Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
charles copeland
I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
them to recognize my callsign.
This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
are able to snag a QSO.
What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor?
Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
antennas?
Thomas Foster
Charles,
100 watts is sufficient for solid QSOs when the selected band is not too crowded and, of course, the
propagation is good. You might actually have a very strong signal, but with crowded band conditions and other
hams running 1000 watts it's hard to compete.
Of paramount importance, however, is an efficient antenna. Yes, an "inverted-v" dipole at 40 feet can make all
the difference in the world! For 75 and 40 meters they're great. For years I've used an "inverted-v" dipole on
75 meters mounted on my tower, and it has worked very well. At the higher frequencies you really need something
like a multiband yagi antenna or a quad, though. They not only boost your signal, but also attenuate unwanted
signals coming in from the sides and back of the antenna.
Many contacts can be made with relatively low power if you pick the right time and frequency. Also, under
adverse conditions, CW has often been a good mode for contacts.
Good luck, Charles.
73,
Lindsay
WA4ISZ
KD1YV
Charles,
First, congratulations on your recent upgrade. What is your callsign?
I run from 100 to 150 watts (depends on what kind of mood my old Hallicrafters SR-400A
is in that day), and have had phenomenally good luck with it. I use a G5RV that I made
myself, up at about 45 feet, through an MFJ mobile tuner (300 W rating.)
I rarely have any problem making a contact, and have even broke through my share of
pileups. I have worked a fair bit of DX, including Antartica, Australia, New Zealand,
Marshall Islands, and a few African stations, not to mention a ton of Europe, Caribbean
and South America. And all of this within the last year, at the "bottom" of the sunspot
cycle. Most of my contacts are on 75 or 20 meters, since my old rig has no WARC bands.
It really sounds like your antenna situation needs to be improved, and it will make all
of the difference in the world.
73 de Jim, KD1YV
Bob Martin N6MZV
In article <charles1D...@netcom.com>, char...@netcom.com (charles
copeland) wrote:
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
I've got good news, and I've got bad news.
The bad news is you've started in the hobby at just about the worst time
in the sunspot cycle for HF propagation.
The good news is that it only gets better from here.
100 watts can get you around the world when the propagation is good. At
the depths of the sunspot cycle (now, for instance), power doesn't matter
that much- you don't have enough...
A good friend has worked all over the world on around 100 watts and a
"curved linear array" antenna (also known as the aluminum awning over her
carport).
Keep looking for openings- field day this coming weekend should be good.
Look in the magazines (like QST) for contests and special event stations.
73-
--
Bob Martin N6MZV * r...@netgate.net
Jim Kehler
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
No, it's not hopeless. Lot's of people run 100 watts on HF. But a few
things to consider. First, the most important part of any HF station
is the antenna. I take it you are using indoor antennas. Outside will
work much better. Higher will work much better (to a point, but unless
you get up to 200 feet, we won't worry about that now). With a dipole
up 30 or 40 feet you should find plenty of people to talk to. Second,
we are at the very bottom of a sunspot cycle right now. Which means
HF propagation is about as bad as it ever gets. Wait five or six
years and you will be able to work the world with an indoor antenna.
Right now you need something outside.
73, Jim KH2D
Thomas W. Castle
In regards to only running a 100W, I basically only use 80-100W...
I run 7.251, 7.248, 14.305, 3847.5, 3945 in the mobile an at home.
At home I use a G5RV up about 40' with my IC-751 an Dentron Ant tunner.
I also work digital modes on 20, 40 & 80 at about 50W out due to the
heavy duty cycle on Pactor, Amtor & ect.
Its not so much the power, my mobile Atlas 210X only does 80-100w at
best, its how you get it to the antenna an type of antenna. The people
I talk with on a routine basis have no problem hearing me, even if I'm
not the strongest station they ever heard...
Your going to have to look hard at your antenna system, are re-consider
its layout or feed line or other factors which would apply...
I know this doesn't solve your problem, it just understates the fact
that a antenna system can either make or break you...
Just remember if your S-5 on a 100w, and if every time you double your
power you could come up 1 S unit; what would your signal be at 800W..?
100, 200, 400 & 800w Figure it out... Its not the difference of S-5 to
60/9... either.
There are some really sharp guys here on this newsgroup, an they will
probably have much better ideas on what you might need to do, than me.
Just don't give up...
73 De Tom
Peter Lemken
How about giving CW a try?
Peter Lemken
DF5JT/KE4UNQ
Ken Kuzenski
charles copeland (char...@netcom.com) wrote:
: I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
: using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
: dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
: sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
: If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
: lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
: Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
: Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
: running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
Twenty meters is a toughie--a lot of big stations hang out there.
But I've worked a lot of DX there with 75 watts and a lousy dipole
up about 40 feet.
Your antenna setup is pretty bad, and sunspots are lousy just now.
See what you can do about getting a better antenna up, and soon
we'll have better propagation. One hint: Try 15 meters. It's
a lot less crowded than 20, offers great DX and great ragchews,
and is more stable than 10 meters.
BTW, my "lousy dipole" is just two hunks of wire 34' long, fed with
ladder line and a cheap transmatch. It's not much, but it works.
Hope this helps! GL and 73!
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD kuze...@acpub.duke.edu
j...@galactose.mc.duke.edu Fidonet: 1:3641/1.1
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply; this is just MHO, not Duke's
Richard Lubash
In article <charles1D...@netcom.com>
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) writes:
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
Snip
Hi Charles,
I Have been opperating with 100 watts since I got my licence with great
results. I use a G5RV on 80 and 40 meters and a R-7 Vertical on 40-10
meters. I Have worked Europe, Africa, South America and much of North
America on SSB, CW and RTTY/Pactor in the past 4 months. The Vertical
though not a *ideal* antenna takes up little room, has a small
footprint and does not have to be mounted very high (cushcraft
recomends at least 9 feet off the ground). Also I have found that when
all else fails you can almost always get a QSO going on CW.
Don't give up!!! Its' proably your antenna.
-------------------------------------------------
Richard Lubash
N1VXW
email rlu...@poco.mv.com
John Lloyd KE4UTX
Charles,
In the passed year and a half I have worked about 110
countries and 48 states running 100 watts.
The antennas I used were a 40ft
dipole hanging vertically from a tree outside my apartment
window and a hamstick on my car. Somedays I made contacts
left and right. While other days it seemed nobody could hear
me. If you want to work the world on 100 watts all you need
is a little creativity and patience.
John
p.s. My 5th contact running 100 watts was Western Australia on
40m SSB!
--
John Lloyd
Email * jll...@raleigh.ibm.com
Phone * 919-254-8021
Packet * ke4utx@ac4et.#nefl.fl.usa.noam
CW * --... ...-- -.. . -.- . ....- ..- - -..-
a3...@lehigh.edu
In article <4q61tp$b...@power5.rz.uni-hohenheim.de>, Peter Lemken <plemken@mail.h
countries on ssb with a barefoot TS830S and R5 Vertical. These were mostly
European and African contacts. I seriously doubt if this feat was anything
extraordinary. I am a casual phone operator with most (99%+) activity on cw.
Don't give up on phone too soon.
73's Dick K8WHA>
Jim Flanders
Charles:
It won't tke you long in ham radio experience to realize that the
most dollar per performance is in the antenna. You are presently
working with antnnas that are in the region of 1-5% efficient. You
won't get out very well with them. Does your apartment house have
metal drain pipes, trees, balconies? A little innovation will make a
world of difference. In college, I loaded up the campus 187' flagpole.
