave) that was found above the watering hole for a while.
Tuning for conventional CW beacons, I heard AJO briefly around 6:47 PM before a steady carrier showed up in the immediate vicinity. Same problem plagued NDB's frequency. GNK was nice and clear for several ID cycles at a time, then gone for a while, then nice and clear again. No FRC today. Later, around 7:10 PM, I tried AJO again; miscellaneous QRM, but at least the DAID showed up on Argo. And unlike last weekend, I had no copy at all on WV this time.
John
Re: medfer elevated install
Posted by John Davis on June 11, 2012 at 05:35:01.
In reply to Re: medfer elevated install posted by Lee on June 11, 2012
"John you are preaching to the choir for me."
Amen, brethren and sistren!
Re: See Saw
Posted by Larry Putman on June 11, 2012 at 22:10:51.
In reply to See Saw posted by John Davis on June 11, 2012
Hi John,
The sawtooth you saw was mine. I will call it LP
I have a Rigol Function Generator with a ground plane antenna and a WM-2 wattmeter. I am transmitting on 13.555670Mhz. Using a Trimble Thunderbolt frequency standard.
73
Larry WB3ANQ fm19rc
Pasadena Maryland
Re: See Saw
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 11, 2012 at 22:30:41.
In reply to Re: See Saw posted by Larry Putman on June 11, 2012
G'day Larry,
I wonder if you would be interested to see if your HiFER makes to East Coast VK. Your QRPp 30M band signal has already been seen by David (VK2DDI) in Western Australia some years ago.
I run an ARGO grabber here...
http://www.qsl.net/vk2xv
The window runs from 13.555380MHz to 13.555610MHz. It is pretty crowded from 13.555380MHz to 13.555500MHz with existing HiFERs, but there is space between 13.555570MHz and 13.555600MHz.
In any case you can get an idea of where others are sitting from the LWCA message board reports and captures on my blog...
http://vk2xv-hifer.blogspot.com
I am keen to try and add "LP" to the existing total of 5 HiFERs identified so far on the grabber.
73 Steve VK2XV
HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 12, 2012 at 05:30:49.
The "LP" triangular trace can be seen clearly on the VK2XV grabber now (0530utc).
This brings my bag to 6 US HiFERs received.
Thanks Larry !!!
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK...
Posted by John Davis on June 12, 2012 at 05:38:38.
In reply to HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 12, 2012
Congratulations, guys! Re: HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK...
Posted by Larry Putman on June 12, 2012 at 14:49:15.
In reply to HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 12, 2012
Steve,
Thanks for having an excellent receiving station!
Could you send me the capture.
73 Re: HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK...
Larry WB3ANQ
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 12, 2012 at 21:27:24.
In reply to Re: HiFER "LP" triangular wave seen in VK... posted by Larry Putman on June 12, 2012
Larry - I have posted details of the capture to....
http://vk2xv-hifer.blogspot.com
If you click in the capture shown there, a new page will open containing just the capture graphic. Right-click and save the capture.
Let me know if there are any problems.
73 Steve VK2XV
"EH" beacon in Italy
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012 at 06:29:40.
Hi to all,
My name is Mauro IK1WVQ from north Italy JN44CB. I receive regularly the "EH" beacon and traces of others. (See also the full capture which includes NC and USC.)
Can you give me more infos about this "EH" (and others) beacon ??? (location, power, antenna, Email of owners) ???
My antenna is a 6 meters vertical totally mismatched and RX RACALL 1792 locked by a GPS receiver ..
Sorry for my trivial questions (and for my bad english) but I discovered few day ago this band (thanks to VK2XV) ..
73 to all .
Mauro IK1WVQ
www.qsl.net/ik1wvq Re: HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window...
http://www.stmb.it/grabber/HIFER/ik1wvq_prove_0084.jpg
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012 at 09:11:14.
In reply to HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 05, 2012
Hi,
you can expand ARGO to 320 Hz range maximum ...
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ Re: HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 14, 2012 at 09:41:18.
In reply to Re: HiFER - VK2XV Grabber now with wider window... posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012
G'day Mauro,
I only have 900 pixels height on the monitor I use. Anything above 800 pixels height sees the controls at the bottom edge hidden by the taskbar (900 pixels setting) or gets corrupted (1000 pixels setting).
I have chosen 800 pixels as a comfortable maximum setting.
Thanks.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: "EH" beacon in Italy
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 14, 2012 at 14:02:32.
In reply to "EH" beacon in Italy posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012
The one at the bottom is USC - 4 mW into a 1/4 wave ground plane antenna 250 feet above average ground.
Location is Spartanburg, SC EM94bw
Pat Bunn Re: "EH" beacon in Italy
N4LTA
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 14, 2012 at 14:03:32.
In reply to Re: "EH" beacon in Italy posted by Pat Bunn on June 14, 2012
25 feet not 250 feet - (I wish)
Pat Re: "EH" beacon in Italy
N4LTA
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012 at 14:17:40.
In reply to Re: "EH" beacon in Italy posted by Pat Bunn on June 14, 2012
Hi,
compliments for the 4mW ! i like this !
thanks for your answer.
this WE I shall made a magnetic loop single frequency oriented to USA ..
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ Re: EH beacon in Italy
Posted by John Davis on June 14, 2012 at 16:29:46.
In reply to posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012
Hi Mauro,
Congratulations on your reception of these stations. As Pat said, the bottom trace is his USC beacon in South Carolina. The top trace is beacon NC at Stanfield, North Carolina, which transmits only the squarewave frequency shift instead of a Morse identifier.
In the United States, operation in this band is restricted to a field strngth equivalent to an effective radiated power not greater than 4.7 milliwatts. Different operators can use different antennas according to their own circumstances, but they are expected to adjust transmitter power so that the radiated signal does not exceed the limit.
At this site, we maintain lists of beacons operating in this and other bands under the no-license provisions of our Federal Communications Commission's rules. You can find additional information at http://lwca.org/sitepage/part15/index.htm, where we have links to lists of beacons by frequency, and the operator contact information by call sign.
It is not always possible to update the lists right away. However, most operators post messages in this board as soon as they make changes in frequency or transmission modes, so reading recent messages here is a good idea for keeping updated.
John
Hifer LP QRT
Posted by Larry Putman on June 14, 2012 at 17:48:54.
Thanks to Steve Olney VK2XV for his reports!!
73 Re: Hifer LP QRT
Larry WB3ANQ
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 14, 2012 at 20:55:21.
In reply to Hifer LP QRT posted by Larry Putman on June 14, 2012
Larry - thanks for providing the signal in the 'window'.
Sorry to hear the LP beacon is going QRT though. Do you have any plans for the HiFER beacon in the future ?
73 Steve VK2XV
experimental grabber HIFER from Italy JN44CB
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012 at 21:09:34.
hi to all,
I started a *EXPERIMENTAL* HIFER GRABBER (service not guaranted) .
http://www.stmb.it/grabber/HIFER/index.html
comments welcome!
If all works well, in the WE I shall activate the 24H archive and a mag loop dedicated ..
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
Re: "EH" beacon in Italy
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 14, 2012 at 21:22:44.
In reply to Re: "EH" beacon in Italy posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012
G'day Mauro - looking forward to seeing the HiFER captures on your grabber page.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: experimental grabber HIFER from Italy JN44CB
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 14, 2012 at 21:33:04.
In reply to experimental grabber HIFER from Italy JN44CB posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012
G'day Mauro - thanks for providing the grabber !!!
Looks great with the ~300Hz wide window.
One request - please do not add one of those animated visitor objects as they are CPU hogs (e.g., "revolvermaps").
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: Hifer LP QRT
Posted by Larry Putman on June 15, 2012 at 00:40:59.
In reply to Re: Hifer LP QRT posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 14, 2012
Hi Steve - My function generator is off frequency by quiet a bit but I think I have it working now. Give a look for me about 13.555.490 Mhz.
73 Larry WB3ANQ
Re: experimental grabber HIFER from Italy JN44CB
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 15, 2012 at 01:46:22.
In reply to experimental grabber HIFER from Italy JN44CB posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 14, 2012
Hi Mauro, and thanks for running your hifer grabber. It's doing very well tonight. I see the LP skater at 13555490 Hz and EH DFCW at 13555470 Hz very well (013735Z). In there weakly around 13555440 Hz is my sawtooth (quick ramp up, long ramp down) and earlier I noticed the QRSS3 of MP just below 13555390 Hz and the DFCW of USC above 13555400 Hz. There has been an unidentified DFCW signal between those two and another one at 13555350 Hz sending "A" with rounded frequency shifts.
My grid is EN52ta and that's a distance of 4583 miles from your JN44cb.
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
Re: Hifer LP QRT
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 15, 2012 at 04:04:23.
In reply to Re: Hifer LP QRT posted by Larry Putman on June 15, 2012
G'day Larry - thanks - tonight's run might be a good one - SF is up, Ap is down. Also I can just see the LP trace already at 0400utc.
73 Steve VK2XV
24h archive for my grabber
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 15, 2012 at 14:40:52.
hi to all,
now my HIFER GRABBER has a 24h archive, managed via DROPBOX (it is a new one for me, I am not sure of the reliability).
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
http://www.stmb.it/grabber/HIFER/index.html
P.S: is there a hifer grabber in USA ???? Re: 24h archive for my grabber
(possibly a Marconi 2022 generator will be inadvertently connected to an antenna, one of these nights .........)
Posted by John Davis on June 16, 2012 at 04:45:21.
In reply to 24h archive for my grabber posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 15, 2012
After making the link "live" in the preceding post, I happened to notice on the current capture (04:41:29 UTC 16 June) the presence of at least six US signals in varying degrees of clarity. In ascending order of frequency, they were MP, probably USC (lots of missing pieces), SIW QRSS, SIW ramp, EH, and LP.
Entering the archive and clicking backward through time, I could confirm that the mystery signal was indeed USC. Proceding farther back, I saw unmistakable traces of NC above LP.
And then...an anonymous sender above NC! Or maybe the term is "N-onymous," as he/she/it/they appear to be sending only a string of NNNN... in DFCW. Shortly after 23:54 UTC (15 June) they abruptly QSYed from the vicinity of SIW up to just above NC. Who????
The grabber archive is a very useful idea, Mauro. Thanks!
John new ARGO 141
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 16, 2012 at 21:41:02.
Hi,
now my grabber runs with new ARGO build 141 released today by Alberto I2PHD .
Frequency range (maximum span possible) is now from 13.555260 to 13.555590 ..
Not bad!
Thanks Alberto
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
Re: new ARGO 141
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 16, 2012 at 23:24:46.
In reply to new ARGO 141 posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 16, 2012
Mauro - LOL - you beat me by minutes !!! I have had to rewrite this post.... ;-)
The new version 141 has many small, but very important, improvements.
We can now set the time ticks to one minute and the cursor is hidden during capture. The height (span) setting is now remembered on exit and restart.
Alberto has done it again !!!
To get ARGO v141 go to...
http://www.weaksignals.com/
and click on 'ARGO' in the lefthand column.
Thanks Alberto.
73 Steve VK2XV
ARGO archiving...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 16, 2012 at 23:46:13.
Inspired by Mauro's 24h ARGO archiving I have looked into various methods (Picasa, Dropbox, etc..). I might be misunderstanding things, but they all seem to require a third-party application to be downloaded and installed which pushes files in the background. I am a bit of a nervous nellie about such things (and - yes - the experts out there could probably show me how there is already apps running on my PC doing similar things) and I am reluctant to do this.
In addition there is a need to either manually delete old files or run yet another third-party app to do this.
Is this the only general method to provide an archive, or is there another way more suitable to a nervous nellie... :-)
73 Steve VK2XV
S and EH test
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on June 17, 2012 at 00:51:39.
I am inspired to see the activity on Mauro's grabber, so I quickly breadboarded a hifer rig with S, QRSS5 ID and hooked it to the 22 m lower dipole. It's on 13555.520 and I am comparing it to EH, same pwr but EH is on the sloper. Nice to have a few grabbers around. This will give a comparison of the antennas. Re: ARGO archiving...
later........Sal
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 17, 2012 at 06:51:08.
In reply to ARGO archiving... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 16, 2012
Hi Steve,
you can try "SpectrumLab" of Wolfgang DL4YHF ..
It is a extremely powerfull program (and extremely difficult to use for dummies as I am).. this SPLabs contains a script parser what permits you to manage all the capture activities .. so . you can create a website inside the program ...
I use this program for my 30meters grabber...
If you use Picsa or Dropbox, yes, your PC runs a resident application what synchronizes a folder in your pc with the Dropbpx site (it is a little and not invasive)..
For deleting old files, i wrote a VB6 program (10 lines of code) runned every few hours by "scheduled activity" of windows XP ..
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
Re: ARGO archiving...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 17, 2012 at 08:31:10.
In reply to Re: ARGO archiving... posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 17, 2012
G'day Mauro - thanks for this.
I prefer to use ARGO for the reasons you have mentioned.
I am writing a .NET app which allows me to manipulate a Picasa Album directly. I have written some test code from examples which, so far, allow me to upload, caption and delete photos.
I probably will not make it continuously update the archive, that is, it will not be a rolling archive like yours. At the moment I am thinking of just scheduling an update at some convenient time (say 0000UTC each day). Probably will not be liked for that - but that's life...
In any case I will at least learn something doing the coding which keeps the neurons crackling...
73 Steve VK2XV
Switching Antennas
Posted by Larry Putman on June 17, 2012 at 20:23:00.
I have switched to a verticle dipole antenna for tonights run. This is the antenna that I used way back when:) 2004 I believe?
73 Grabbers
Larry WB3ANQ
Posted by Larry Putman on June 17, 2012 at 20:32:16.
I would like to thank Mauro and Steve for having their grabbers online and giving us a valuable tool
73
Larry WB3ANQ
Re: Grabbers
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 17, 2012 at 22:30:43.
In reply to Grabbers posted by Larry Putman on June 17, 2012
Larry - thanks go to you and the other HiFER-ers. Having an empty grabber screen would become a bit boring...
I am working on writing the .NET app. for archiving on Picasa. Easier than I thought (the coding I mean). The hard part will be deciding how it will behave - i.e., block update once every 24 hours or a rolling 'last 24 hours' update. I need to test some more to get a handle on the possibilities.
I won't clutter up the MB with details as I will be writing it up on my HiFER blog.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: Grabbers
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 17, 2012 at 23:21:59.
In reply to Grabbers posted by Larry Putman on June 17, 2012
"Larry - thanks go to you and the other HiFER-ers. Having an empty grabber screen would become a bit boring..." ..
I agree totally with Steve!!
thanks ...
Mauro IK1WVQ 600M Band Plan?
Posted by BobC on June 18, 2012 at 15:01:47.
I'm thinking about building something for the 472-479KHz allocation we will hopefully see next spring. Probably a beacon of some sorts. Not sure where test ..
I will or should put a beacon in the band. Has there been any band plans
purposed? If I used some kind of a programmable source like an Si570 or
N3ZI DDS it probably won't matter since I can move it anywhere. If I were
lucky enough to find an xtal that might be another story. Any ideas where
a beacon should go in this band? If I don't start thinking and building now,
I'll never be ready when the time comes!....Bob...WA1EDJ...
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 18, 2012 at 17:18:13.
disregard please... Re: Grabbers
Posted by Paul on June 18, 2012 at 18:00:13.
In reply to Re: Grabbers posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 17, 2012
Wow! What a valuable tool it is, and how much more valuable it will be with that engaged! A 24 hour look at the HiFer band is an awesome idea.
Re: 600M Band Plan?
Posted by John Davis on June 18, 2012 at 18:22:20.
In reply to 600M Band Plan? posted by BobC on June 18, 2012
I've been keeping an eye out on 500kc.com and awaiting Dr Raab's updates, but nothing so far. Until we get closer to formal rulemaking it will be hard to come up with a definitive band plan. I'd opt for frequency agility if it were me, just to be ready for anything.
Bear in mind that this band will likely not qualify for unattended beacon operation. Just a guess at this point, but I suspect it will have to be more like the so-called MEPT operation on 30 meters.
John
auxiliary hifer SIW now sending modified slant code
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 18, 2012 at 20:38:00.
Solar activity is really doing a job on HF - hardly any European WSPR reports at the moment and the A value is up near 40. No wonder I didn't see any signals on the VK2XV and IK1WVQ grabbers last night.
