137 kHz amateur radio allocation in the U.S.A.?
Posted by Douglas Williams on November 21, 2012 at 21:12:30.
Re: SINGER EMPIRE LG-105 LOOP ANTENNA
Thanks John. I figured out the connections by disassembling the terminal dox on the antenna. There is currently on on Ebay but for far more than the one I have cost. Re: SINGER EMPIRE LG-105 LOOP ANTENNA
James
Posted by John Davis on November 01, 2012 at 21:02:42.
In reply to Re: SINGER EMPIRE LG-105 LOOP ANTENNA posted by James Allen on November 01, 2012
Yes, sometimes the sellers of items on eBay seem to think their merchandise is gold plated. :)
Glad you were able to figure out the connections. Did you determine what the second connector is for?
John
WG2XCT
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 02, 2012 at 12:54:20.
WG2XCT will operate a QRSS3/slow CW beacon on 497.00 kHz all weekend with a short CW message on the 106 year aniversary of the Berlin Treaty. Power level is about 120 watts to a 55 foot vertical in EM94bw. Reports are welcome. QSL to N4LTA.
Pat Bunn
Re: WG2XCT--Copied in EM50cg
Posted by EdWSlidell,LA on November 03, 2012 at 13:28:19.
In reply to WG2XCT posted by Pat Bunn on November 02, 2012
Hi Pat. I believe I was able to hear the WG2XCT signal last night, 3 Nov., around 0230 UT. The message on CW was heard, but not possible to copy more than bits and pieces due to the atmospheric noise. The "WG" part of the QRSS3 was copied, but again, very difficult because of the noise. A lot of lightning activity in the Gulf, and off the East coast. Ed WSlidell,LA EM50cg
Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency
Posted by Lee on November 04, 2012 at 20:58:08.
I recently purchased a pet barrier to keep the small dog out of the cat room. I was poking around to find out what freq it uses. It seems that most use 10.65khz or 7khz. That makes sense because the transmit module about the size of smoke detecter is heavy and has a large mag wire coil inside for the antenna. Anyone noting any interference from these devices?
Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency
Posted by John Davis on November 04, 2012 at 22:51:22.
In reply to Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency posted by Lee on November 04, 2012
I seem to recall someone commenting in the past about how harmonic-rich these transmitters are, but I don't recollect exactly when. The Message Board Search feature returns a LOT of results for the phrase "pet fence" because it is can looking for documents containing all those words, not the exact phrase itself; maybe it'd be worthwhile trying "pet barrier" instead to narrow the focus. I'm editing typos and bad links from some of the archives this evening anyway, so perhaps I'll run across one of those posts.
Good luck.
John
Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency
Posted by robert on November 08, 2012 at 13:02:59.
In reply to Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency posted by John Davis on November 04, 2012
the FCC ID tells you a lot. punch it in at the oet equipment authorization site.
it will give you all the info on it's harmonics, frequency, power, etc.
all harmonics must be below the levels stated in 15.209 and/or in many cases 20db below main carrier.
Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency
Posted by robert on November 08, 2012 at 13:06:21.
In reply to Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency posted by robert on November 08, 2012
also i do believe as part of their certification they were required to be buried and not above ground in say a house floor or under carpeting.
something you may want to double check on in your research. i could be wrong about it needing to be buried though.
Hifer watering hole
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 08, 2012 at 16:54:28.
Haven't looked at the hifer watering hole for awhile. See two nice signals in there today: NC, 13555595 Hz, low tone, and EH, 13555495 Hz, low tone. Slant SIW and QRSS6 SIW are running somewhat lower in frequency.
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
SJ in the "hole"
Posted by Sal, K1RGO on November 09, 2012 at 00:46:44.
It's that time again, got off to a rough start with loss of power and a snow storm. The antenna hung in there and I found an xtal for the watering hole . So SJ will try 185.303 kHz this season QRSS20 as usual, it's on right now and for any reports , i'm all ears......... 502 N-E-E-D
later........
Posted by Larry Lanberg on November 09, 2012 at 12:36:26.
Every night at my location (Richmond, VA) I get a fair to weak copy of N E E D, which I'm logging as 502 and 503 kHz. I see nothing on William Hepburn's list of anything similar. Anyone know what this is? Thanks.
Re: 502 N-E-E-D
Posted by Larry Lanberg on November 09, 2012 at 12:44:37.
In reply to 502 N-E-E-D posted by Larry Lanberg on November 09, 2012
Ok, sorry. I see now that there's a thread below about this mystery Tx. Here in Richmond its only a fair copy at best. For reference I've recently got a 25-watt NDB out of Iowa (1182 miles from here) just as good or better.
Re: SJ in the "hole"
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 09, 2012 at 13:04:00.
In reply to SJ in the "hole" posted by Sal, K1RGO on November 09, 2012
After a tuning jump a bit before 0430Z, SJ was copied weakly right at 185.303 kHz.
73, Re: SJ in the "hole"
Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on November 09, 2012 at 15:50:49.
In reply to Re: SJ in the "hole" posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 09, 2012
Hi Garry,Glad to hear you got a copy on SJ. It's noisy here on lowfer band even with the noise nuller, and when the power came back it is even worse. I hope things get resolved so I can do some plots. We lost power for 4 days and luckily not too much wind damage. Maybe because of my tree cutting and trimming... Re: SJ in the "hole"
later..Sal
Posted by Dex on November 10, 2012 at 00:41:19.
In reply to SJ in the "hole" posted by Sal, K1RGO on November 09, 2012
SJ and TAG both nice copy in NC this evening: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15095569/w4dex/grabber1_00000.jpg
(Webmaster's Note: In case you don't catch Dexter's grabber image "live" while the two stations are still coming in, here's a saved image taken a little later in the evening.)
BEACON MLS 186.200
I've been running a new beacon with the callsigh MLS in CW on 186.200 So far I've received reports out to 30 miles. It's located in NE Ohio at EN90. If anyone receives it, please post. many TNX...... Mark
Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
Posted by John Davis on November 10, 2012 at 04:16:40.
In reply to BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by Mark on November 10, 2012
Good luck, Mark.
Have you given thought to slow CW mode (QRSS) for the future to improve your chances of greater range?