Jim W0oog/5
In article <charles1D...@netcom.com>, char...@netcom.com says...
>
>I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
>using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
>dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
>sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise
wires).
>
>My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
>to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
>them to recognize my callsign.
>
>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100
watts?
>
>If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
>lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>
>I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
>and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
>Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
>are able to snag a QSO.
>
>What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d
floor?
>Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>
>Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>
>Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
>running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>
Cecil Moore
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
> and a 64 foot folded dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment
> My luck has been rotten,
Hi Charles, this is not luck. This is a system designed to fail.
The percentage of energy not making it up out of your house has to
be in the 90s, probably in the high 90s. By all means get that
antenna up to 40 ft or higher. I regularly talk to New Zealand on
100w and a 102 ft dipole at 30 ft.
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC (not speaking for my employer)
Phil Brown
100 watts enough?
I hope so. I just got back on HF after 17 year hiatus, sold all the
old gear long ago. Bought a FT101E from a local ham, put up a W9INN
multiband wire antenna two weekends ago. I have made contacts every
time I have turned on the rig with 100-150 watts. Of course, I can't
compete with the big guns on 20m in a pile-up, but nice QSOs on 20,
40, 75, all giving good signal reports. Antenna is inverted V, only up
about 25 feet at the peak. You should do as well, I would think. I'm
very pleased with my station for now. Must be the antenna. Good luck
Phil Brown N4COD
br...@auburn.campus.mci.net
Video Producer/Instructor
Like Flowers? Check out our home page at www.tigerweb.com
Jim Martin
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
I was stationed in Korea (South of course) from June of 1989 to June
of 1990 and obtained the call of HL9ZF whilst there. I was billeted
on the second floor in what are now Korean condos.
Anyway, I used a Hustler MO-2 mobile mast with the 10, 15, and 20
meter resonators and had it attached to the rail on the balcony. I
worked Montevideo (sp?) in Uraguay on 10 meters running only about 60
or 70 watts. Can't get any farther than that....it's half way, almost
to the mile, around the world.
===========================================
cheers! jim martin, wk1v
lowell, mass
http://www.shore.net/~jjmartin/jjm.htm
John T. Young
Your antenna is probably the problem...way too low. I worked 200 DXCC
countries using only a 20 meter dipole strung at 35 feet (NOT 7' !!) and
100 watts from 1993-95, the sunspot low. Get it up and you'll get out.
Best 73, de John, KI7JB.
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, charles copeland wrote:
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>
Clark Savage Turner
>using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
>dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
>sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
It sounds like about right. You do not get much signal out into the
ether with these sorts of antennas indoor at low heights. You can
expect no more.
>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Gee, just saying "HF" is silly in this context. It is hopeless to run
2 KW into a dummy load. It is very easy to run HF with 3 watts to a
good efficient dipole up 50 feet in the clear. Your antenna is the
single most important piece of equipment you have, you need a better
one!
>If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
>lousy luck?
No. That is an easy question. That sort of antenna with 100 watts would
be really "easy" by many standards, too easy for many who like to run
very low power with simple antennas.
>What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
No such thing as a free lunch. You need to know this in your bones. It
is absolutely true and most important to know. No small antenna will
do anywhere near as well as a full sized one. No low antenna will do
nearly as well as one at a half wave above ground. Etc, etc.
>Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
>are able to snag a QSO.
Same comments. They need an antenna. That is all.
>Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
Not always, but it is always less efficient than a full sized antenna.
>Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
It is sufficient anytime with a real antenna, etc etc.
>Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
>running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
It is hard to tell if you are trying to flame bait here. Of course
the answer is no. I can tell you about guys running 10 watts maximum
PEP who are on the DXCC honor roll. I personally did WAS SSB on 40
meters with 5 watts PEP in about 2 months two years ago. I had a real
antenna. A full sized dipole at 40 feet.
Good luck, if you really want the answers, they are out there.
Try a nearly invisible long wire with thin, thin wire into the trees
outside as high as you can get it. Get / build an antenna tuner and
you will have all bands with 100 feet of wire out there.
Clark
WA3JPG
Jim
Hang in there, and pay some attention to what the other respondents
suggest about improving your antenna system. 100 watts is plenty.
But here's something else to consider: It's a lot more important
HOW you operate, and WHEN you operate, than what you're operating.
You'll find that your results improve dramatically when you target
your bands at the best time of the day for each band, relative both
to your QTH and that of your target QSO.
You should be able to have some fun on Field Day....
Adi Doron
Thomas Foster wrote:
>
> charles copeland wrote:
> >
> > I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> > dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> > sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
> >
> > to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> > them to recognize my callsign.
> >
> >
> >
> > I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
> > and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
> > are able to snag a QSO.
> >
> >
> >
> > running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
> >
> >
> > 400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
> >
> > 30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
> >
> > antennas?
>
>
> 100 watts is sufficient for solid QSOs when the selected band is not too crowded and, of course, the
> propagation is good. You might actually have a very strong signal, but with crowded band conditions and other
> hams running 1000 watts it's hard to compete.
>
> Of paramount importance, however, is an efficient antenna. Yes, an "inverted-v" dipole at 40 feet can make all
> the difference in the world! For 75 and 40 meters they're great. For years I've used an "inverted-v" dipole on
> 75 meters mounted on my tower, and it has worked very well. At the higher frequencies you really need something
> like a multiband yagi antenna or a quad, though. They not only boost your signal, but also attenuate unwanted
> signals coming in from the sides and back of the antenna.
>
> Many contacts can be made with relatively low power if you pick the right time and frequency. Also, under
> adverse conditions, CW has often been a good mode for contacts.
>
> Good luck, Charles.
>
> 73,
> Lindsay
have you heard about SW propogation ? sun spot cycle ?
100 watts is fine, do you know to tune your ts820 ?
adi 4z4vg
Sean McCarthy
Clarks comments are valid here and sum it up. Let me add (and bear with me I'm
checking into the thread late and it may have been said) the difference
between 100 watts and 1000 is 10db. On 75 and 40 where signals typically run
20-40db over s-9 with a good antenna, you would still be 10-30db over s-9.
Hardly a waste of time...
Sean
wa4...@moonstar.com
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
>running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>antennas?
It's not how much power you need to run it's Patience !!
Maybe if some would quit running the KW's there would be
some bandwidth for the little guys. If your want to be
heard invest your money in a antenna and not a amp !!
2 cents,
Kyle
N1SQJ
(snip).....
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor
In all reality, no eggageration here, 5 Watts on an average dipole up 50 feet will
outperform your indoor antennas, even if you had 600 Watts out. Indoor antennas hung
from the cieling and thrown on the floor will only give you results in those
exceptional circumstances of very good propagation, and no pileups. That doesn't
happen much currently. If you can manage a verticle, The Cushcraft R-5 (recently
discontinued, but still available from stock) is the cheapest of the lot ($278), and
over here, it performs very well on 20M. Neck & neck w/ my G5RV at 50 feet. They
take turns in which performs better, but always are close. R-5 mounted only at roof
level, and I'm in a valley surrounded by trees. Just talked to Bosnia Herzegovina and
Azores Islands on it with 57 report with 100W. In fact with the Bosnia station, I
could only get through on the R-5. Maybe you can sneak one up on your roof if you're
nice to the landlord??? -- only 17 feet tall and not bad looking. Best of luck. 73,
N1SQJ, Rick
Glenn Bath
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
>using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
>dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
>sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
>to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
>them to recognize my callsign.