Took this lull in activity to connect a hardware version of slant code to the OCXO running my auxiliary hifer. I planned for a TX enable signal but forgot that hardware is simply a voltage-controlled OCXO with no provision for keying. Thus, in-between Morse characters the signal idles about 9 Hz above my QRSS6 hifer. The dots ramp up about 4 Hz in 60 seconds and the dashes ramp down similarly. That's spectrally extravagant but easy to implement in hardware. Of course, the sane way to do this would be via code and a uP, but having neither uP nor EPROM burner I took a quick-and-dirty route using my junkbox and a couple eBay purchases.
Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 19, 2012 at 04:53:21.
G'day All,
Just testing the uploader/archiver .NET app. for the VK2XV HiFER grabber.
I have added a link to the Picasa archive album on the grabber page at...
http://www.qsl.net/vk2xv/
Seems to work OK - but the code has been written just in a couple of days starting from no knowledge of Picasa... so it could be more flakey than a bowl of Kellogs..
New captures are uploaded every 5 minutes and, currently, files older than 24 hours are removed at the same time. The final deletion strategy is yet to finalised - see details of the issues with this on my HiFER blog.
Comments appreciated.
Keep in mind I have no control of how Picasa Web Albums displays the captures - it is all end-viewer (ie., yourself) controlled.
73 Steve VK2XV Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber...
http://vk2xv-hifer.blogspot.com
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 19, 2012 at 11:05:04.
In reply to Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 19, 2012
Steve, your archiver is working great! Propagation is still unsettled but I see my modified slash code with some imagination in your 0620 and 0625Z captures. NC, EH, and LP are in there as well and less clearly so is USC.
73, Garry, K3SIW
Re: auxiliary hifer SIW now sending modified slant code
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on June 19, 2012 at 15:25:35.
In reply to auxiliary hifer SIW now sending modified slant code posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 18, 2012
I do all my projects from the junk box, Gary, I'll be checking out your new format........
Re: 600M Band Plan?
Posted by Bob V on June 19, 2012 at 17:42:00.
In reply to Re: 600M Band Plan? posted by John Davis on June 18, 2012
Thanks John....I've pinged Jason NT7S ( etherkits ) Hifer LP info for Lowdown and web
on his plans for a 600M beacon. He's interested in
producing a kit but not sure where to put it either.
I'll watch 500kc.com too....TNX!....Bob...EDJ...
Posted by Larry Putman on June 19, 2012 at 19:00:43.
Hi John,
Here is the official info on Hifer LP
Frequency 13.555400 Mhz.
Shift Up 4 hz
Power 4 mW
Antenna vertical dipole
Source Rigol DG1022
Operation 24/7 unless otherwise notified
Location Pasadena Maryland FM19rc
The above as measured on an HP 3586C Selective Level meter.
Larry Putman WB3ANQ FM19rc
Re: 600M Band Plan?
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 19, 2012 at 19:12:08.
In reply to Re: 600M Band Plan? posted by Bob V on June 19, 2012
Hi Bob,
I am building a 100 watt transmitter and plan to start a beacon in the next few weeks near 500 Khz.
It will be push pull MOSFET and should be simple to get going. The power output circuit will be similar to N4ICK's 100 watt transmitter on the web. I will likely run it crystal controlled with an oven for stability and use a 4mHz ballpark crystal divided to 500 Khz. I have that circuit running and tested. Later I have plans for a 600-800 watt transmitter. I am licensed for up to 800 watts.
The antenna will be the tough part for me as I have some space but lots of trees. When/if the bands is made available, I'll move to the allocated area.
Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber...
Pat
N4LTA
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 19, 2012 at 20:17:55.
In reply to Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 19, 2012
Hi Steve,
"your" PICASA look better than "my" DROPBOX !!!
Very useful the "title" to the pictures ...
OK! now I must study the PICASA system ..
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 19, 2012 at 23:25:28.
In reply to Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber... posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 19, 2012
G'day Mauro - well, I think "your" DROPBOX looks better than "my" PICASA... I just wanted to roll my own archiver/uploader app. for the reasons given previously.
There is an issue with attaching the UTC time caption to the capture - sometimes the process is delayed for a time - see my blog for details.
Your DROPBOX page displays the filename of the capture (and also in the slideshow), while my PICASA page hides the filename, forcing me to use the caption method of showing the UTC time.
But you can do the equivalent thing with your DROPBOX filenames as I do for creating the captions. The advantage you will have is that I have to limit how long the caption string is because if the viewer moves the 'size slider' all the way to the left (smallest size) there is not enough room for the caption.
If you can code (VB6 I think you said) you might do it the DROPBOX filename way. It is the backend process for my app.. I am going to write up that process later today.
If you go the PICASA way instead, remember, I have started from nothing two days ago and there might be hidden rocks in the 'see'... :-;
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 20, 2012 at 02:26:03.
In reply to Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber... posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 19, 2012
Garry - thanks - glad it is useful. Hopefully it will stable over time.
I like the slash code format. A neat way of actually providing an ID in an analog-ey fashion.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber...
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 20, 2012 at 10:43:17.
In reply to Re: Archiver for the VK2XV HiFER grabber... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 19, 2012
Hi Steve,
I asked now to the (great) Alberto I2PHD if is possible
a little modificaton to ARGO to save the capture files with a date-time stamp instead of progressive number .. if yes, my problems with Dropbox are solved ...
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ ACTIVE GRABBERS IN USA ???
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 20, 2012 at 10:47:28.
Hi, Re: Hifer LP info for Lowdown and web
anyone knows if there are active HIFER grabbers in USA or everywhere over the pond ??