John
Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
Posted by mark on November 10, 2012 at 06:33:01.
In reply to Re: BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by John Davis on November 10, 2012
yes, that will be my next step. I'll try and keep the beacon on 24/7 since the cold season is fast approaching.
Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
Posted by John Davis on November 10, 2012 at 16:37:57.
In reply to Re: BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by mark on November 10, 2012
Good deal.
Might I also suggest letting us post your contact information for the sake of listeners who don't always check in here, but who may hear you on the air and try to look you up in our beacon lists? The city in which you are located would be helpful, your full name, and either your e-mail address or mailing address, or both.
If you are concerned about spam, you shouldn't write the e-mail address in the body of the message, but only put it in the "E-Mail" box in the Reply area below. It then resides on our server in a coded form that spambots don't recognize, and is only translated to human-readable form when loaded into a real browser. (The body of the message is not encoded that same way, and is machine-readable, so that's why you shouldn't put it in the body. The address in the next paragraph is a rare exception, because I coded it manually.)
If you'd rather send the information to me directly, you can do so at mb@lwca.org and I'll get you into the list ASAP.
John
Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
Posted by Mark Smith on November 11, 2012 at 02:55:24.
In reply to Re: BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by John Davis on November 10, 2012
Hi John, I'm located in Massillon Ohio (EN90). Again, the beacon callsign is MLS and on a frequency of 186.200 I'll be keeping it running 24/7 till Spring. I then plan on doing some tests on the new Ham Band (472-479 Khz) provided we are allowed to start using the new band in early 2013. Have to wait and see I guess. TNX for your help and info. Mark
Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency
Posted by Lee on November 11, 2012 at 04:57:31.
In reply to Re: Wireless Pet fence/barriers Frequency posted by robert on November 08, 2012
Great info. But I got no response on the transmiter FCC ID at the OET search web site. Transmiter ID is 300-976 and the official FCC records company is "RadioSystems Corp". Receiver collar FCC ID is 300-846. I only tried using the ID numbers. At some point I will try using the ID and Company names. Thanks. Good news is that the equipment worked. The Small dog will not go anywhere near the doorway for the forbidden room.
Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
Posted by John Davis on November 11, 2012 at 06:15:14.
In reply to Re: BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by Mark Smith on November 11, 2012
Thanks very much, Mark.
I'm not sure when our new 600 m ham band might be available in this country. The last time I checked, there was no formal rulemaking proceeding underway at the FCC yet. At the late September meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors, there was reportedly a petition for such a rulemaking on the agenda, but there has been no word in the ARRL Letter or on their website about the outcome.
The FCC is very busy getting ready to auction off more TV channels for use by mobile iToys, so I expect this is not high on their to-do list. Fortunately, there should not be a lot of objection or delay this time, once they finally do propose the rule change.
John
74.5 khz plus harmonics
Posted by Bill, WA2DVU on November 11, 2012 at 22:49:19.
I have been using my new Perseus for a few weeks with a Wellbrook loop and a K9ay loop. Any info on FX 74.5 khz, 149khz and 223.5 khz? It is a raspy sig that is keyed on all three frequencies every 4 seconds for about a second with around S5 strengths at the identical time.
73,
Bill, WA2DVU
Re: 74.5 khz plus harmonics
Posted by John Davis on November 12, 2012 at 17:34:47.
In reply to 74.5 khz plus harmonics posted by Bill, WA2DVU on November 11, 2012
I can't say for sure, having not yet been--er, blessed with one of these in my vicinity, but this sounds suspiciously like a remote reading power meter or load management signal. Although there is no technical reason why they shouldn't be a LOT cleaner than that, the power industry is under the misimpression that they personally own the spectrum under 490 kHz. So, despite the relative sophistication of their monitoring capabilities, the cheap, brute-force RF sections of these devices tend to be crude and are rather filthy neighbors, radio wise.
Welcome to the "smart grid."
John Re: 74.5 khz plus harmonics
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on November 13, 2012 at 21:29:55.
In reply to 74.5 khz plus harmonics posted by Bill, WA2DVU on November 11, 2012
I have similiar crud here, S9 at times . It makes it difficult to copy lowfers. The power company is at fault with the remote scheme they use.In the past it was only light dimmers, now this crud. NDB LYQ back on-the-air
later.....Sal,K1RGO
Posted by Barry on November 15, 2012 at 04:02:35.
NDB LYQ (near Morrison, TN) on 529 khz is back on-the-air.
-Barry
Re: SJ in the "hole"
Posted by Douglas Williams on November 15, 2012 at 11:17:41.
In reply to SJ in the "hole" posted by Sal, K1RGO on November 09, 2012
Sal,
Good copy last night in Tennessee. Nice signal.
73,
Doug KB4OER
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/33457409/185303HZ.jpg
Re: SJ in the "hole"
Posted by Sal,K1RGO on November 15, 2012 at 22:29:31.
In reply to Re: SJ in the "hole" posted by Douglas Williams on November 15, 2012
Nice plot Doug, My grabber soon online again!
I printed a copy, thnx
Sal...
Posted by IK1WVQ Mauro on November 16, 2012 at 09:48:09.
Hi to all, KU4XR Grabber monitoring the lowFER watering hole tonite 11/16/2012
I do not forgot the HIFER band!
few days and my antenna/RX system will be online again.
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
Posted by Andy - KU4XR on November 16, 2012 at 23:30:19.
Been seeing splendid copy from " SJ", and; " SIW " is good in both 30 and 60 second dots during his nights to transmit.. Still looking for " TAG ", and waiting for propagation to improve more after the recent solar storm.. No signs of " AR " since then !! Here's the link to the grabber page... Thanks John for the webspace : http://lwca.org/grabbers/ku4xr/ 73 all: Andy - KU4XR - EM75xr
Re: NDB LYQ back on-the-air
Posted by Andy - KU4XR on November 17, 2012 at 00:26:21.
In reply to NDB LYQ back on-the-air posted by Barry on November 15, 2012
" LYQ " is actually in Manchester, TN. I was in my car this afternoon around 3 pm EST and tuned the radio to 530 KHz and heard " LYQ " coming in loud and clear in Etowah, TN. where I work.. Manchester is 88 miles from here, and the signal was very steady, with only slight fading.. I heard it on Wed. evening 11/14/2012 on the way home from work around 8:30 pm EST, and it was riding the carrier of the cuban station on 530 KHz.. At times; the audio tone was so loud I had to turn the volume down... hi - hi : 73 to all : Andy - KU4XR
Beacon JAM 187.015khz Holiday Sched
Posted by Lee on November 17, 2012 at 05:06:09.