>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
>lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
>and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
>Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
>are able to snag a QSO.
>What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor?
>Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
>running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>antennas?
I run 100 watts ssb on 40 meters ,and dont have many problems in
daylight hours.I use an inverted vee up at 30 feet.My 30 years
experience tells me that your choice of 20 meters is a poor one. This
is known as kilowatt alley, plus people on 20 only listen for 59
sigs.Your antenna selection needs to be improved : as in get it
outside and up in the air if possible.I dont operate 160 meters
because I dont have the required 40 acres to get a half wavelength
antenna up, and you shouldnt either.Ten meters is good but isnt open
much in this sunspot cycle.I would try 15 meters or 40 meters with the
proper length antenna if possible.Even just getting that antenna up
and outside and resonant will do wonders . even on 20 meters.
Glenn, WA8YIR
George McCrary
I worked my first hundred countries with a hundred watts to a set of
rain gutters! This was about 3 years ago with SFIs around 100. With
conditions as they are, even a kilowatt and a beam can be tough!
73 DE KQ4QM (George)
THE geo DXCC page and THE geo LOVEBIRD page
http://www.webbuild.com/~geo
Bob Bruhns
Heck, I did all right on 75 meter AM with 80 watts carrier output. It
came down to the antenna. Many people have trouble because they use the
wrong length of wire and feedline, and their tuner just converts the
power to heat, and what little is left just goes to heat the worms.
This is why I always recommend a self-resonant center fed dipole
antenna, fed with 50 ohm coax and a W2DU balun. For multiple bands,
I recommend a multi-wire fan from the same feedpoint, separate dipoles
in parallel for each band. Now, I've seen people get good results with
some wire or another five feet above their roof, and a tuner. It's
possible. But you can go real wrong, too.
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbr...@li.net
mdenis
charles copeland wrote:
>
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>
> If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
> lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>
> I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
> and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
> Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
> are able to snag a QSO.
>
> What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor?
> Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>
> Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>
> Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
> running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>
> If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>
> 400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>
> 30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>
> antennas?
Hi Charles,
I empathize with trying to operate HF from an apartment location. I
would try all means to get an antenna outside, if at all possible. There
are several interesting articles posted on the web that speak to
'clandestine' wire antennas.
If that is not an option, I would suggest something like the AEA
Isoloop. While it is a compromise, it will allow you to make contacts on
HF at the 100 watt level. If you disguise it right, it will look like a
bird feeder and you can hang it outside a patio door. Of course, as in
most antennas, higher is better.
I'd stay off 20 meter ssb while in the apartment. Usually you will
generate tons of RFI that your neighbors will just not appreciate. Also,
you'll need to monitor your VCR when your on 80 meters. Try 20 meter CW
running QRP at night and you'll do well and you won't bug your neighbors
(and your apt. manager won't bug you ;) )
Good Luck es 73
Marc
KD0QO
Kevin AstirCS 1U KO0B
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>antennas?
You have questioned your own answer!
Many apartment buildings are made of reinforced concrete...The re-bar
makes a pretty effective Faraday cage, and there is lots of really
lossy "stuff" right next to the antenna. By "folded dipole" I assume
you mean you took a plain old 1/2 wave dipole , and bent the legs up
to fit into your apartment. This results in lots of the signal
canceling out.
If you must use this antenna, at least get as much of the middle (high
current part) , bothe sides, as straight as you can....then fold the
ends.
You really need to get something, _anything_ at_all_ , outside.
Plenty of folks run only 100W on 80M mobile with good results.
80 is a noisy band, and typically has the most "need" for high power.
Look into the many articles on "stealth" antennas. bare (or
varnished) AWG 24 wire is really hard to see..just keep it high enough
not to trip or closeline sombody...and of course stay clear of power
lines.
Random wires will be your cheapest/easiest option for a steallth
antenna. For these you need either a tuner (simple L-network is fine)
or an unatural amount of luck. (only got good match on random hunk of
wire once in my life)
I had really good luck with a MFJ econo-tuner when I lived in
apartment. I read all kinds of bad things about MFJ tuners, but this
thing has worked great for me.
Also, if running random wire, try to arrainge a rellay solid ground
connection.
Make sure you have a clean signal...resist the urge to crank up the
drive to get more uumph. A splattering, overmodulated signal is
really hard to copy. Some will even avoid you on general principle.
Ask a local ham to monitor you, and write down the settings for best
signal.
Set yourself apart from the crowd. Unless you are a masochist, don't
bother jumping into a pileup. You will soon get a feel for how weak a
signal you can expect to hear you. Look for that forlorn, lonely guy
been calling CQ for 5 minutes with no answer. That guy will MAKE a
way to copy your signal!
And, as others have already told you, CW will make all the difference.
Conseder a field trip to a nearby park (with BIG trees) for some+
If you are still seriously considering an amplifier, here are some
issues you need to consider.
1) The safety of running high power to an indoor antenna has been
questioned by many.
2) In an apartment, running a linear is just begging for TVI problems.
Your neighbors will almost certainly involve the apartment management
in this.....
3) A better antenna will be cheaper than a linear, and less of a TVI
problem. You will also hear better with it..win, win, win.
4) I don't suppose your apartment is wired for 230VAC...no, I didn't
think so. So you are limited to about 1S unit of improvement. (~500W
is max you can run off 110V)
Take heart. This is only a crude guess, but HF ops I know , only
maybe 20% even own an amplifier.
Bob Duckworth
My advice for what it's worth.
Listen a lot. If the signal your receiving is strong then
they should be able to hear you even with an inefficient antenna
at your end.
Listen a lot and learn what band is open when. Sunspot low now
so 40m will be dead sometimes.
Try CW on 40m.
Think about better antennas.
I've worked into North Africa from the South Pacific on
75 phone with a measured 30Watts PEP output. THis is
halfway around the world. It's all in the antenna.
-bob
--
Bob Duckworth Consulting, 960 Ralph McGill Blvd. Atlanta GA 30306-4447
bobs' address is r...@ka4ybr.netmha.com 404-888-0389(V) 892-2301(FAX)
Buy Sell Trade Surplus Computer Electronics Datacom Telecom since 1981.
Fax or email your list for a fast cash offer. Watch for listserv catalog.
AC6V
charles copeland wrote:
>
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>
> If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
> lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>
> I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
> and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
> Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
> are able to snag a QSO.
>
> What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor?
> Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>
> Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>
> Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
> running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>
> If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>
> 400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>
> 30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>
> antennas?
Hi Charles. The sunspot cycle is at or near its low point for the cycle,
so the upper bands are very poor -- I suspect this is part of your
problem -- as it is with the rest of us.
Second the power out is not anywhere near as important as your antenna.
And No you don't need a huge tower and a beam. Several of us here in San
Diego with antenna restrictions have Cushcraft and Hy-Gain antennas such
as the R5, R7 and DX-77 and are quite successful at working DX when the
bands are open. These antennas are mounted at 6 to 10 feet off the
ground and since they are "half wave end fed antennas" they work quite
well without radials. These verticals have a good low angle of radiation
for DXing.
One of our group on the San Diego DX Cluster has worked 104 countries
with 6 watts and an R5. These may sound "incredible" unless you have
tried it, turns out from 6 Watts to 96 watts is about 12 dB or roughly 2
S-units. So the 6 watter compared to the 100 watter is down 2 S-units or
so. With 6 watts, several 10,000 mile plus contacts and QSL cards are in
the log.