Posted by JohnDavis on June 20, 2012 at 21:04:58.
In reply to Hifer LP info for Lowdown and web posted by Larry Putman on June 19, 2012
Thanks, Larry. I've been kind of waiting until mode and schedule stabilized to put your entry in the list. :)
Everyone else who has been experimenting/planning: if you are ready to announce your beacon for purposes of the lists, now is the best time to do it. I've got to send the updated list in for publication this weekend. Please post your info here in the Message Board so I'll be sure to see it.
Thanks!
John
Re: ACTIVE GRABBERS IN USA ???
Posted by John Davis on June 20, 2012 at 21:20:37.
In reply to ACTIVE GRABBERS IN USA ??? posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 20, 2012
This has been kind of a regular question here in the board lately, and thus far the answer appears to be "no."
Anyone thinking of doing such a thing but who doesn't have their own Web site is welcome to host their grabber here at LWCA.org. (At least, the basic grabber itself. We don't have very good means to directly handle rolling archives like Mauro and Steve are operating, although they do those archives through third-party providers anyway and link to them from their main grabber page.)
We can host your basic grabber page, which I can help you create, and the periodically updated Argo image; or we can host only the text page, and incorporate within it the Argo image you upload to Dropbox or Photobucket. (The latter is how we do Andy Bell's LF grabber during the fall and winter seasons.)
If you have the receiving capability, and a basic Internet connection, and--most especially--the desire to operate a grabber, don't let lack of experience with Web pages or a place to host one hold you back.
John Good Conditions!
Posted by Larry Putman on June 21, 2012 at 14:00:07.
Last 2 nights were decent so for tonights run I will drop my power down to 1 milliwatt or 0 dBm. HiFER Listing Discrepancies
Posted by John Davis on June 21, 2012 at 17:21:45.
Larry, based on Steve's early morning archive captures, I make LP's frequency to be closer to .390 than .400, and have listed it accordingly. At .400, you would be walking all over USC, and that is not happening; the lowest frequency is actually closer to MP.
Also, can anyone confirm if COM is on, and if so, on what frequency? I have not seen it in quite some time myself, nor on the overseas grabbers.
And if anyone else has corrections to your current or planned beacon operation, now is the time to let me know. Thanks!
John
Re: S and EH test
Posted by John Davis on June 21, 2012 at 17:25:47.
In reply to S and EH test posted by Sal,K1RGO on June 17, 2012
Sal, do you want "S" listed in The LOWDOWN as a regular beacon, or will it be only temporary?
John
Re: S and EH test
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on June 21, 2012 at 17:55:12.
In reply to Re: S and EH test posted by John Davis on June 21, 2012
Hi John, S is only temporary just to evaluate my antennas. So just EH as FSK as is is fine. Re: HiFER Listing Discrepancies
later........
Posted by Matt Burns kc8com on June 21, 2012 at 18:41:36.
In reply to HiFER Listing Discrepancies posted by John Davis on June 21, 2012
COM is on, I did some work yesterday to get the shift down to about 6 hz, fsk pattern is the same, my frequency counter reads 13555460 for the high frequency but my latest estimation shows the counter reading about 70-80 hz high at 13555 kHz so it's probably around .380 or .390.
If that causes trouble I'll try to pull it down a little bit.
Matt
Re: HiFER Listing Discrepancies
Posted by Larry Putman on June 21, 2012 at 19:30:43.
In reply to HiFER Listing Discrepancies posted by John Davis on June 21, 2012
John, Yes the Rigol has once again drifted off frequency:( I will discontinue using it until further notice.
73 Re: HiFER Listing Discrepancies
Larry
Posted by John Davis on June 21, 2012 at 20:20:28.
In reply to Re: HiFER Listing Discrepancies posted by Larry Putman on June 21, 2012
Actually, where it was at the time of Steve's captures isn't a bad spot, if it could be persuaded to remain there. (Can't get into my field after this morning's rains to look at signals myself, so having one grabber a quarter of the way around the world and another halfway around is coming in VERY handy!)
John
Crowded at the Waterhole...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 21, 2012 at 21:29:26.
In a few weeks my ARGO grabber will be able to match the span of Mauro's.
Currently Mauro's grabber has about a span of 320Hz, while mine is only about 245Hz. It is limited to that by the modes available on the graphics card (I think I said monitor before - duuhhh...) currently in use.
I am planning to upgrade and spring clean another PC for use for radio stuff only which will be able to display 1024 pixels in height, thereby allowing the full 320Hz span.
73 Steve VK2XV
E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by robert c on June 22, 2012 at 15:12:38.
anyone ever use a EH or isotron on any of the part 15 bands? Lowfer, Medfer, HiFer? results as compared to traditional antenna setups typically used on these bands under part 15?
i need access to a car battery and a field so i can lay out ground radials on the ground and take F/S measurements of a traditional setup then setup an isotron and EH and take measurements, but getting that access will be a while. in meantime i'm interested if any of you guys ran experiments using these?
i'm guessing lowfer and medfer bands would be where EH/Isotron would be most useful as hifer goes by F/S not power input/antenna.
supposedly if they are balanced right you need no ground and coax if used will not radiate but getting them balanced i have heard is the trick.
i understand they may not radiate well (especially when setup properly with no ground lead/coax) but when living in an apartment something is better than nothing and since i am a compulsive experimenter things like this interest me just on that alone and i am curious of anyone here who might have experimented with these antenna's.
i'm actually considering one for 6/10/11 meters i operate 28.300/500 under my tech license using USB (yes i use a type accepted 11m rig for CB) and i want to try 6 DX. i'm in an apartment and antenna's are allowed so long as they don't stick out off my porch space more than a DBS dish. since i'm 9ft above ground, lead for ground for part 15 or ham is out.
again not looking for debate just still looking for idea's that will work.
this is to solve my 6/10/11 meter antenna issues now.
i've given up on part 15.219 from the apartment and will run neutral loaded CC under 209/221 and just get permission (maintenance already said they would stick it up on pool house for me) from complex to put a self contained solar powered part 15 microwave (maybe a nano bridge and in/ex streamer) linked 15.239 fm (Decade MS100M) node on top of pool house to cover pool and picnic area about 50ft radius max.
Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by John Davis on June 22, 2012 at 20:11:26.
In reply to E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by robert c on June 22, 2012
I have no opinion on Isotron antennas themselves, having never been around or involved with them in any way. They appear to be creatively loaded but otherwise very conventional electrically-short antennas. However, if anyone is telling people "you need no ground and coax if used will not radiate," then that (a) is not true for all possible modes of operation, and (b) is immaterial in the case of Part 15 Rules that involve total length, anyway. There is NO exception for transmission lines or ground leads that don't radiate.
Of course, as you said, at 22 meters that's not an issue. An Isotron could be useful. But then, it's not that hard to build and load up all kinds of electrically short radiators that would work just fine in that band, or for 11 meters on up. There's nothing magic about the Isotron in this regard. The ARRL Antenna Book and other sources can help with suitable limited-space and stealth designs, as well as techniques for isolating RF current from the coax.
As for the EH...oh my. I met the inventor at the IEEE Broadcast Technology Society symposium in Washington some years ago and he's a nice enough guy, but he had managed to convince himself that inductors can somehow shift the phase of current flowing between their input and output terminals. That was the heart of the so-called theoretical basis he presented for his EH antennas, and it's totally bogus. (The current through any single-port device is identical in amplitude and phase between both terminals, unless there is leakage to the outside. The voltage across those terminals can lead or lag the current, and in fact, that's always the case for a reactance. Nothing new on that front in well over a century!) His real-world tests on the AM band were a flop, too, despite offers of assistance from several of the consulting engineers who were present at the symposium. I lived not far down the road from Eatonton, GA, at the time he had his experimental authorization, and never detected a peep.
None the less, it appears some True Believers have licensed the patents (you don't have to prove to the Patent Office these days that your "invention" actually works; all a patent means is that the government recognizes you laid claim to the idea) and are trying to promote the antennas' commerical use. I looked at their Web site recently and it's got all kinds of wild and unsubstatiable claims. "No reactive field" in a loop antenna that has somehow been magicked up to be an EH??? Give me a break!
The plain-Jane EH antenna is and never has been anything more than a conventional electrically short radiator with hefty inductive loading via a coil and capacitive loading via radiating elements of as large a diameter as practical. Does it "work?" Sure, but only exactly as well (and is exactly as touchy to tune) as any other heavily loaded super-short radiator. Try it if you want, but remember, there is no free lunch.
John
Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by Lee on June 23, 2012 at 00:39:32.
In reply to Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by John Davis on June 22, 2012
Country Crock! Genius.
Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by John Davis on June 23, 2012 at 01:10:45.
In reply to Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by Lee on June 23, 2012
That's the spread you should use on a free lunch, of course.
Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 23, 2012 at 05:48:29.
In reply to Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by John Davis on June 23, 2012
The best part is it comes in 5 varieties.
My favourite would be "Churn Style"....
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by John Davis on June 23, 2012 at 05:49:13.
In reply to Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 23, 2012
Ah! Truly, it is international cuisine!
Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by Paul on June 23, 2012 at 20:21:10.
In reply to Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by John Davis on June 22, 2012
John,
Could not agree more on the EH 'antenna'. When they published articles about it in RW, I was quite vocal about it being a sham, and some people bashed me because I explained in great detain how it is nothing more than a heavily loaded end fed antenna. You cannot magically create a field using current out of phase with a stationery mass as the 'source'.
From what I could tell, it looked more like they were relying on long feedlines mounted on sinulators above ground to create the field with the EH 'antenna' on the end acting like a current sump.
I also found it amusing that all the EH antennas pictured in RW were always painted up to look like carnival rides.
73, Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Posted by John Davis on June 24, 2012 at 01:13:06.
In reply to Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by Paul on June 23, 2012
"I also found it amusing that all the EH antennas pictured in RW were always painted up to look like carnival rides."
That's how you induce the current to circulate around and around, without which it won't radiate. :)
digital modes tests ???
Posted by Mauro IK1WVQ on June 24, 2012 at 06:06:16.
Hi to all,
if someone wants to try digital modes (WSPR, OPERA) I can arrange an RX session in my PC..
I suggest OPERA, because requires a simple ON-OFF keing, no needs for time synchronization .. the software provides the code sequence for beacon TX ..
for example: the code for IK1WVQ beacon is:
"11011001011001101010011001100110100101101001011001100110100101011010011010011001010110010110100110101010011001100110100110011010010110011010101001010110011010100101101001011010010110100101010110011010100101011010101001010101101010100110011" ..
the duration of single "bit" is 512 msec.
I wrote few lines of C for a little microchip PIC...
I shall available for all kind of tests.
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
Lowfer Beacon WM
Posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on June 24, 2012 at 18:08:09.
I just noticed today that the late Bill Ashlock's WM beacon is back on the air just above 185.300 kHz. This is presumably the result of some work by Warren, K2ORS. Nice to see the signal there again.
John, W1TAG
Re: 600M Band Plan?
Posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012 at 17:24:54.
In reply to Re: 600M Band Plan? posted by Pat Bunn on June 19, 2012
Sounds like you are ready....Let us know when you are Source for Poly Film Caps?
on the air. I might be able to copy down here since its
500 KHz.
I'm just thinking of what I can get started on so maybe
I'll have something for opening day.
I can imagine antennas, at least a decent one, is not
easy on 600M.....Keep me posted!...Bob...EDJ...
Posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012 at 17:31:48.
I'm digging up the parts to build the AMRAD LF Upconverter. I can get the torroids from Amidon ok but the caps for the front end filter seem to be a problem. Digikey or Mouser do not seem to stock them. The specified caps are Polypropylene film 2%. Are there other types that will work for the filter? I have good supply of older silver mica types but not sure they're usable for this filter? Any ideas or sources I've missed??....Bob...WA1EDJ...
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by John Davis on June 25, 2012 at 17:55:45.
In reply to Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012
Allied and Newark most likely have polypropylene caps, but I'm not sure about 2%. At some time or another, I'm pretty sure I saw then at Digikey, too, but I don't know if they still have them. (Last year, after I finally resumed ordering parts from Digikey, they stopped sending me catalogs! I've not been able to get one at all from Mouser in the last two years I've been trying...and their Web site is nearly impossible for me to find anything on. Sigh!)
On the other hand, I believe silver mica caps are plenty good for purposes of that filter if they're small enough that you can keep stray inductance from the leads to a minimum.
John
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012 at 18:13:16.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by John Davis on June 25, 2012
Thanks John!....Digi and Mouser did not appear to have any on hand. Something about special order which I want to avoid. Never done business with Allied or Newark. At 500 KHz I wouldn't think stray inductance would be a problem. At least for lead lengths I'd use. I always strive for short as possible anyway. I'll have to check the values I have, may I could make things work....TNX!...Bob...EDJ...
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 25, 2012 at 18:56:34.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012
Bob,
You might want to look at a different filter. I designed a 7 pole filter with ELSIE that is excellent and uses .01uF and .015uf caps that are available in 1%. I used Micrometals type 3 material in .5" diameter toroid forms. It matched my Clifton labs active antenna very well.
I build the AMRAD converter and was not happy with it myself. It could not compete with the older DBM converter that I was using although it should have. Not sure what the problem was. The mixer had way too much loss for me.
Since that design was done, there are better FET switches available.
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Pat
N4LTA
Posted by John Davis on June 25, 2012 at 19:18:05.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Pat Bunn on June 25, 2012
"At 500 KHz I wouldn't think stray inductance would be a problem."
True enough for that vicinity; but remember, what you're really after is gobs and gobs of attenuation in the 3 to 4 MHz vicinity so you don't get bleed-through of ham signals. In the case of a switching mixer, you also want good attenuation throughout the entire HF range, so you don't create IM products from stray signals that may be located around harmonics of the switching frequency.
Good luck!
John
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012 at 19:22:10.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Pat Bunn on June 25, 2012
I think I saw a discussion where you mentioned your DBM converter a while back. Was that the one described in The LOWDOWN years ago? I had looked at that one but felt this newer design should be better....What is it you are using now? I'm not set on any particular one. I remember you designed one around a 602 years back....I still have that one.....Bob...
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 26, 2012 at 00:42:54.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012
I still use the SBL-3 converter with a diplexer and class A amp after the diplexer. I use the filter I described earlier.
I currently have a board designed to use a FST 3125 FET switch and a OCXO at 12 Mhz divided by 4 to convert to 3 Mhz but haven't built it yet. It has the same 7 pole filter.
The reason that I haven't finished it is that I am stupid. I got the OCXO from DigiKey(it cost $55) and either lost it or put it where I can't find it. It is a tiny SM module and surely it will show up. So far it hasn't
I have a few extra SBL-3 if you want one. Let me know.
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Pat
N4LTA
Posted by Matt Burns kc8com on June 26, 2012 at 01:53:21.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by John Davis on June 25, 2012
One possible solution would be to get a 5 or 10% cap in 10 or 20 quantity and measure each cap till you find one that falls close to the mark. This is probably not much more expensive than buying a single 2% capacitor would be plus you get a bunch of extra capacitors for your junk box.
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Gregg on June 26, 2012 at 11:06:56.
In reply to Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Bob Confrey on June 25, 2012
Have you checked all voltages? I use 2% in my HiFi builds and last I ordered from Digikey, they were available in 2%... Panasonic ECW series... Re: E/H or Isotron for part 15
Cheers!
Posted by Gregg on June 26, 2012 at 11:10:39.
In reply to E/H or Isotron for part 15 posted by robert c on June 22, 2012
EH a.k.a. Radiating Dummy Load :-p Re: Lowfer Beacon WM
Been there, done that.
Posted by Gregg on June 26, 2012 at 11:12:46.
In reply to Lowfer Beacon WM posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on June 24, 2012
Cute! ^_^
Re: Lowfer Beacon WM
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on June 26, 2012 at 12:14:52.
In reply to Lowfer Beacon WM posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on June 24, 2012
John, thanks for the report that WM is again QRV. Not surprised I didn't copy it here over night, but by Fall it should again be visible. Lowfers MP (137.7805 kHz) and EAR (185.8308 kHz) are coming in fine as usual and just before local sunrise BR was noticed at 185.539 kHz.