Beacon JAM 187.015khz Holiday Schedule. For normal weekends noon Friday thru noon Monday. Thanksgiving noon 11/21 thru noon 11/26. Christmas noon 12/21 thru noon 12/26. New years noon 12/28 thru noon 1/2/13. Good DX to all.
Re: NDB LYQ back on-the-air
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 18, 2012 at 00:32:02.
In reply to Re: NDB LYQ back on-the-air posted by Andy - KU4XR on November 17, 2012
Listened for LYQ this afternoon about 3pm local. Could see a trace on ARGO but could not detect the audio. Started coming in at about 5PM local time and was easy to hear the audio a little later.
Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
Posted by steve on November 18, 2012 at 00:57:23.
In reply to BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by Mark on November 10, 2012
Mark, Re: BEACON MLS 186.200
It is 1950 EST November 17 2012. I am hearing your beacon near Marietta Ohio EM99hj. Rx is a Rycom R1307A/GR. The Antenna is a 500' ft loop.
Regards
Steve N8YE
Posted by mark on November 18, 2012 at 02:15:46.
In reply to Re: BEACON MLS 186.200 posted by steve on November 18, 2012
Thanks for the report! This is great. I plan on leaving it on 24/7 till Spring. 73 Mark
is the EH beacon still on air ??
Posted by IK1WVQ Mauro on November 18, 2012 at 13:49:40.
HI to all,
I am testing my new DC receiver for 13.555MHz band..
Is the "EH" beacon still active ???
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
Re: is the EH beacon still on air ??
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 18, 2012 at 14:09:31.
In reply to is the EH beacon still on air ?? posted by IK1WVQ Mauro on November 18, 2012
Hi Mauro,
Thanks for reactivating your hifer grabber. Yes, EH is still active. I'm copying it at 13555494 Hz (low tone) along with NC at 13555601 Hz (low tone). My hifers are also running at 13555429 (QRSS6 to dipole) and 13555439 (slant code center to vertical).
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin, IL
Re: is the EH beacon still on air ??
Posted by IK1WVQ Mauro on November 18, 2012 at 17:14:05.
In reply to Re: is the EH beacon still on air ?? posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 18, 2012
thanks Garry,
this night I shall try to receive all you ..
If the RX works, in few days the grabber will be on_air ...
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ
PBO on the air
Posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 18, 2012 at 22:46:33.
Hi All,
PBO is back on the air 24/7 on 187.2 khz (or so) running QRSS60.
I have changed antennas. I am no longer using a loop. I am using a 40’ vertical with a 10’ top hat. The antenna capacitance is 190 pf. I built a 14” air wound loading coil with a 6” variometer which gives 2.6 to 4.6 mH.
I am not expecting much from this setup. I live on a mountain of clay and shale. I have 20 radials out in lengths from 35 to 100‘ and 4 of them are terminated in ground rods. I am still measuring over 200 ohms of resistance with the bridge at 187.2 kHz. I will add more radials and ground wire throughout the season. I just want to see if I am condemned to use a loop
73
Rick KA2PBO Russian Alphas
Posted by Steve N8YE on November 19, 2012 at 16:46:25.
I tried to hear the Russian Alphas last night. Nil copy. Are they still active? My notes say they are on 11.955, 12.649, 14.881 kHz. I have heard them in the past. Re: Russian Alphas
Thanks
Steve in Ohio
Posted by John Davis on November 19, 2012 at 17:06:30.
In reply to Russian Alphas posted by Steve N8YE on November 19, 2012
I haven't listened for them lately myself, but they are notorious for operating intermittently. One story is that they get shut down completely for extended intervals until they can pay the electric bill again. Other times, you'll hear more or fewer stations keying on each of the three frequencies, depending on how many are operational on a given day.
John
New QTH and Set-up
Posted by Bill Marvin KB9IV on November 20, 2012 at 15:53:28.
Hi Group I am new to this QTH. UP of Mich from my old QTH in So. MN. I been off radio for a year and a half.
My receiver and antenna are new to me.....a Icom 765 and a timewave 599zx Audio DSP/Soundcard interface. The Rx anttenna is a Pixel Pro-1B Loop which works very well.
I have yet to catch any Lowfer's on 137 Khz or 185 Khz. Are condition's much poorer at 46 North Latitude?? I have yet to hear any LW Broadcaster's from the east i.e France 162 Khz etc here in the upper midwest.
Perhaps ol'sol is tempermental.
Best 73
Bill KB9IV
Re: PBO on the air
Posted by John Davis on November 21, 2012 at 16:53:35.
In reply to PBO on the air posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 18, 2012
Rick, given your description of the soil at the antenna site, I have some doubt whether driving more ground rods into it is going to give you the coupling to earth that you are looking for. This may be a situation where it's better to think in terms of a counterpoise and leave the properties of the soil itself out of the equation as much as possible. Lots of wire near the surface (meaning, buried no more than a couple of inches)...maybe even some runs of chicken wire with a little bagged topsoil scattered over it and walked flat for protection against the lawn mower (tied in to the remainder of the ground through stainless steel or aluminum fittings, so you don't have copper-on-zinc contact with the galvanizing)...is likely to make a bigger difference.
The fact that Jay copied you in CT last night is a very encouraging sign, and all the more so now that I see Lloyd captured you this morning as well.
John
Re: PBO on the air
Posted by Lloyd W3NF on November 21, 2012 at 17:16:04.
In reply to PBO on the air posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 18, 2012
here is my copy last nite and still seeing you this morning
Lloyd W3NF
137 kHz amateur radio allocation in the U.S.A.?
Posted by Douglas Williams on November 21, 2012 at 21:12:30.
Link taken from Warren's (K2ORS) post on the "LF e-mail reflector".
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-seeks-to-assign-entire-amateur-portion-of-160-meter-band-to-primary-status-to-amateur-radio-serv
Re: 137 kHz amateur radio allocation in the U.S.A.?
