[50mhz] Re: 50mhz Digest, Vol 44, Issue 13

Thu Sep 27 19:57:19 EDT 2007

To All the VHF Ops who do not reply to my SASE QSL:

1) In case nobody ever told you, the QSL is the final courtesy in making a 
QSO.

2) Now maybe you don't need my QSL card but I just might need yours. I am 
working toward VUCC and WAS and DXCC on 6 meters.

3) I always send an SASE with my card. This means that I want yours also. 
Now I can understand that after spending $1,000 for a radio and another few 
thousand for a 70 ft tower and SteppIR, you are broke. But why keep my 
envelope and postage stamp. Find a piece of paper, 3 x 5 card, Beer Label, 
empty Marlboro pack, brown paper bag, sheet of toilet paper or whatever and 
hand write a reply card. Put in my envelope with my prepaid postage and send 
it.

It's not like I have unlimited time on my hands to sit in front of the rig 
and wait for grids and states to open up. I make one Oregon contact all 
season and it is worth my time to send an SASE just to get no reply. Postage 
and envelopes add up in cost too. Same is true for other grids and other 
states. If you need free postage to pay your bills, get the postage 
somewhere else, not from me.

Best Regards
Dan Schaaf
K3ZXL   www.k3zxl.com   "In the Beginning, there was Spark Gap"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <50mhz-request at mailman.qth.net>
To: <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 4:03 AM
Subject: 50mhz Digest, Vol 44, Issue 13

> Send 50mhz mailing list submissions to
> 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 50mhz-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 50mhz-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of 50mhz digest..."
>
>
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: 50mhz Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8 (Dan Schaaf)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:37:41 -0400
> From: "Dan Schaaf" <dan-schaaf at att.net>
> Subject: [50mhz] Re: 50mhz Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
> To: <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <00f301c7fc8f$420141d0$6502a8c0 at DELL>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi all,
>
> If anyone has an Ameritron RCS-4 Remote coax switch for sale, please 
> contact
> me at dan-schaaf at att.net.
>
> Thanks and 73
> Dan K3ZXL
> Best Regards
> Dan Schaaf
> K3ZXL   www.k3zxl.com   "In the Beginning, there was Spark Gap"
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <50mhz-request at mailman.qth.net>
> To: <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:02 AM
> Subject: 50mhz Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
>
>
>> Send 50mhz mailing list submissions to
>> 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 50mhz-request at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 50mhz-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of 50mhz digest..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: 50mhz Digest, Vol 42, Issue 15 (Dan Schaaf)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:55:35 -0400
>> From: "Dan Schaaf" <dan-schaaf at att.net>
>> Subject: [50mhz] Re: 50mhz Digest, Vol 42, Issue 15
>> To: <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <005a01c7e385$9f5d0ee0$c800470a at DELL>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is not directly related to 50 MHz. I have questions about 70 cm and
>> duplexors for 2 m/ 70 cm. I will be happy to discuss off forum if this is
>> not the appropriate place to discuss it. My direct email is
>> dan-schaaf at att.net
>>
>> Otherwise, I will be happy to discuss it here.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Dan Schaaf
>> K3ZXL   www.k3zxl.com   "In the Beginning, there was Spark Gap"
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <50mhz-request at mailman.qth.net>
>> To: <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:04 AM
>> Subject: 50mhz Digest, Vol 42, Issue 15
>>
>>
>>> Send 50mhz mailing list submissions to
>>> 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> 50mhz-request at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> 50mhz-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of 50mhz digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>   1. Re: Good gain verticals? (Bill W5WVO)
>>>   2. Re: Good gain verticals? (mweisbergs at juno.com)
>>>   3. Gain Vertical Comments (J. Coote)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0600
>>> From: "Bill W5WVO" <w5wvo at cybermesa.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [50mhz] Good gain verticals?
>>> To: <cboone at earthlink.net>, <kd4wov at earthlink.net>
>>> Cc: 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>>> Message-ID: <08c001c7d2b6$e73c5480$0300a8c0 at BILLSLAPTOP>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
>>> reply-type=original
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>>> When the band is open, it doesnt really matter as to polarization.
>>>
>>> I've always believed this, because the polarization would obviously get
>>> skewed
>>> in the active ionospheric layer. BUT... I've never seen any results from
>>> a
>>> side-by-side test using a horizontal and vertical antenna of the same
>>> gain
>>> (dBi) at the same elevation above ground during an E opening to see if
>>> this is
>>> really true. Has anybody here ever actually done this, or something
>>> approximating it?
>>>
>>> The reason for my skepticism is that sporadic-E couds are very highly
>>> charged,
>>> very planar (i.e., flat), and very thin -- all compared to the F layer,
>>> which
>>> is structured very differently and refracts signals gradually back to
>>> earth.
>>> E-clouds tend to act more like reflectors (mirrors) than refractors. The
>>> flatter and more highly charged the surface of the E cloud is, the less
>>> polarity distortion should take place. Theoretically.  :-)
>>>
>>> Which would imply that a horizontally polarized antenna of the same gain
>>> and
>>> same elevation as a vertical might work better during strong sporadic-E
>>> openings (assuming, as is the case, that most stations are also using
>>> horizontally polarized antennas for DX work).
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> Bill / W5WVO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:49:40 -0400
>>> From: mweisbergs at juno.com
>>> Subject: Re: [50mhz] Good gain verticals?
>>> To: 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>>> Message-ID: <20070730.164941.-280669.1.mweisbergs at juno.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0600 "Bill W5WVO" <w5wvo at cybermesa.net>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> in the active ionospheric layer. BUT... I've never seen any results
>>>> from a  side-by-side test using a horizontal and vertical antenna of
>>> the
>>>> same gain  (dBi) at the same elevation above ground during an E opening
>>> to see
>>>> if this is  really true. Has anybody here ever actually done this, or
>>> something
>>>> approximating it?
>>>
>>> There was a study done in the 50's, hosted by Oliver P Ferrel, an editor
>>> of CQ Mag. I'll see if I can find it in "my archives"
>>>
>>>
>>>> The reason for my skepticism is that sporadic-E couds are very  highly
>>> charged,
>>>> very planar (i.e., flat), and very thin -- all compared to the F
>>> layer, which
>>>> is structured very differently and refracts signals gradually back  to
>>> earth.
>>>> E-clouds tend to act more like reflectors (mirrors) than refractors.
>>> The
>>>> flatter and more highly charged the surface of the E cloud is, the
>>> less  polarity distortion should take place. Theoretically.  :-)
>>>
>>> I don't subscribe to this... thick or thin, refracted or reflected, the
>>> "bounce" results in a randomized polarity, whether the bounce takes 
>>> place
>>> terrestrially or in the ionosphere. A more highly charged cloud (greater
>>> ion density) results primarily in stronger signals and a higher MUF.
>>> That's why, when the clouds are really charged, 2m opens up.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which would imply that a horizontally polarized antenna of the same
>>> gain and  same elevation as a vertical might work better during strong
>>> sporadic-E  openings (assuming, as is the case, that most stations are
>>> also  using
>>> horizontally polarized antennas for DX work).
>>>
>>> A more viable explanation regarding the apparent superiority of
>>> horizontal over vertical during E-skip is in the nature of the skip.
>>> Assuming the textbook skip distance of 1200-1400 miles for a single hop,
>>> the E signal approaches the antenna at a far steeper angle than it does
>>> during F skip. When that skip shortens up to several hundred miles, the
>>> angle is steeper yet and interesting things happen. Indeed, I have often
>>> experienced -- while trying to peak a signal by turning the beam -- the
>>> situation of very little change in the signal, certainly not the usual
>>> 20db F/B ratio. The reason is that more of the signal is coming down on
>>> the driven-element than is coming across the directors. In other words,
>>> I've got a rotating horizontal dipole. That same signal, approaching a
>>> vertical antenna, is mostly in its dead-zone, hence the pronounced
>>> difference in reception.
>>>
>>> Guys with az-el rotors might try elevating their antennas during a
>>> short-hop session and see what difference it makes.
>>>
>>> An interesting historical note... back in antiquity, before the Brits 
>>> got
>>> 6M, we would work them 6M/10M crossband (full duplex!) and I, for one,
>>> was getting decent signal reports. Many if not most of the G's were 
>>> using
>>> their TV antennas to feed their converters and those were all vertically
>>> polarized with moderate gain.
>>>
>>> Bud K2YOF
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:10:06 -0700
>>> From: "J. Coote" <TSCM at jps.net>
>>> Subject: [50mhz] Gain Vertical Comments
>>> To: <50mhz at mailman.qth.net>
>>> Message-ID: <OCEJKAMADJMKIEKGMBMDMEDPDEAA.TSCM at jps.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> List-
>>> Thanks for all the responses to my questions regarding antennas for 6M
>>> 73
>>> Jay
>>> W6CJ
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 50mhz mailing list
>>> 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
>>>
>>>
>>> End of 50mhz Digest, Vol 42, Issue 15
>>> *************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 50mhz mailing list
>> 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
>>
>>
>> End of 50mhz Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
>> ************************************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 50mhz mailing list
> 50mhz at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/50mhz
>
>
> End of 50mhz Digest, Vol 44, Issue 13
> ************************************* 