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Bob Confrey on June 26, 2012 at 19:19:16.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Pat Bunn on June 26, 2012
I was looking at that converter a while back....Maybe I'll revisit it. I know all about loosing parts!...I got tons myself and have been collecting SMT when ever I can. I can prototype with 1206 parts pretty easily. We've moved away from 1206 at work so lots are available. Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
I think I have the SBL-3. I think that one goes much lower in freq. If not I'll let you know. I would like to use your filter though.....TNX...Bob...EDJ...
Posted by Bob Confrey on June 26, 2012 at 19:24:48.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Gregg on June 26, 2012
I probably missed something in my search...If you don't feed the search filter right on Digikey you don't get back all possibilities....I'll take another look...TNX!
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by John Davis on June 26, 2012 at 19:57:50.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Bob Confrey on June 26, 2012
"If you don't feed the search filter right on Digikey you don't get back all possibilities...."
That's one of the reasons I still love catalogs...preferably printed, so I don't have to boot them up and I can read them wherever I happen to be...but even a PDF version is better than searching with most e-commerce Websites. Digikey's works far, far better for me than Mouser's does, but even at that, I still miss things in my searches because the filters are so nitpicky.
John Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on June 27, 2012 at 01:42:16.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by John Davis on June 26, 2012
The problem with the printed catalogs is they don't show stock levels. Especially with through-hole parts, this is a real problem. Digi-Key carries zero stock on many listed parts, and lead-times can be over 2 months.
John A.
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by John Davis on June 27, 2012 at 04:05:58.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on June 27, 2012
That's also true. Goes to show it's handy to have both...a catalog to browse and receive inspiration from, and the online tools to confirm what's actually practical to get.
John
New HiFER Beacon
Posted by Dale Parfitt on June 27, 2012 at 16:50:50.
In reply to Re: S and EH test posted by Sal,K1RGO on June 21, 2012
I just saw a new beacon above EH- 13555.610 show up for several minutes and disappear- not propagation QSB.
I had difficulty deciphering the ID- was this S?
06/27/2012 1545 GMT
Dale W4OP
HiFER Grabber & Archive stutters...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 28, 2012 at 05:46:28.
Just in case someone is viewing my Grabber and/or Picasa archive pages...
Apologies for all the stops and starts, disappearances and gaps - I am re-configuring and tinkering. After being well pleased with the grabber and archive operation I am mucking about with a web cam....
By next week all should be stable again.
73 Steve VK2XV
Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Gregg on June 30, 2012 at 02:20:13.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Bob Confrey on June 26, 2012
I'd suggest just filtering polypropylene (metallized), Panasonic and through hole.
Cheers!
HiFER Grabber file size...
Posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 30, 2012 at 09:53:53.
G'day All,
Could I get some comments on the preferred capture file size please ?
At the moment I am running the ARGO capture at a compression level which produces a file size of about 130kB for the 1000x992 capture. There is a little loss of detail at this level. File sizes of 2 or 3 times this (250kB to 400kB) reduce this somewhat.
Question: Is the current compression level satisfactory ? - or is a larger file size (less compression) wanted ?
Keep in mind the archived file is the same file size as the grabber file - perhaps relevant if you are scrolling through the 300 odd captures over a 24 hour archive period...
BTW - I won't go higher in compression (<130kB file size) as it degrades the capture too much.
73 Steve VK2XV Re: Source for Poly Film Caps?
Posted by Pat Bunn on June 30, 2012 at 14:24:17.
In reply to Re: Source for Poly Film Caps? posted by Gregg on June 30, 2012
Bob
I just bought some .01, .015 and .022uF 1% caps from Newark - on sale at less than 50 cents each. Through hole 5mm lead spacing. That is what I used for a new 9 pole LP filter for my converter. They shipped from Gaffney SC and I get them next day. They worked fine and are high quality.
Pat Re: HiFER Grabber file size...
N4LTA
Posted by John Davis on June 30, 2012 at 22:21:22.
In reply to HiFER Grabber file size... posted by Steve Olney VK2XV on June 30, 2012
What I am seeing at the moment is somewhat different from what you described, Steve, and I'm not sure why.
The most recent capture on the grabber as of 2210 UTC is 1000x992 pixels, and is sharp as can be (more than it needs to be for clarity even when viewing weak signals, I suspect), with a file size of 252409 bytes.
The archive version of the same capture is 512x508 pixels as seen here, however, with a file size of 142469 bytes, and is distinctly lacking in detail. The frequency scale suffers worst from the shrinkage.
(EDIT:) FWIW, when I click a thumbnail image in the archive and it opens a window with the larger picture in it, the following appears beside the picture:
Photo information:
Jun 30, 2012
1000×992 pixels – 247KB
But the photo it shows me is actually only 512x508 in size.
Somehow, I suspect Google is acting snotty because I refuse to install their proprietary Chrome extensions. When I went to copy that information to this addendum, more detail appeared when I pasted than was actually shown on screen, and I have trimmed it to what I actually was allowed to see on the page. (Soapbox mode on.) People pitched a fit and threatened to sue every time Microsoft tried to veer from Netscape's accepted practice in the slightest and introduce some new extension of their own...why aren't they doing that now that Google is openly trying to take over our desktops, I wonder? (End soapbox mode.)
73
John
Re: New Lowfer Transmiter
Posted by John Hamer on June 30, 2012 at 23:55:54.
In reply to Re: New Lowfer Transmiter posted by John Davis on April 22, 2012
I have not built the antenna as of now. I have started looking into getting the antenna up. I have been transmitting some tones around 1 khz from the transmitter to a small antenna so that I can receive it on my portable radio for testing. Without a full antenna I doubt these signals are getting very far. I am back on the antenna project and will hopefully have a operating system very soon.
potrzebie