For dipoles, inverted Vees and beams -- you need to get em up in the
air, as the radiation patterns are strongly influenced by height. In
general, the higher these antennas are -- the lower the radiation
pattern. That is why the big towers for the beams and dipoles. Note that
a properly designed vertical can work well at or near ground level.
And no, the 160-20M bands are not the exclusive territory of the "Big
Guns". I know several DXers who have worked DXCC with 100 watts and
antennas at 40 + feet as well as DXCC with 6 watts and a vertical as
mentioned before.
During the last hours of a contest or the last days of a big DXpedition,
many times the DX is begging for contacts --- easy pickins.
So hang in there -- when the sunspot cycle starts to pick up, you can
work 10M DX with a wet noodle and a coupla watts. I know of one DXer who
loaded up his rain gutters and worked many Asian African and Europeans
on 10 Meters.
73 and Good Dx
Rod
The R5er
--
_______________________________________________________________
A Man May Know Of The Whole World Without Leaving The Shelter Of His Own
Home.
..... Lao Tze
Hark! For I Have Hurled My Words To The Far Reaches Of The Earth!
What King Of Old Could Do Thus?
..... AC6V
_______________________________________________________________
Michael White
>I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
>using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
>Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Power is not your problem, it's your antenna. I've worked over 150
countries with 100 watts and a dipole, almost all on 20 meter SSB.
However, the dipole was up around 25 feet, pretty much in the clear.
Remember, 1000 watts is only 10 dB more than 100 watts, and one S-Unit is
6 dB. That KW will only buy you about 1.5 S-Units. Your best bet is some
sort of "stealth" antenna. You can make a dipole out of very thin magnet
wire, using clear plastic rods as center and end insulators and black
twine for support; it's the next best thing to invisible. Or maybe a 1/4
wave vertical up a tree trunk, with a good ground rod at the base. Not
ideal, but lots better than your indoor ant. Just get something outside
and up a little, and you'll do lots better. Best of luck. 73...
Mike, N4PDY
My opinions are my own, not my employer's.
charles copeland
In article <31C618...@ix.netcom.com>,
KD1YV <jimk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>charles copeland wrote:
>>
>> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
>> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
>> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>>
>
>Charles,
>
>First, congratulations on your recent upgrade. What is your callsign?
KB0WOB
>I run from 100 to 150 watts
>and have had phenomenally good luck with it. I use a G5RV that I made
>myself, up at about 45 feet, through an MFJ mobile tuner (300 W rating.)
>
>I rarely have any problem making a contact, and have even broke through my share of
>pileups. I have worked a fair bit of DX, including Antartica, Australia, New Zealand,
>Marshall Islands, and a few African stations, not to mention a ton of Europe, Caribbean
>and South America. And all of this within the last year, at the "bottom" of the sunspot
>cycle. Most of my contacts are on 75 or 20 meters, since my old rig has no WARC bands.
>
>It really sounds like your antenna situation needs to be improved, and it will make all
>of the difference in the world.
>
>73 de Jim, KD1YV
Yes, I've gotten a tremendous amount of e-mail (30!) on this and all agree
that 100 watts is sufficient. All replies have focused on my antenna ...
or lack of an adequate antenna.
Thanks to all who replied! Its good to know that is hope at 100 watts.
I'll have to work in this, as it is quit hard being on the first floor
and surrounded by neighbors on all sides and above. When my lease is
up, I'll have to do some serious prospecting on a more suitable apartment.
Robert Casey
Using a TS520S HF rig on 10 meters (about 50W as measured by a Heathkit
power meter) I made contacts from New Jersey to places like Estonia,
ex-Yugoslavia, France, Vennesulvia(sp!), and such. A few years ago
when the sunspots were good. The above distances are about 1/6 of
the Earth's circumfrence.
Used a vertical planted in the back yard.
Gary Coffman
In article <charles1D...@netcom.com> char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) writes:
>
>Thanks to all who replied! Its good to know that is hope at 100 watts.
>
>I'll have to work in this, as it is quit hard being on the first floor
>and surrounded by neighbors on all sides and above. When my lease is
>up, I'll have to do some serious prospecting on a more suitable apartment.
As Carlton Sheets would say, "Why pay the other fellow's mortgage?"
Forget apartments, buy a house. It has tax advantages, it builds
equity, and if you work the deal right you can put cash in your pocket
at the closing. But most important from an amateur point of view, you
can put up good antennas.
If you're really slick, you'll buy an apartment building. Then you can
put up whatever antennas you want, and your other tenants pay the mortgage.
In fact, talk to the owner of your current apartment building. You might
not even have to move.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Gerard Foley
charles copeland (char...@netcom.com) wrote:
<snip>
: Yes, I've gotten a tremendous amount of e-mail (30!) on this and all agree
: that 100 watts is sufficient. All replies have focused on my antenna ...
: or lack of an adequate antenna.
: Thanks to all who replied! Its good to know that is hope at 100 watts.
<snip>
In case noone else has mentioned it, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE YOUR
RESULTS BY GETTING AN AMPLIFIER!. Putting 100 Watts into the antenna
you describe is risky enough. More power might endanger your health,
or start a fire somewhere that you won't see it for a while.
K8EF
--
Gerry
Jim Kehler
Burt Fisher <k1...@ccsnet.com> wrote:
>Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
>(but I told you that a long time ago)
Come back and tell us when YOU are dying Burt, that's
something we'd all like to hear.
73, Jim KH2D
Maurice Andries
char...@netcom.com (charles copeland) wrote:
>I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
>using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
>dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
>sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
>to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
>them to recognize my callsign.
>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
>lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
>and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
>Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
>are able to snag a QSO.
>What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor?
>Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
>running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>antennas?
Hi Charles,
Consider yourself very lucky to live in the 'good ole US of A'. The powerlimit
is 1.5 Kw if I'm not mistaken. Here in Belgium we have 150 Watts maximum
power. I've been on HF since september 1994 so that means most of my operating
is done with very little sunspots. I don't use my HF radio a lot but so far
I've worked around 120 countries on 20 meter and up. I don't have antennas for
30,40, 80, 160 meter. On the other bands I use a Mosley TA-53M at 12 meter
(36ft) AGL. I'm also using a TS-450SAT and output is typical 80-100 W.
Besides this I made my first QSO on HF with a OD5 station when had a
mismatched sloping dipole (pointing north) at 1 meter above the ground at the
lowest point and 10 meter at the highest.
I suggest to LISTEN on the bands and if you hear a strong signal you WILL work
them. Did you know that people run QRP (less than 5 Watts) and work the world?
Maybe you could try to put a vertical multiband on top of the apartment
building? It may also be posible to run a wire to a tree or something and
tuning it for minimum SWR. Best is to get the antenna OUTSIDE.
You can always make up the difference in signal strength with operating
practice.
Listen on 14.306 (+- QRM) in 3 weeks time... you might work W6/ON4BAM/m or
W7/ON4BAM/m.....
Nevertheless... have FUN on HF. That's what's important.
Just my 2 cents, Your mileage may vary
Opinions are my own (most of the time).
73 de Maurice, maur...@glo.be (internet)
ON4BAM@ON6AR.#AN.BEL.EU
http://user.glo.be/~mauricea (Ham links and station info)
Bob Fox
This could actually be good news for the community. Infusion of the
Internet into our society may eliminate those who viewed amatuer radio
as another form of CB. Once that crowd leaves the airways amatuer
radio may return to the civil, and critical, service it was intended
to be.
Burt Fisher
Once that crowd leaves hardly anyone will be left except the
dead and dying.
#================#=====================================================#
| Burt Fisher | Teacher of video, broadcasting and electronics |
| Amateur call | South Dennis, Ma. (Cape Cod) |
| K1OIK | The less you say, the more people will remember |
#================#=====================================================#
| k1...@ccsnet.com |
#======================================================================#
Burt Fisher
Jim Kehler wrote:
> Come back and tell us when YOU are dying Burt, that's
> something we'd all like to hear.
>
> 73, Jim KH2D
So typical of a phoney ham, wish someone death and best regards
in the same message.
You speak for all?
What is dying is hihi ham radio.
Madjid SuperUser
Burt Fisher wrote:
>
> Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
> (but I told you that a long time ago)
That's scare tactics and Marketing strategy. Kenwood and other
manufacturers are pressing for No-code licences. I bet that Kenwood's
Sales Manager Paul Middleton KD6NUH, is a no-code advocate.
About Microsoft, so what. They dumped their ham radio forum from
I don't know where, who cares. We got plenty of sites on the WEB
and Compuserve.
About Kenwood, I use a Kenwood HF RIG but next rig will be
YEASU or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet !
Madjid VE2GMI
--
And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light,
but Microsoft said he would have to wait until Thursday
to be connected to Internet.
And God saw the light and it was good.
Then he saw the bill and that was not good. He became a Ham (G0OD)
Jim Chandler
Burt Fisher wrote:
>
>
Does anyone know if Netscape has a kill file? I was using
News Express and it was great for eliminating the noise. If
Netscape's does not, I may have to go back. 73.
A.G. von Luternow
On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:30:54 -0400, Burt Fisher <k1...@ccsnet.com>
wrote:
>
>Once that crowd leaves hardly anyone will be left except the
>dead and dying.
>
Glenn Sparks
Bruce Burke
Madjid SuperUser wrote:
>
> Burt Fisher wrote:
> >
> > Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
> > (but I told you that a long time ago)
>
> That's scare tactics and Marketing strategy. Kenwood and other
> manufacturers are pressing for No-code licences. I bet that Kenwood's
> Sales Manager Paul Middleton KD6NUH, is a no-code advocate.
>
> About Microsoft, so what. They dumped their ham radio forum from
> I don't know where, who cares. We got plenty of sites on the WEB
> and Compuserve.
I agree here. Microsoft's decision has nothing to do with the
health of ham radio.
>
> About Kenwood, I use a Kenwood HF RIG but next rig will be
> YEASU or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet !
>
> Madjid VE2GMI
As for Kenwood, at least from my local experiences, they have had
quality problems. If they aren't selling enough rigs, they need to
look at their own doorstep. I don't see Icom and Yaesu complaining.
Even if the volume is dropping off, so what. There is a saturation point
in every market. The no-code license did what it was supposed to,
it got all those people in the door who were unwilling, or unable
to learn morse code. Now there is going to natural, expected slump.
I agree that it was a marketing ploy on Kenwood's part. Amateur radio
is just a small, small portion of their total business.
I have believed for a long time that they only keep an amateur division
around is for experimentation with stuff they would like to put into
their commercial equipment, but are unwilling to spend the R&D money
to perfect it before introducing it into a much more demanding
commercial market.
73,
Bruce, WB4YUC
Jim Kehler
Madjid SuperUser <or...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>About Kenwood, I use a Kenwood HF RIG but next rig will be
>YEASU or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet !
>Madjid VE2GMI
Madjid,
Make it ICOM or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet and your brain.
73, Jim KH2D
N9MXT1
I have plenty of Kenwood rigs here.. and learning all this makes me want
to sell my Kenwood rigs and get Icom, Yeasu or another brand. When,
no-code came around I thought it was great cause it got people in the door
of ham radio. I feel now that these people are in the door, lets all help
them learn the code. Kenwood doesn't have to mess with the hobby to get
more revenue. So GET A LIFE KENWOOD!
\\|//
(o o) Smile
and be happy!
-----------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo--------------------------
---------------------------------------------
N9MXT - Jeffrey
Tony Pelliccio
In article <31CDB7...@ccsnet.com>, Burt Fisher <k1...@ccsnet.com> wrote:
>Jim Kehler wrote:
>
>> Come back and tell us when YOU are dying Burt, that's
>> something we'd all like to hear.
>>
>> 73, Jim KH2D
>
>So typical of a phoney ham, wish someone death and best regards
>in the same message.
>You speak for all?
>What is dying is hihi ham radio.
>
Burt,
While I won't necessarily wish YOU dead I do hope your computer suffers
a meltdown. I've seen your psychobabble both here and on packet and
am sick of it.
Tony
--
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR
== As offensive as I wanna be.
== kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com
Patrick Tatro
In article <31CBCD...@ccsnet.com>,
Burt Fisher <k1...@ccsnet.com> wrote:
>Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
>(but I told you that a long time ago)
>
>
>Kenwood Communications Corp says its recently
announced plans to make its
>products available in more retail outlets will
help to rejuvenate ham radio.
>Citing concerns about the future of Amateur Radio
and a changing business
>climate, Kenwood announced it was taking "some
bold steps" to revamp its
>wholesale distribution scheme.
>
>In a June 10 open letter to the Amateur Radio
community, Kenwood's
>Amateur Radio Products Group National Sales
Manager Paul Middleton,
>KD6NUH, painted a dismal picture. "When we looked
at where Amateur Radio
>is today, and where it is going to be in ten
years at the present rate
>of decline, the future looks bleak," he wrote,
citing competition from
>unlicensed communications modes. (internet).
>
>
> "It is also obvious that the rate of no-code
licensees is slowing down
>with fewer and fewer people upgrading," Middleton
wrote. "Amateur Radio
>dealers should be more interested in attracting
new people to our hobby.
>Every current amateur operator who wants this
hobby to continue should
>be promoting ham radio to non-hams."
>
>
>* Microsoft Network (MSN) has dropped its Amateur
Radio Forum, reports the
>unofficial forum manager Rick McMillion, WB7UGZ.
He said MSN gave him the
>word recently in a terse e-mail message.
McMillion says he had no warning
>that MSN was going to dump the forum.
Correct me if I am wrong BUT .....
Who said continued growth is a good thing?
Sixty years ago the joy of the hobby was for two
operators to make contact with rigs they built and
antenna's they designed.
These days the bands are crowded with Ham
want-to-be's, DJ want-to-be's and people who
wouldn't know good manners if they jumped up
and bit them.
I for one say its time for this hobby to
down-size. Maybe those people who get their
license and then spend all their time bad
mouthing the hobby will find new things to bad
mouth (like net surfing). The true joy of amateur
radio will always be there no matter how much it's
bad mouthed.
Nuf Said
Pat N0WCG
Jim Flanders
John Hughes
Well, fill me in. What's your objection to Yaesu...nationalistic?
KC8CGX
John Hughes <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
I am writing to express my concerns about John Hughes, and
more specifically, his activities
regarding what I call ungrateful warmongers. For openers,
John's attempts to marginalize me based
on my gender, race, or religion are just a game to him. If
someone were to take us all on an utterly
reckless ride into the unknown, I'd rather it be an army of
uncivilized superstitious ingrates than he,
because the latter is socially inept, while the former are
only worthless. Before I continue, let me
state that he should just quit whining about everything. How
on earth these flag burners can think of
themselves as anything but disingenuous yokels is beyond me.
Although everyone has goals, John's
goal seems to be to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and
my family.
You probably can't find one good reason why John should
promote the lie of absolutism. There are
a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in
his convictions. This discussion is meant
to apply to modern colonialism only. I could accuse him of
using phlegmatic anal-retentive children
to get his way, but I wouldn't stoop to that level. John is
obviously trying to exercise control through
indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or
manipulation, and unless we act now, he'll
unequivocally succeed. Appeasement is not the answer.
However much he may deny it, his claims are pure tripe. His
hypocrisy comes out when he denies
that he surrounds himself with postmodernist adolescents.
Nonetheless, I can't count the number of
times I've wanted to tell you a little bit about John and
his hopeless remarks. Think of his theories as
being the sum of two components: a prudish component that
consists of his desire to turn me, a
typically mild-mannered person, into a superficial heinous
vat of alcoholism and a narrow-minded
component that consists of everything else. We are concerned
primarily with the former. He is trying
to deflect attention from his unctuous views.
It is widely known and beyond dispute that his desire to
guarantee the destruction of anything that
looks like a vital community is incontrovertible evidence
that he harbors some nasty grudges. Yet
John's deeds just don't stand up. This state of affairs
demands the direct assault on those obnoxious
beliefs that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but
whiney deviants. John makes it his job to
spawn delusions of cannibalism's resplendence. What I am
getting at is this: It is ridiculous that I have
to be faced with charlatans whose dangerous morals are
treated with apathy. He thinks that he can
make me become the target of prejudice, ridicule,
discrimination, and physical violence if he can
brainwash the masses into submission. All he wants is to
increase people's stress and aggression.
John is offended by anything that might suggest that much of
John's behavior is not rationally
calculated to be of benefit to the contemptible jealous John
Hugheses whom John claims to be trying
to help. Surely, John is not too repressive to realize that.
For brevity, I won't comment further about
that, but rather on the way that I don't think it would be
unfair to say that these kinds of egocentric
obdurate sensualists should be dealt with immediately. Even
so, his left hand doesn't know what his
right hand is doing. I feel that it can be safely said that
I, not being one of the many truculent criminals
of this world, am troubled by his constant exaggerations and
half-truths. One last thing: I must
protest John Hughes' use of insipid feral students to
achieve his stubborn goals.
http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint
_____________________________________________
North Central Ohio Skywarn Info
http://www.amnorth.com/redbone
http://www.amnorth.com/redbone/ham-page.html
http://lrbcg.com/dougd
Ken Bessler (KG0WX)
Tom Zoch wrote:
>
> Don't forget Bill Gates (Microsoft) is one of the Major players behind the
> Leo Satellite people who want to take over our Ham bands. It is no surprise
> that they want to call it dead! Apparently Kenwood will be making the
> electronics for them and are also willing to turn there backs on us. I will
> never consider buying a Kenwood product.
>
> Tom
> KC7PMQ
Let us also not forget that Bill Gates is also the main man behind the
X-files (a government front program explaining mysteries that way the
govenment wants us to know them). Also, Hitler is not dead, a 9000 lb baby
was born to a 1 day old infant in the oval office and the FCC is run by the
unabomer.
The government is watching - you may now become so paranoid that you turn to
drugs, supporting the defict by paying the columbian drug lords who got
Clinton into office. Also, Mr Clinton is a changeling and Bill gates is a KGB
agent and quite possibly a Borg.
--
.....It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!
Ken Bessler KG0WX
Design Services Company
http://www2.southwind.net/~kg0wx
Tom Zoch
Burt Fisher
Tony Pelliccio wrote:
>
> While I won't necessarily wish YOU dead I do hope your computer suffers
> a meltdown. I've seen your psychobabble both here and on packet and
> am sick of it.
You are forced to read it?
You won't NECESSARILY wish me dead. How nice of you.
Say it to my face.
Burt Fisher
Burt Fisher
Jim Kehler
John Hughes <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>
>> Madjid SuperUser <or...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>>
>> >About Kenwood, I use a Kenwood HF RIG but next rig will be
>> >YEASU or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet !
>>
>> >Madjid VE2GMI
>>
>> Madjid,
>> Make it ICOM or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet and your brain.
>>
>> 73, Jim KH2D
>
>Well, fill me in. What's your objection to Yaesu...nationalistic?
Nope, nobody here makes radios, and the big three are all made
in the same nation. Icom's HF receivers are far superior to Kenwoods,
that's why all the big contesters use Kenwood. The deader your
receiver, the less you hear the guy's transmitter who is sitting
next to you. Yaesu has had problems ever since the invention of
the transistor - they made fairly good stuff when we all used tubes,
but since then they have gone down hill dramatically. And Yaesu's
target market has always been 11 meters. After the 101's they
took 11 off the bandswitch, but they replaced it with a dipswitch
inside the radio, I guess so nobody would cut the wrong wire.....
I did see a Icom 706 (?) at field day last weekend, and I wasn't real
impressed with the receiver (HF) on it, it has the image problem on
CW that the 745 had. But it's a whole lot of bands for not a whole lot
of money, so it still looks like a good deal to me.
My observations are not based on labratory testing (Gary can fill you
in on that), just real world use. After having owned radios from all
of the big three, and having watched all the guys I started out with
do the same, seems like most if not all of us wound up with boxes
that say Icom on the front. In the last ten years I've also met a
lot of Japanese hams, and most I've met prefer Icom also.
I only have one piece of Ten-Tec equipment, that's a Titan amplifier.
It's probably the best piece of ham gear I have ever owned. I bought
it on the recommendation of another ham who has one, and some
other friends bought them after I did. None of us have been sorry
we did buy them. Ten-Tec's service is miles above anyone elses.
I've had a few minor problems, and Ten-Tec has responded immediatly
to resolve them, no questions asked. I've personally witnessed a lot
of RF amplifiers go up in smoke, but none have ever said Ten-Tec
on the front. If I ever have to buy another amp, it's the only one I
would consider. Ten-Tec amps aren't cheap, but when you buy an
amplifier, the last thing you want is a cheap one.
73, Jim KH2D
Jim Flanders
I Never thought of it that way. Maybe you've hit it - when all the CB
types leave for the internet, the seriouse Die-hards will get what is
left. Now - if we can only work together.
Jim W0oog/5
In article <4qk11t$a...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
rpf...@mailr.starnetinc.com says...
Bill Newkirk
>someone learn to meet the requirements. Teach them Ohm's Law, about Xl, Xc,
>Z, about diodes, transistors, and the like. Teach them what they need to
>know.
y'know all that sort of stuff at the amateur level is almost just one quarter or
maybe semester of a college circuits class. things like ohm's law, reactance
and other such things are only the beginning if you want to be a radio technical
kinda guy.
of course those who are really into it, probably go get the degree...
>And if they can't meet the requirments, help them some more. DON'T LOWER THE
>STANDARDS!!
but there's ever more to know (at least for the near term..), so one has to be
more direct in what's learned and be willing to know that you can't know it all.
what you should learn is how to find out how to find the answers...
what do you consider to be the "standards" we should have for amateur radio?
for many in the "standards!" group, it means that there's a CW test at a speed that
required those who passed to have to bust their tails to do so. many think the
theory of radio to be a No-Brainer since the tests can always be memorized
(humm..is that what they did?)
most amateur radio instruction texts are pretty weak on material science...shouldn't
a radio operator who's going to be probably putting up a lot of elevated aluminum
or copper know a lot of about things like strength of materials and such?
or how about requiring the new ham to invest in tools for being able to do some
light sheet metal work (making chassis, cabinents)..?
or should hams have intimate knowledge of material safety data sheets for things
like solder, flux, and any other chemicals and materials they might come into
contact with as a homebrewer?
in many respects, amateur radio is almost more a mechanical engineering based
avocation than electrical...
Bill Newkirk WB9IVR The Space Coast Amateur Technical Group
Melbourne, FL duty now for the future of amateur radio
Lombardi's 1st Law of Business:
Companies succeed in spite of their best effort. If they succeed at all.
Gary Coffman
>John Hughes <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>>pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>> Make it ICOM or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet and your brain.
>>> 73, Jim KH2D
>>Well, fill me in. What's your objection to Yaesu...nationalistic?
>
>Nope, nobody here makes radios, and the big three are all made
>in the same nation. Icom's HF receivers are far superior to Kenwoods,
>that's why all the big contesters use Kenwood. The deader your
>receiver, the less you hear the guy's transmitter who is sitting
>next to you. Yaesu has had problems ever since the invention of
>the transistor - they made fairly good stuff when we all used tubes,
>but since then they have gone down hill dramatically. And Yaesu's
>target market has always been 11 meters. After the 101's they
>took 11 off the bandswitch, but they replaced it with a dipswitch
>inside the radio, I guess so nobody would cut the wrong wire.....
I suspect you'll get a lot of argument about your comments above.
Though I own Icom HF equipment, an IC-735 and an IC-706, I must say
that Icom is in second place for HF transceivers compared to the
newer Yaesus. At the top of the line, the FT-1000 simply blows
Icom and Kenwoood away, and the FT-990 and FT-900 aren't bad in
their price classes either. Kenwood HF gear is also pretty good,
if you can keep it working. The big problem with all the recent
Kenwood gear is reliability. (And their VHF/UHF gear has always
sucked.)
>I did see a Icom 706 (?) at field day last weekend, and I wasn't real
>impressed with the receiver (HF) on it, it has the image problem on
>CW that the 745 had. But it's a whole lot of bands for not a whole lot
>of money, so it still looks like a good deal to me.
It is a good deal, for what it is. It is not a top of the line rig,
though I must take issue with comparing it to the IC-745. Now that
was a truly awful radio. It suffered even more from front end overload
(all the time) than the IC-706 does when the IC-706 preamp is on (you
should leave the preamp off on HF, you never need it). The IC-706 does
let you reverse sidebands in CW mode, which does get rid of most problems.
There is a bit of filter blowby (I assume the rig you saw was fitted with
the optional CW filter, without it the IC-706 is totally unsuitable for
CW or digital), but it isn't nearly as bad as the old IC-745. That thing
was a real turkey. The IC-706 isn't as good as the IC-735, but then few
radios are (and all of those are lots bigger and cost lots more), and
the IC-706 is smaller still, and does offer 6m and 2m.
>My observations are not based on labratory testing (Gary can fill you
>in on that), just real world use. After having owned radios from all
>of the big three, and having watched all the guys I started out with
>do the same, seems like most if not all of us wound up with boxes
>that say Icom on the front. In the last ten years I've also met a
>lot of Japanese hams, and most I've met prefer Icom also.
Like I mentioned, I've got two Icom radios now, but I've owned
Kenwood, Yaesu, Ten-Tec, Drake, National, Hallicrafters, Heath,
SBE, Galaxy, Johnson, B&W, Collins, etc over the years. The Icom
radios aren't the absolute best in raw performance. Of all those
I mentioned, the FT-1000 is the best in raw performance. But there
are more issues than that for me. I want a small radio today, and
I want one that is well built mechanically and thermally. In the
small radio class, that's Icom.
But if I were fielding a big contest station, all the radios would
likely say Yaesu on the front. Though if I could keep them running,
they might say Ten-Tec (you *need* that great factory support). They
would not say Kenwood unless I had at least four sets of spare radios.
That way maybe I'd have one radio that worked when I needed it.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Curt Phillips
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>Nope, nobody here makes radios, and the big three are all made
>in the same nation. Icom's HF receivers are far superior to Kenwoods,
>that's why all the big contesters use Kenwood. The deader your
>receiver, the less you hear the guy's transmitter who is sitting
Yep, that makes sense. All those big contesters want "deaf" radios
so they can't ear all of the weaker stations on the band, and on the
last day of the contest all they'll hear is the fellow big-guns they've
already worked.
Have YOU ever worked a contest, Jim? Perhaps not the contesters
*you* know, but all of the contesters *I* know want sensitive
receivers.
I judge brands on a radio-by-radio basis. I've owned Icom, Kenwood
and Yaesu HF rigs (as well as Drake, Heath, Hallicrafters and an
ATLAS, ARGHHHH!!!!!, you don't know junk, 'til you've owned an
Atlas) and Icom, Kenwood and Yaesu VHF rigs (as well as some
"wet-back", illegal alien-type imported rigs... remember Azden?)
There are good and bad radios in all of the brands.
============ Opinions expressed are solely those of the author ============
Curt Phillips KD4YU (ex-WB4LHI) | Motto of the
Chairman, Tarheel Scanner/SWL Grp | Tarheel Scanner/SWL Group:
ARRL Life; QCWA; Raleigh ARS; NRA | #2) The more they don't want you to
Energy/Recycling BBS 704-547-3114 | listen, the more interesting it must be.
==== cphi...@interpath.com === [Copyright 1996 All rights reserved]======
Ed Mitchell
>
>Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
>(but I told you that a long time ago)
>
>KENWOOD DEFENDS DISTRIBUTION PLANS
>
>Kenwood Communications Corp says its recently announced plans to make its
>products available in more retail outlets will help to rejuvenate ham radio.
>Citing concerns about the future of Amateur Radio and a changing business
>climate, Kenwood announced it was taking "some bold steps" to revamp its
>wholesale distribution scheme.
>
>In a June 10 open letter to the Amateur Radio community, Kenwood's
>Amateur Radio Products Group National Sales Manager Paul Middleton,
>KD6NUH, painted a dismal picture. "When we looked at where Amateur Radio
>is today, and where it is going to be in ten years at the present rate
>of decline, the future looks bleak," he wrote, citing competition from
>unlicensed communications modes. (internet).
>
The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration, in their
recent spectrum requirements report, states that worldwide Amateur radio growth
is 7% per year. So Amateur radio is growing, not declining. I would agree
though that *relative* to other radio communications services, primarily
"cellular" radio telephone and its rapid growth, a 7% growth rate is a slow
growth rate.
------------------------
Ed (KF7VY) and Kim (N7VPL) Mitchell
personal email to vb...@vbook.com
Visit Ham Radio Online, it's free! at
http://www.accessone.com/~vbook/hronline.htm
Ed Mitchell
This is NOT true. Bill Gates and Craig McCaw were founding investors in a
company called Teledesic. Teledesic is getting allocations at 28 GHZ for high
speed satellite data access (digital voice, video, internet data, whatever -
its all bits). They have no involvement that I am aware of in LOW earth orbit
(LEO) satellites for 2-way short messaging of the type that the LEO providers
wish to offer.