Posted by John Davis on November 22, 2012 at 01:22:09.
In reply to 137 kHz amateur radio allocation in the U.S.A.? posted by Douglas Williams on November 21, 2012
The FCC did say after the 2003 rulemaking attempt that they would take the matter up again when there was more practical experience in the band by hams worldwide, and by experimental licensees here at home. Apparently, that time has come. We have additional details on the lwca.org home page right now, and will add more over the weekend. This is the time to be thinking what you might want to bring to the Commission's attention during the public comment phase in a few weeks.
John
Ground Radials and Concrete Rebar
Posted by Lee on November 22, 2012 at 04:40:43.
This is a question inspired by John Davis's response to a question by PBO. My station JAM has about 1/2 of it's ground radial spread out on the ground under my house. The other 1/2 is under about 1500 sq ft of dense rebar in my concrete patio area. No radials are actually connected to the rebar. That seemed impracticle because the rebar is only connected together by steel wire. How much do you think that this is actually helping or hindering my antenna effectivness. My guess is that this is helping more than hindering. Re: NDB LYQ back on-the-air
Lee
Posted by John Davis on November 22, 2012 at 07:27:19.
In reply to Re: NDB LYQ back on-the-air posted by Pat Bunn on November 18, 2012
Yup, LYQ is definitely back!
Finally got a chance to get out of town and listen to LF on the farm this evening. The R-5000, my buffer amp, and notebook computer were merrily receiving MP and XKO (wouldn't have needed Argo, as both were audible on their own, except XKO was _so_ loud it covered up MP to the ear when keyed on). With that setup running, I walked to the barn to retrieve a box of parts, and had my cheap little Grundig portable turned on simply for a light source while in the building. It just happened to be on 530 kHz, and I was simultaneously hearing Cuban music and LYQ with nothing more than the bulit-in loopstick for an antenna. Just to be sure it was LYQ, I tuned down a couple of kilohertz to cut off some of the broadcast sidebands, then nulled out the Cuban station with careful orientation of the radio. Clear as a bell. You would have thought LYQ was a local!
John
Re: Ground Radials and Concrete Rebar
Posted by John Davis on November 22, 2012 at 07:33:31.
In reply to Ground Radials and Concrete Rebar posted by Lee on November 22, 2012
That's a very good question! I don't know the dielectric properties of concrete well enough to hazard a guess. Maybe someone with NEC software could try to model it, although ground systems are something I understand gets interpreted poorly by some such software.
In about two years, I may be pouring the slab for my planned home on the farm. I'll be glad to lay in radials ahead of time and do before-and-after comparisons...but that's a long time to wait for an answer. ;)
John
Re: Ground Radials and Concrete Rebar
Posted by Lee on November 22, 2012 at 09:46:02.
In reply to Re: Ground Radials and Concrete Rebar posted by John Davis on November 22, 2012
Thanks! We all will be waiting.
Re: Russian Alphas
Posted by Steve, KQ7E on November 22, 2012 at 22:16:02.
In reply to Russian Alphas posted by Steve N8YE on November 19, 2012
Hi...interesting post !
Don't know if what I'm hearing are the Alphas but, I more or less regularly, monitor / receive what appears to be some
type of data-burst xmsn on 12.7 kHz +/_ ( bfo-on..so need to account for off-set). Apparent schedule...0800 Ut-approx., 1030 UT...there seem to be several stations on the same freq.
xmt'g alternately. One is the strongest, when its xmsn pauses I can hear others..possibly replying. Others with similar format at intervals, or multiples of 12.7 kHz ( possibly or so it seems )up the band can also be heard but at lower rf levels.
Steve
Re: Russian Alphas
Posted by John Davis on November 23, 2012 at 03:31:17.
In reply to Re: Russian Alphas posted by Steve, KQ7E on November 22, 2012
I'm intrigued by what you are hearing, Steve, but I don't have any good ideas about what it may be.
The Russian ALPHA stations transmit only unmodulated carrier for a second or so at a time, in a schedule that alternates between sites on each frequency, and with the carriers in a specific phase relationship as well as time frame. Receivers synchronize with the transmit schedule and measure the phase shift from one transmission to the next. That produces hyperbolic curves of time delay between stations of each group, and where those curves intersect is where you are. Unlike LORAN, though, it's a very low resolution method. It strikes me as a lot of trouble to go through to radiate VLF signals that can only give your position within a few miles at best.
John
Re: Russian Alphas
Posted by Steve, KQ7E on November 23, 2012 at 16:39:04.
In reply to Re: Russian Alphas posted by John Davis on November 23, 2012
Hi John..hope you had a great Thanksgiving ! Antenna Matching Question
Thanks for your response and thoughts on the matter & clarification re the Ru., Alphas. Well, I'm still quite puzzled about the mystery signals on 12.7 kHz. I'm hoping that other folks are also receiving identical signal xmsns down there. Still don't know whether the signals are , in fact,legitimate or intended signals or, perhaps some local phenomenon such as incidental radiation , emi, rcvr abnormalities ? etc. Unfortunately, I only have one rcvr capable of reception that low in frequency.
tnx..73...Steve
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 23, 2012 at 20:35:41.
I am pretty happy with the performance of my 500 KHz vertical but am very puzzled with the feedpoint impedance.
The antenna is about 53 feet in height with a 10 foot hat made of 3/16" aluminum rod. It also is guyed at the top with 20 foot #12 wire guys that end with insulators 20 feet from the top also adding top loading.
The base insulator is a 15 KV class substation insulator. The first d]section is a ten foot section of 1 1/4 " galvanized conduit with a pivot at the bottom and then telescoping aluminum tubing from DX Engineering tapering to 1 1/4" diameter at the top.
The insulator sits on a aluminum grounding plate about 2' x 2' with ground connections all around for radials. The plate mounts on a concrete base about 42" square and about 12 " thick/ There is an 8 foot copperweld ground rod at each corner tied to the plate with #4 copper wire. Right now I have 20 radials of varying lengths. Several are close to 300 feet long.
When I measure the feedpoint impedance I am getting a reading of about 47 -J950 ohms. The capacitance is 325 pF. Everything is as expected except the 47 ohms. When I resonate out the capacitance with a variometer in series with the feedpoint of the antenna. I get a real impedance of about 35 ohms.
