[pskmail] Re: A few things we could improve ?

  • From: Per Crusefalk <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:32:21 +0200

Hi Walt,

That sounds like an interesting setup. The only problem I see with it is
transporting all those pipes. I will go to the hardware store and see if
there is any telescoping support that I can use. I know they have long
telescoping handles for garden saws (for cutting branches high up in
trees) and I may find something usable there. I'll have a look at PVC
pipes as well while I'm there (I made the T2FD spreaders from 1" pipes).

73 de Per, sm0rwo




sön 2007-04-08 klockan 03:09 -0500 skrev Walt DuBose:
> My favorite antenna is 30 ft of 2" PVC pipe as a mast and the base tied to a 
> 5 
> ft steel drive-in fence post.  I hold the mast to the post with metal 
> adjustable 
> hose clamps.
> 
> I put up the 80M and 40M inverted Vs at the top, the 80M running 0-180 and 
> the 
> 40M running 90-270.  30 ft makes the feedpoint at 40M about 58 ohms and the 
> 80M 
> about 40 ohms.  But still an Ok SWR and generally no lineflattner tuner 
> (transimatch) is needed.  I use 10 ft 1 1/2: PVC pipe on each end of the 
> Inverted V and hold them up with 4 more 5ft steel drive-in fence post.
> 
> 5 fence post, 10 9" hose clamps, 4 pieces of 1 1/2" PCV pipe and 4 pieces of
> 2 1/2" PVC pipe.  Oh yes, and good RG-8 coax...NO RG-8X coax.
> 
> One young man and 2 young girls can put up the antenna in about 20 minutes.  
> One 
> old man and 4 young girls will take 3 or 4 hours to get it up.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> 
> Per Crusefalk wrote:
> > Hi Walt,
> > 
> > I agree with you on these antennas. The T2FD was very quiet and was
> > excellent for reception. I replaced the T2FD with a random wire at the
> > same position and RFI jumped to an S9 (from nothing), the random wire
> > was unusable just because of that. The T2FD was inadequate also for
> > another reason: mounting. There was a strong wind (with snow) up in
> > those mountains and I had a tough time getting it up in the trees. The
> > dipole and the wire were much easier to get to a better position. I
> > guess 6-8 dB tx loss on the T2FD could be about right. Its homemade and
> > the first I have made so I may have done a less than perfect job on the
> > balun and resistor too.
> > The 1/2 wavelength dipole was mounted low (too low) due to its length
> > and restrictions on good trees. It was mounted at abt 9 feet (3 meters)
> > but worked despite of that. I figured NVIS was what I needed anyway and
> > it seems thats what I got.
> > 
> > Your description of an inverted vee for 80 matches what I use from OH0.
> > I have the feed point at the house there and the legs somewhere near 120
> > degrees spread out. That is the best "portable" antenna I have used and
> > I have very good results with my FT-817 there. The antenna works so well
> > that I figured I didn't need any more power than 5 watts (I have seen
> > the need for that now). I also tried to make a multiband fan dipole of
> > it but it prooved too difficult to get to a good position.
> > 
> > I would like to find a smaller antenna, easier to erect, with equal or
> > better performance to the dipole. But, I guess its true that big
> > antennas are good antennas and small antennas are...crap.
> > 
> > 73 de Per, sm0rwo
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > sön 2007-04-08 klockan 02:13 -0500 skrev Walt DuBose:
> > 
> >>Note on antennas...
> >>
> >>The T2DF is OK if you want a low noise receive antenna but it has about 6 
> >>to 8 
> >>dB less radiation than a dipole or Inverted V at the same feedpoint heigth. 
> >> If 
> >>you use a 90-120 ft T2DF, it starts becoming directional between 10-12 MHz.
> >>
> >>A long wire is a strange animal and can mean different things to 
> >>individuals.  I 
> >>think of a long wire as something like 3-7 wavelength.  Otherwise, I think 
> >>of a 
> >>random wire more like an Inverted L.  In that case, its good to have the 
> >>horz. 
> >>element 15 - 35 ft above ground and the antenna must NOT be a mutiple of a 