I am an employee of Microsoft Corporation and the above statements represent my
personal opinion and are not necessarily those of my employer. Besides who else
would ever accept credit for my silly opinions?
Ed, KF7VY
--
Wkleros...@gifl.com
From: Bill Kleronomos <wkl...@csn.net>
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Allright! Having seen this quote too many times the last week,
I'll toss my 2 cents in:
>>In a June 10 open letter to the Amateur Radio community, Kenwood's
>>Amateur Radio Products Group National Sales Manager Paul Middleton,
>>KD6NUH, painted a dismal picture. "When we looked at where Amateur Radio
>>is today, and where it is going to be in ten years at the present rate
>>of decline, the future looks bleak," he wrote, citing competition from
>>unlicensed communications modes. (internet).
Not! Amateur Radio specifically has to do with the 'science' of
communications and experimentation with RADIO.
RADIO, by definition, is an integral part of Amateur RADIO.
It is a fallacy to assume that those who communicate via Internet
might have otherwise become Amateur RADIO Operators.
Mr. Middleton is merely the most recent example of individuals
who over the last fifty years or so have pointed at a similar
technical hobby and erroneously predicted the demise of Amateur
Radio.
Kenwood is welcome, in my book, to sell its radios in every
retail establishment from K-Mart to Victoria's Secret, if that's what
they want to do, but they can kiss me off as a customer.
(Oops, they already have- I'm using the Internet)
Mike Royko,a national newspaper columnist once said something like,
"...in spite of predictions, there's no way computers and the Internet are
going to
replace the daily newspaper until a PC is just as easy to use and read
in the bathroom..."
Carry on, Sons of Marconi!
-BK
KD0HG, Lyons, Colo.
--
|Fidonet: Wkl...@csn.Net 1:377/51.2
|Internet: Wkleros...@gifl.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Wkleros_csn_...@gifl.com
From: Wkleros...@gifl.com (Wkl...@csn.Net)
-BK
KD0HG, Lyons, Colo.
--
|Fidonet: Wkleros...@gifl.Com 1:377/51.1
|Internet: Wkleros_csn_...@gifl.com
|
| This message has passed thru The GIFfer Skylink
Bill Kleronomos
Ken Clark
>John Hughes <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>>pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>>
>>> Madjid SuperUser <or...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >About Kenwood, I use a Kenwood HF RIG but next rig will be
>>> >YEASU or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet !
>>>
>>> >Madjid VE2GMI
>>>
>>> Madjid,
>>> Make it ICOM or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet and your brain.
>>>
>>> 73, Jim KH2D
>>
>
>>Well, fill me in. What's your objection to Yaesu...nationalistic?
>
>Nope, nobody here makes radios, and the big three are all made
>in the same nation. Icom's HF receivers are far superior to Kenwoods,
>that's why all the big contesters use Kenwood. The deader your
>receiver, the less you hear the guy's transmitter who is sitting
>next to you. Yaesu has had problems ever since the invention of
>the transistor - they made fairly good stuff when we all used tubes,
>but since then they have gone down hill dramatically. And Yaesu's
>target market has always been 11 meters. After the 101's they
>took 11 off the bandswitch, but they replaced it with a dipswitch
>inside the radio, I guess so nobody would cut the wrong wire.....
>
>I did see a Icom 706 (?) at field day last weekend, and I wasn't real
>impressed with the receiver (HF) on it, it has the image problem on
>CW that the 745 had. But it's a whole lot of bands for not a whole lot
>of money, so it still looks like a good deal to me.
>
>My observations are not based on labratory testing (Gary can fill you
>in on that), just real world use. After having owned radios from all
>of the big three, and having watched all the guys I started out with
>do the same, seems like most if not all of us wound up with boxes
>that say Icom on the front. In the last ten years I've also met a
>lot of Japanese hams, and most I've met prefer Icom also.
>
>I only have one piece of Ten-Tec equipment, that's a Titan amplifier.
>It's probably the best piece of ham gear I have ever owned. I bought
>it on the recommendation of another ham who has one, and some
>other friends bought them after I did. None of us have been sorry
>we did buy them. Ten-Tec's service is miles above anyone elses.
>I've had a few minor problems, and Ten-Tec has responded immediatly
>to resolve them, no questions asked. I've personally witnessed a lot
>of RF amplifiers go up in smoke, but none have ever said Ten-Tec
>on the front. If I ever have to buy another amp, it's the only one I
>would consider. Ten-Tec amps aren't cheap, but when you buy an
>amplifier, the last thing you want is a cheap one.
>
>73, Jim KH2D
Interesting and very informative letter Jim and I'll be one of those
who'll probably take your advice and comments on board when the time
for the next change in equipment comes up. Kenwood won't be seeing my
pound notes on the shop counter again anyway! G4MPQ/Ken
>
>
Jim Kehler
vb...@vbook.com (Ed Mitchell) wrote:
>The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration, in their
>recent spectrum requirements report, states that worldwide Amateur radio growth
>is 7% per year. So Amateur radio is growing, not declining.
Ed, do they give any figures for amateur radio growth in the U.S. ?
73, Jim KH2D
wayne roberts
Ken Bessler (KG0WX) (kg...@southwind.net) wrote:
I see microsoft is pissing off the hams too, now why does that not surprise me.
check out these pages:
http://www.c2.net/hackmsoft
http://microsoft.is.lame.org:8001/~chris/HATE/
:
: Let us also not forget that Bill Gates is also the main man behind the
:
Bill Newkirk
In <4r4tfb$6...@news-2.csn.net>, Bill Kleronomos <wkl...@csn.net> writes:
>Mike Royko,a national newspaper columnist once said something like,
>"...in spite of predictions, there's no way computers and the Internet are going to
>replace the daily newspaper until a PC is just as easy to use and read
>in the bathroom..."
like as in the TV version of Max Headroom where Bryce Lynch has access
everywhere he goes..?
Ed Mitchell
In article <4r6vl1$s...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>, pacri...@kuentos.guam.net
says...
Yes. Through the end of 1994, they used "the previous several years" and
computed a 7% growth rate of the U.S. and 7.5% for outside the U.S. But that
also included the "bump" of people who held of getting licensed in advance of
the new Tech license which produced very high growth rates for the next couple
of years.
Ed
water
ha...@pop3.worldaccess.nl
In history it was written:
>
>
> Thanks to all who replied! Its good to know that is hope at 100 watts.
>
> I'll have to work in this, as it is quit hard being on the first floor
> and surrounded by neighbors on all sides and above. When my lease is
> up, I'll have to do some serious prospecting on a more suitable apartment.
>
Lucky us people of Holland (or if you prefer: The Netherlands), since our
powerlimit used to be 100 Watts, so no discussion neccesary.
Nowadays the limit has been raised to 400 Watts PEP.
----
+-----------------------------------+
| Henk |
| 'Hank Panthouse' |
| Broekhuizen |
+-----------------------------------+
| email: ha...@worldaccess.nl |
+-----------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------+
| It's better to burn up, |
| than to fade away |
+-----------------------------------+
Ron Cole
>> I'll have to work in this, as it is quit hard being on the first floor
>> and surrounded by neighbors on all sides and above. When my lease is
>> up, I'll have to do some serious prospecting on a more suitable apartment.
>>
The prefer to invest in a better antenna than more power. I have been
and will continue to be a Quad Man.
Ron