That is just resonating out the capacitance by placing the inductance in series with the feedpoint - not placing one end at ground and tapping up for a best match. When I try that - It does not match.
The large resistance at the feedpoint is the puzzle - it should be and ohm or two. Any idea what is going on with the 47 ohms ?
Pat Bunn
Re: PBO on the air
Posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 23, 2012 at 21:42:56.
In reply to Re: PBO on the air posted by John Davis on November 21, 2012
John,
So my curiosity cost me $20 ! I didn’t buy all four rods. I already had 2 rods in the ground roughly 50ft from the antenna . I bought 1 rod and drove it right below the antenna and tied it to the existing rods.I couldn’t get a resistance reading because my bridge crapped out . I did check the current though. I am seeing around 45 to 50 ma. through the radial system lead and only 1.5 ma. flowing through the ground rod lead! By the way ; the antenna current is only 60 ma so that tells me the ground is useless--- just as you expected!!
So more radials ( or screen) it is !!
Thanks John
Rick KA2PBO Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by EdWSlidell,LA on November 24, 2012 at 03:40:27.
In reply to Antenna Matching Question posted by Pat Bunn on November 23, 2012
Hi Pat. I believe what you are measuring is mostly ground resistance. As noted in another recent posting, radials really make a difference in the readings. You mentioned some of the radials are in the 300 ft. range. A quarter wave at 500 KHz/ 600 m is something like nearly 500ft, which would really require a lot of wire for the 8-10 radials needed to make a short antenna like yours give a low resistance reading. Re: Antenna Matching Question
I noticed that Southern Avionics quotes 10ohms/100pF for a 35 ft whip, and the value doesn't drop to 5ohms/1000pF until one of their large "T" antennas or vertical antennas over a lot of #10 copper wire radials is used. The 10 ohm value seems about right for steel vessels such as drill rigs(300x300ft or larger) or drill ships over 700ft. I doubt you will be able to get close that ground equivalent with a reasonable quantity of ground radials.
I'm not sure if it is directly comparable, but when I put up a 33ft antenna with four 33ft radials, the swr was nearly perfect. However, as I increased the number to 8 and then 16, and then 20, it got worse and worse. Just getting closer to the 30-35 ohm impedance of a quarter wave antenna I guess.
If it's any consolation, I am copying the signal now on ~497 KHz tonight, and it is in the 339 range, even with atmospheric noise from the storms in the western Gulf and Mexico. Ed WSlidell, LA EM50cg
Posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012 at 07:39:35.
In reply to Antenna Matching Question posted by Pat Bunn on November 23, 2012
I'm inclined to agree with Ed that most of it is ground loss. That's always in series with the antenna's own impedance. And of course, the loading coil will contribute some RF resistance of its own. Even with a taller mast and heavier top loading than we would be allowed for a LowFER, yours is still electrically quite short at 600 m wavelength, so the trick is still to get loss resistances down to heroically low values that will enable your efficiency to be adequate even with the inherently low radiation resistance.
What intrigues me at the moment is not so much the 47 ohms itself, as the fact that you read only 35 with the coil in circuit. What sort of gear are you using to measure impedance? Based what I encountered while trying to characterize my own LowFER antenna, I suspect the reading of your unresonated antenna might skew the series resistive component a bit, because the reactive component is by far the greatest part of the complex impedance. Where such a wide difference exists between the two, some measurement methods make it more likely that a small percentage error in the total impedance will translate to a much bigger error in the value of the smaller component.
With the reactive component nulled courtesy of your variometer, my guess is that the 35 ohm value is more representative the real total of radiation resistance, ground loss and coil loss in series.
The trick now is to further reduce those losses as much as possible. There probably won't be much you can do with the coil at this point, but the ground system is the key anyway. There is a reason why AM broadcast stations use 120 radials of .25 to .311 wavelength. It's not about resonance...wire immersed in a resistive medium does not make a good tuned circuit. :) It's actually about providing as much of a conductive path as possible in the vicinity where ground return currents are their greatest near the base of the monopole, and doing it consistently with wet soil or dry.
The reason for 120 radials is that it was found empirically to take that many to achieve far-field radiation within one decibel of theoretical maximum over nearly any soil, experiencing normal environmental variations. As experimenters, we usually live with fewer because we can tolerate less efficiency and wider variation in characteristics with weather. But each halving of the number of radials does mean that, for anything less than perfectly conducting soil to begin with, the loss doubles and efficiency is cut by half.
The reason for the quarter wavelength or slightly greater length is because that distance encompasses the near-field and part of the transition zone of a full sized antenna. Providing an abundance of conductive paths in that vicinity is a way to make sure the relatively high currents there do not encounter a lot of i-squared-r wasted power. The near-field is where the field intensity is more the result of energy stored in reactance, rather than radiated signal. Field strength there falls off as the inverse of the distance cubed. For a full-sized antenna, that zone is defined as a distance of wavelength divided by two pi. It's most important to keep resistive losses low there. From roughly 1/6th wavelength outward, the radiated EM wave is the dominant part of the measured field intensity and is less affected by loss resistance; although you don't reach the far-field region instantly, of course. There is a transition zone whose size is not always defined the same by different authorities.
An electrically short vertical arguably has a smaller near-field region than a full size antenna because its displacement current is confined to a radius of the same order as the antenna height, plus a little extra to account for fringing effects, so most of its reactive energy is also closer in. It therefore may work OK with shorter radials, but if the soil is of low conductivity, it will need as man of them as you can manage.
Ground rods may help a little, but their benefit is likely to be more in terms of lightning protection than RF loss reduction. Ground current at RF is subject to skin effect, and flows mainly in the top few inches of the soil at medium frequencies. The more conduction you can get right near the surface, the better, as a general rule of thumb.
Just some factors to consider.
John
Re: PBO on the air
Posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012 at 07:54:29.
In reply to Re: PBO on the air posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 23, 2012
Well, as I mentioned to Pat in my other post this evening, at least the extra ground rod at the base may have some value for lightning protection.
As for ground rods out at the ends of radials, some experimenters over the years have reported seeing some benefit, while others haven't. If you wanted to test that possibility, I'd suggest starting off with a few cheaper short ones first. Four feet is plenty to reach or exceed skin depth in many soils at 180 kHz, so that would be a valid and slightly less expensive way to investigate the idea, before shelling out much more money.
Good luck.
John
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 24, 2012 at 15:44:52.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by EdWSlidell,LA on November 24, 2012
Ed,
I think you are right. I was taking the net literature to seriously. Fritz with the 500 KC group told me he had the same situation. I just spent some time this morning and put out 5 more radials with 800-900 feet of #14 Al electric fence wire. I have about 20 radials now and my SWR is creeping up - now about 1.6:1 from 1.1:1 with 4 radials.
I turned it back on a little while ago and will run it through the day.
Thanks for the comments.
Pat
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 24, 2012 at 15:50:49.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012
John,
I think you are correct. That was also a question that I had (the lower reading when resonated. I am using a Rig Expert 30 and the reading varies quite a bit).
The solution is more copper and aluminum. I have put all the spare copper wire that I have on the ground and now am using #14 Al electric fence wire at $40 per 1/4 mile.
Wish I could get my signal out your way. Best DX so far is TX and Ill and Me.
Pat
N4LTA
Thanks
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012 at 19:16:08.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by Pat Bunn on November 24, 2012
Don't worry, Pat. I'd bet when I have a chance to be out in the field some evening when your signal is on, I'll probably see it. This week was the first time for getting out there to listen in over five months. My recent sorties have been relatively short, and by the time I finished confirming the presence of my usual benchmark LF stations it was time to head back to town (QRSS60 is a real drag sometimes). But I will persevere. I don't like to let those Texans, Illinoisians, and Down Easters get ahead of us Kansans for too long. :)
I downloaded the Rig Expert manual to get an idea how it works. Although it doesn't explicitly say so, it appears to be a vector impedance analyzer. As such, what it actually measures are Zmag and phase angle, and calculates everything else from that. That's consistent with what I was saying about an impedance containing an extreme value for either R or X affecting the accuracy of the other one. To use the values you gave earlier, if R=47 and X=-j950, the unit is showing Zmag as approximately 951.162 ohms. But let's imagine the Z reading is off by one half of one percent. Since X is the dominant number in this case, it too will be off by roughly half a percent. But since R is a calculated value, the square root of Z-squared minus X-squared will likely also be off--by 5 or 10 ohms or more, plus a factor resulting from whatever fraction of a degree error may have existed in the phase measurement when X was being calculated as well. Thus, where either number is an extreme value, sensitivity to error grows. Readings can fluctuate quite a bit from measurement to measurement, even though the instrument is working properly and there is very little real change in the load under test.
A conventional bridge, where balance of R and X are determined independently by ratios of physical resistors and capacitors, is less subject to this effect...although that comes at the price of less resolution, or limited range, or physical bulk, or greater expense, or a combination thereof.
Alternately, by cancelling the extreme reactance with your coil, you put both factors of the Zmag reading into a range where nominal errors have much less effect on the outcome. You are now also at the point where you should be able to determine the RF resistance of your coil itself (in series with a combination of known good ceramic caps adding up to the value of your antenna capacitance, in order to cancel the X of the coil) at the operating frequency. When you know the total Rseries, and subtract the theoretical radiation resistance of your antenna plus the resistance of your coil, what remains is the ground loss resistance itself.
Aluminum electric fence wire does look to be a good solution for additional ground conductivity, though for the sake of longevity, I wonder if it might be wise to test and adjust soil pH. Anyone here have experience with that when using aluminum in or on the ground?
As you get the loss resistance down closer to the anticipated feedpoint value, then you may be able to ground the coil and use the taps for matching, as you originally anticipated.
John
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by EdWSlidell,LA on November 24, 2012 at 20:51:34.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by Pat Bunn on November 24, 2012
Hello again Pat. Just to let you know that after I posted earlier, your signal actually rose up to around 449. Easily copied by ear, and I will see if the addntl radials aave given any improvement tonight. Ed WSlidell,LA EM50cg
(2) HIFER's
Posted by Bill KB9IV on November 24, 2012 at 22:11:35.
My first loggins of the season. No Lowers seen yet. Logged in UP of Mich.
13.555.390 Mhz MP ID'e by Spectran and noted CW-ID by ear. 11/24 20;10 UTC
13.560.000 Mhz UNID GPK??? Generated squarewaves then faded out. 11/24 20:30 UTC
Have a great season!
73
Bill KB9IV
EQuipment IC-765, Pixel Loop Pro-1B and Timewave Audio DSP 599zx Filter/Soundcard Interface
Re: New QTH and Set-up
Posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012 at 23:37:56.
In reply to New QTH and Set-up posted by Bill Marvin KB9IV on November 20, 2012
Hi Bill,
I've been pondering your situation and am a bit perplexed. From where you are, MP at 137.7805 should be a daytime regular regardless of solar conditions, and XKO should boom in most any night it's on.
LWBC stations haven't been as good yet this season here as they usually are, but the northern states generally have an advantage in winter over those of us down here.
So, in short, I'm puzzled. Is this the same setup you used at your former QTH? If so, how did it do there?
John
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 25, 2012 at 00:07:02.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012
John,
Aluminum fence wire is used here often for radials. The Ph of the ground is in a range that is not too corrosive to aluminum.
I had not thought about the calculation error with the Rig Expert. The X is so large with respect to the R that any error in converting Z to R would be magnified quite a bit. That explains why the R jumps around quite a lot.
Hopefully you can log my signal sometime soon. Best 73.
Pat
6R is Temporarily off-the-air
Posted by Ed Larsen on November 25, 2012 at 04:51:21.
6R, 180.580 CW beacon is off the air for a week or two while I am rebuilding the radio shack. I'll post again when it is back. Ed KI6R, El Dorado Hills, Ca
Re: Russian Alphas
Posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 25, 2012 at 12:03:58.
In reply to Russian Alphas posted by Steve N8YE on November 19, 2012
Notice the Russian Alpha stations are QRV again this morning.
The 11.904761 kHz signal produces single "beeps" in audio bandwidth; the 12.648809 kHz signal produces double "beeps"; and the 14.880952 kHz signal produces triple "beeps".
73, Garry, K3SIW, EN52ta, Elgin.
Re: Russian Alphas
Posted by Steve, KQ7E on November 25, 2012 at 15:29:27.
In reply to Re: Russian Alphas posted by Garry, K3SIW on November 25, 2012
Hi Garry
Tnx for the info...Seems like your 12.6488 sig could be the one I receive on 12.7....yesterday it was quite active; left rcvr on from approx 0006 -0253 UT. Sig transmitted , what seemed like, data streams, (packet??); some times successive streams; sometimes 1,2,3 & 4 etc. periodic pauses in xmsn, some rather lengthy and then xmsns would resume. This am , 1500UT, xmsns continuing.Individual datas streams also vary in duration.
Using an NRD-535 with long wire antenna looped around city lot.( loc , NW IN)
Can't verify signal's origin
Re: New QTH and Set-up
Posted by Bill KB9IV on November 26, 2012 at 00:43:53.
In reply to Re: New QTH and Set-up posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012
Hi John The set-up now is far superior to the WR313e and random wire with a UnUn in So. MN.
I can hear MP on 13.555.390 Mhz during the day. But Lowfer's have not be received at anytime up till now.
I am going by the Lowfer list provided on this list. I noticed the "MP" you listed on 137.7805 Khz is not listed. Perhaps I need a new and current complete list??
My receiver IC 765 has excellent sensitivity on LW at .7uV and the antenna (Pixel Pro-1b Loop) is sensitive and quiet that has a noise floor at S2 on the Icom.
Thanks for the info John. I'll be more patient as I know they all will show-up at on time :>)
73
Bill KB9IV
WMS back on the air
Posted by Paul Daulton on November 26, 2012 at 03:32:59.
WMS has been repaired and is back on the air 185.3018khz qrss30 slow. 24/7.
Reports welcome
Thanks Re: WMS back on the air
Paul
Posted by John Davis on November 26, 2012 at 04:08:44.
In reply to WMS back on the air posted by Paul Daulton on November 26, 2012
Was halfway expecting to see AR tonight out in my field, but what to my wondering eyes should appear...WMS! And also SIW, just for good measure, though somewhat weaker than the last time I saw it in late spring.
I make the WMS frequency to be closer to 185,301.5 Hz. (It was lower than that at the start of the capture because the car had cooled down. The 0.1 Hz curvature you see is the car finally warming up after I ran it a while.) I'm not sure whether the fading was real or not. The two of you do not usually fade simultaneously. I suspect it was an increase in background noise.
Good to see your signals again!
John
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by John Davis on November 26, 2012 at 04:23:52.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by Pat Bunn on November 25, 2012
"Hopefully you can log my signal sometime soon."
Your wish is my command:
John
Re: New QTH and Set-up
"I am going by the Lowfer list provided on this list. I noticed the 'MP' you listed on 137.7805 Khz is not listed."
Mitch is shown in the list at 137.7806 (a tenth of a hertz shift in his DDS VFO is not unusual), although under the station's real call sign, VE3OT. He uses his initals "MP" for the QRSS beacon mode, but signs VE3OT in regular Morse at the prescribed intervals.
Did the antenna come with any kind of calibration curve? I have looked at the Pixel Pro on their Web site, but could not find anything resembling a response curve. I see they rate it for a wide frequency range, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's flat over the whole span. A receive loop can be very sensitive at HF, but tens of decibels less so at LF.
I don't know if it's the antenna or what, and I surely don't mean to discourage you, but I have to believe something is amiss if MP's 2200 m signal isn't audible there day and night. It's visible all the way down here at noon on nearly any day. I would think his groundwave should be far more dominant at your QTH than at mine.
John Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by Pat Bunn on November 27, 2012 at 01:25:26.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by John Davis on November 26, 2012
John,
Thanks for the nice report. That was quick. Looked like a pretty good signal.
Best 73,
Pat
Re: Antenna Matching Question
Posted by John Davis on November 27, 2012 at 03:03:02.
In reply to Re: Antenna Matching Question posted by Pat Bunn on November 27, 2012
It really was a good signal. Couldn't see anything at all during the first hour or so after sunset, but once it finally showed up, it kept getting better and better. The first few times around, noise would interrupt one of the dits or dahs, but by the time of the capture, the entire ID was nice and clean.
Even the regular Morse (which you can distinguish by the keying sidebands) was pretty clear to the ear. I tried to save it as a WAV file through Argo, but I'm not sure where or whether it ended up on the hard drive. Will look again later.
John
IK1WVQ HIFER GRABBER AGAIN ONLINE
Posted by IK1WVQ Mauro on November 27, 2012 at 08:10:45.
Hi,
my HIFER grabber is again online.
At present it works with vertical antenna and TS140 RX.
http://www.stmb.it/grabber/hifer/
comments welcome.
73 de Mauro IK1WVQ RF ammeter placement
Posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 27, 2012 at 16:10:32.
Ok , so here is a newbie question. I have switched from a loop to a vertical this season. I am using around 50 radials in my ground plane .I am also using a matching transformer rather than grounding the coil and tapping it; because of my imperfect ground.I am getting around 80ma antenna current at the coil base and 70ma or so in my ground lead. I noticed some ops are placing their ammeters at the top of the coil. I get different current readings and resonance changes when I try to read at the top of the coil.I know the top of the coil is a voltage node but still some folks still measure there. My antenna is tree mounted and the vertical section comes right down into the "doghouse" and connects to the top of coil.Is there a minimal distance from the coil that I need to be to be and how long is this "voltage node" along the vertical section?
Thanks Re: RF ammeter placement
Rick
"PBO"
Posted by John Davis on November 27, 2012 at 18:32:34.
In reply to RF ammeter placement posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 27, 2012
"Is there a minimal distance from the coil that I need to be to be and how long is this 'voltage node' along the vertical section?"
For all practical purposes, the voltage node includes the entire vertical length of the antenna. For an antenna that is so very electrically short with respect to a wavelength, there is no appreciable difference in the voltage anywhere along its length, although the current in the wire will be greater at the base than near the top.
The meter itself will interact somewhat with the magnetic field of the coil, which is probably the largest factor in the detuning that you experience. If you can locate it at least as far from the coil as the coil itself is long, that will reduce the magnetic coupling somewhat. Your physical presence in reading the meter will vary the antenna capacitance by one or two picofarad, which is enough to cause some temporary detuning too.
Locating the meter between the coil and the vertical run does give the most accurate look at what current is flowing in the antenna itself. The coil has its own capacitive coupling to ground that will show greater current at the low end of the coil than is actually in the antenna.
And the fact that your ground lead current measures less than the current at the low end of the coil also indicates some of the return current from the coil and/or antenna is finding its way back to the transmitter by some path other than ground...perhaps through power wires leading to the transmitter. Hence, the ground lead current may not be an entirely reliable indicator of antenna current, either.
For sake of curiosity, what sort of tree(s) support the antenna and how close are they to it? The presence of large resistive objects within the electric field of an antenna adds a further resistive component to losses that grounding alone cannot overcome.
When I attempted a LowFER down in Georgia during the 90s, I tried using two fairly well separated pine trees with a rope between their tops to hold up my antenna. Some guys used to report acceptable results doing that sort of thing with trees that are sapless during the winter months, but that wasn't the case with pines, naturally. Even with lots of chicken wire fence on the ground at the base, I never could get the resistance down to what I would regard as a good number...but there were no hardwood trees available to try in their place.
Re: RF ammeter placement
Posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 27, 2012 at 23:39:28.
In reply to Re: RF ammeter placement posted by John Davis on November 27, 2012
John,
Thanks for the reply. The antenna is supported by oak trees. I have big high tension line insulators between the top hat and the support ropes from the trees.One one side of the top hat the trees there are no trees but the other 3 sides they are only 20 to 25ft away .
The current returning through a power lead is something I will have to investigate. I am using jacketed outdoor CAT5 cable to feed the amplifier.
I added 12 more radials yesterday and removed the ground rod connections from the radials that were terminated with ground rods. I noticed a 20ma increse in antenna current .
Tomorrow I will measure the antenna current further up the vertical section.
I will let you know what I find.
Thanks again!
Rick
Re: RF ammeter placement
Posted by EdWSlidell, LA on November 28, 2012 at 01:22:56.
In reply to Re: RF ammeter placement posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 27, 2012
Hi John and Rick. Rick, what kind of meter are you using to measure the antenna current? Is it something like a usual thermocouple ammeter, just with a low value fullscale of 100mA or the like? Does its series resistance affect the tuning of the system when inserted and removed--like when measured with a fieldstrength meter or scope probe in the vicinity? Be interested to know how low those meters can read. Thanks, Ed WSlidell, LA EM50cg
Re: RF ammeter placement
Posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 28, 2012 at 01:43:07.
In reply to Re: RF ammeter placement posted by EdWSlidell, LA on November 28, 2012
Hi Ed, Re: RF ammeter placement
I am using Lyles clamp on ammeter.Its basically a split core with about 20 turns on the secondary( a single pass of the wire under test is the primary)across a resistor and into a germanium diode. The voltage is measured with my DVM ( 10 megohm input impedance).I think in my case a few things may be having an effect.The lead length of the DVM and or the magnetic properties of the core .Resistance could be an issue also because there are only 20 turns . I think W1TAG uses like 100 turns on his RF ammeter circuit so there isnt as much resistance relected back into the antenna .
73
Rick
Posted by EdWSlidell, LA on November 28, 2012 at 14:57:29.
In reply to Re: RF ammeter placement posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 28, 2012
Hi Rick. Thanks for the reply/info. I have seen some sample shunts from HP offered for sale, with ratings stated to 100KHz, and various current ratings. But, I'm not sure if these are a transformer arrangement such as urs or John's, or if it is directly (Galvanically?) connected to the line being sampled. It would seem that the version with 100 turns would load/interact-with the line being measured more than ur 20 turn setup. I appreciate the update. Ed WSlidell,LA
Re: RF ammeter placement
Posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on November 28, 2012 at 15:46:01.
In reply to Re: RF ammeter placement posted by EdWSlidell, LA on November 28, 2012
Ed, Rick,
The resistance of the current measuring circuit would be entirely negligible in this application. It is only with really low resistance antennas like loops that the issue arises. So any thermocouple meter or current transformer meter should be fine.
Regarding the current transformer meters, here's how to figure the resistance that it will throw back into the antenna. Let's say that you have a 1:50 current transformer, and you terminate the 50-turn side with 100 ohms. If there is 1 amp running through the 1-turn side, then there will be 1/50 amp through the 100 ohm resistor. So there will be 2 volts across the resistor. But because the impedance through the transformer goes with the square of the turns ratio, then the resistance thrown back into the 1 turn side is only (100)/(50^2) = 0.04 ohms. That wouldn't be an issue in your case, nor would it be in most xmit loop situations.
John, W1TAG
Re: RF ammeter placement
Posted by Rick KA2PBO on November 28, 2012 at 20:10:09.
In reply to Re: RF ammeter placement posted by John Andrews, W1TAG on November 28, 2012
Hi John,
Thanks for the explanation! Its all comming back now.I built your ammeter when I first put up my loop a few years back. Now Im trying a vertical this season .Things sure were much less fussy with the loop !
73 Re: New QTH and Set-up
Rick
Posted by Bill KB9IV on November 29, 2012 at 00:11:10.
In reply to Re: New QTH and Set-up posted by John Davis on November 24, 2012
Hi John Here in the UP of Mich latitude +46 the Sun and Solar Storms & Activity have a great effect on LW and upwards compared to southern locations.
Best 73
Bill KB9IV
Lowfer JH issues
Posted by John Hamer on November 30, 2012 at 02:44:02.
I went outside to tune to JH beacon tonight and found it was only getting about 200mW to the final. I disconnected it and brought it inside for repairs. I will post when it is back up. Hopefully it will be in an hour or so. I have not tuned it in over a month so I don't know how long it was like this.
Re: Lowfer JH issues
Posted by John Hamer on November 30, 2012 at 04:29:36.
In reply to Lowfer JH issues posted by John Hamer on November 30, 2012
JH is back to full power. The problem was a bad transistor on the final. I overheated both transistors when I first erected my antenna on accident. I always had a strange intermitted current. Hopefully this was the problem the whole time.
potrzebie