> >>1/2 
> >>wavelength.  I have and excellent performance with a 90 ft wire on 80/40M 
> >>that 
> >>was 15 ft above ground.
> >>
> >>No doubt that a 1/2 wavelength dipole (or Inverted V) with the feedpoint at 
> >>17% 
> >>of a wavelength above ground is an excellent NVIS antenna with a feed point 
> >>of 
> >>50 ohms.
> >>
> >>If using a Inverted V, try to  make the  angle between the two legs of the 
> >>"V" 
> >>no less than 120 deg. (its hard).  I find that making the ends of the "V' 
> >>at 
> >>least 10 ft above ground works fairly well for 40M and even 80M but would 
> >>try to 
> >>the then ends of an 80M Inverted V up 15 ft above ground.  The 50 ohm 
> >>feedpoint 
> >>for 40M is about 27 ft and 40 ft for 80M.  30-35 ft seems to be a nice 
> >>compromise for 80/40M.
> >>
> >>One always should consider their need for a high angle of radiation antenna 
> >>(NVIS) or low angle of radiation antenna depending on the desired length of 
> >>the 
> >>desired path.  I generally prefer a verticle on 30/20M but sometimes a 
> >>dipole on 
> >>30M and most generally a dipole or Inverted V on 80/40M.
> >>
> >>73 All and Happy Easter.
> >>
> >>Walt/K5YFW
> >>
> >>Per Crusefalk wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>I'm not really back from our trip up north yet (just 3 hours to go) but
> >>>I figured I should write down some of the things I noticed during the
> >>>trip. We were in a cabin in Orsa, right next to the bear park, and I
> >>>tested three different kinds of antennas:
> >>>(We did go to the bear park as well and looked at Kamchatka bears, lynx,
> >>>foxes and more).
> >>>
> >>>1. T2FD, worked great for rx but not vy good for tx
> >>>2. Random wire (7 meters) with tuner, worked well for tx but it picked
> >>>up RFI and made the band unusable
> >>>3. A standard dipole for 80 meters, the antenna that worked...
> >>>Also, I use an FT-817 and I have had much fun with it but I have now
> >>>decided that life is too short for QRP... I need more power.
> >>>
> >>>So, back to the pskmail things. This is a list containing a lot of work
> >>>for me and Rein. But, I'm not just going to complain here. I intend to
> >>>work on these things too. Here are the things I noticed:
> >>>
> >>>1. View and clear "mailfile/headers/sendfile/mail archive"
> >>>
> >>>This works but takes a while to get used to. Could we change this into
> >>>an "inbox, sent and unsent" ? Also, I forget to clear the sendfile at
> >>>times and that causes me to resend old stuff. Could we move the messages
> >>>to sent when they are ?
> >>>
> >>>2. Favourites/bookmarks/get web page
> >>>
> >>>Works great and I would like to extend it. I would like to see more of a
> >>>firefox bookmark approach and I would like to be able to save/load a
> >>>file containing bookmarks. Also, need to reevaluate the use of
> >>>lynx/links on the server.
> >>>
> >>>3. QTC?, Download and Read
> >>>
> >>>These buttons are connected to the input field on the bottom of the
> >>>client. If I would like to read message 149 then I need to enter that in
> >>>the field before pressing the button. I would like it to ask me about
> >>>what message to read if that field is empty. That way I won't initiate a
> >>>new download of the entire message list if I just forget to enter a
> >>>message number before pressing the button.
> >>>
> >>>4. Binary downloads
> >>>
> >>>Works but does not handle swedish characters (ISO-8859-1).
> >>>
> >>>5. Invisible functions...
> >>>
> >>>There are functions that you can only use from the "command line", I'm
> >>>thinking abt PSKaprs messages and partial message listings (well,
> >>>mentioned that above). Anyway, I would like a menu shortcut at least and
> >>>a tiny window where pskaprs messages can be edited. Also, I would these
> >>>very nice functions to be visible to the novice. So, all the "hidden"
> >>>functions need to be more visible.
> >>>
> >>>Time for breakfast here so 73 for now de Per, sm0rwo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
-- 
Pär Crusefalk
Turnévägen 5
14243 Skogås
Tel: +4687717482
Mob: +46768800670





Other related posts: