[HCARC] Fw: Local 10 Meter Propagation Test - Tonight - 6:30 to6:45 -28.365 Mhz

Thu Jul 26 21:22:07 EDT 2012

Unfortunately I may have misread the quote about having to use general Class 
Freq.  Silly me for thinking of it backwards - using Extra vs General rather 
than the way it might have been / was intended to be unhappy Tech class 
freqs wouldn't work and having to go up to General.  HMMMM - maybe I shoud 
keep my mouth shut and just listen.  That has worked well in the past.

Sorry if I stepped on toes.

Gary J
N5BAA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <galeheise at windstream.net>
To: "HCARC Reflector" <HCARC at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:21 PM
Subject: [HCARC] Fw: Local 10 Meter Propagation Test - Tonight - 6:30 
to6:45 -28.365 Mhz

> To All-
>
>  I've had great responses from people interested in a local HF session.  I
> received a phone call last night from a member who expressed his interest 
> in
> a loosely structured rag chewing session.  Today, Kerry sent me the
> excellent email below.  Unfortunately, it appears we may need to consider
> the General class license operating frequencies to obtain the geographical
> area coverage required for communications with our members.  Possibly we
> should have a survey of members at our next club meeting to determine:
>
> 1.  Do members prefer meeting during the day or in the evening?
> 2.  While we may need to run more tests, it appears to include
> Fredericksburg and Centerpoint we may need to use 14 Mhz or lower
> frequencies.  Is there a band that meets this requirement and most members
> have antennas for the band?
>
>  I appreciate the interest of all those pursuing this issue.
>
> Gale
> KM4DR
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Kerry Sandstrom
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:15 PM
> To: galeheise at windstream.net
> Subject: Re: [HCARC] Local 10 Meter Propagation Test - Tonight - 6:30 to
> 6:45 -28.365 Mhz
>
> Gale,
>
> I checked the ARRL Antenna Book, 18th Edition.  On page 23-4 Figure 3 is
> "Typical HF ground-wave range as a function of frequency".  It shows the
> following distances :
>
>    Frequency         Distance (miles)
>
>        30                            10
>
>        28                            12
>
>        21                            20
>
>        14                            30
>
>        10                            37
>
>          7                            45
>
>          4                            58
>
>          2                            90
>
> Unfortunately, no indication of the stations capabilities that should 
> expect
> these typical distances.  In the text it says that "the surface wave is of
> little value in amateur communication, except possibly at 1.8 MHz.
> Vertically polarized antennas must be used, which tends to limit amateur
> surface-wave communication to where large vertical systems can be 
> erected."
> I'm not sure I believe very much of this!  We heard each other very well
> during the test at what is supposedely the limit of the 'typical' range
> inspite of a vertical antenna on one end and a dipole on your end.  In 
> spite
> of the above statements in the Antenna Handbook, the ARRL has encouraged
> using ten meters for local nets since at least the 50's.
>
>>From the chart, it looks like 80 and 40 are the best choices if our guys 
>>can
> get antennas going for those bands.  Unfortunately, after dark, both bands
> get fairly crowded.  Ten certainly is the right choice for after dark but 
> we
> need to figure out what the station requirements are.  There are a couple
> mysteries from the test.  Harvey certainly had a good signal with his low
> dipole here, but I don't understand why he couldn't hear me better.  John
> was workable here on his high antenna, but I think he should have been
> stronger.  The radio line of sight for a 100' antenna is over 30 miles.
> Even with the terrain between us, we should have been close to line of
> sight.  If Bob was using his vertical, he should have been at least as
> strong as Harvey, if not stronger since he is closer to me and our
> polarizations match.  Oh well, that is why we need some experiments!
>
> At work I do a lot of propagation modeling.  I have several models that I
> can run.  Not one of them does HF surface/ground wave.  The ones that do 
> do
> surface wave and near earth propagation are 30 MHz and up.  The ones that
> use the ionosphere are all HF only.  There are some MF models that do 
> ground
> wave but are all AM broadcast band oriented.  We really are in an area 
> that
> most people aren't interested.
>
> Experiments that would be nice:
>
>    80/40 meters in the daytime
>
>    Vertical vs. horizontal on 80 and 40 meters
>
>    Vertical vs. horizontal on 10 meters
>
>    15 meters vs. 10 meters
>
> How did my audio sound during the test?  It was the first time I've had it
> on SSB.  I was using an old Shure mobile mike, probably crystal/ceramic.
>
> I only have a cell phone these days, my number is (830) 998-5203.
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 