¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. Ft817
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test

Newell, John O
 

What a funny old thing...the dipole wins again!
Yeah, and in more ways than one, perhaps (ease of transport, cost, ease of
setup...)

p.s., excuse my ignorance, but wht does <g> represent???
<g> = "grin" so wd be equivalent to "hi hi" or :-) I guess...

73
John
KB1FPM









































------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may
contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the
attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are
not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute
this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: leaving the group

theshadow
 

done it thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Steinberg" <jeffreys@...>
To: <FT817@...>
Cc: <theshadow@...>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:03 AM
Subject: RE: [FT817] leaving the group


Why not set up a filter and put all the e-mails into a folder. That way,
when you have a chance, you can see the e-mails.

No inbox clutter!

--jeffrey, K2MIT
-----Original Message-----
From: theshadow@... [mailto:theshadow@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:53 PM
To: FT817@...
Subject: [FT817] leaving the group


Due to a heavy work load and some homebrew projects I am leaving this
group.
I have enjoyed the group very much and have had a lot of help from
its members for myself and my workplace.
I will be back but can not at the moment cope with reading all the
mails and reply to all the personel mails I get daily.

Thanks folks and enjoy your 817's


Chris Taylor G0WTZ
Sales Director
Martin Lynch and Sons
www.hamradio.co.uk


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Re: MP-1 questions

Cortland
 

Pull out the telescoping section all the way, then adjust the coil for
resonance.

Cortland

--- In FT817@e..., K5HOY@a... wrote:

... What are the best lengths for the telescoping antenna on the
various
bands (i.e. is it like the ATX?)and what is the best way to deal
with
the counterpoise wires on each band?

Or is it just a matter of pulling the telescoping antenna out all
the
way and leaving it and just drooping the counterpoise wires around
the ...
Re: 75 vs 50 Ohm BNC (WAS N elbow connector problem with FT-817)

Cortland
 

A 75 ohm BNC female pin may be permanently deformed if a thicker 50
ohm BNC is inserted into it. We have seen this happen with video
connections at work.

Cortland

--- In FT817@e..., w8lx@a... wrote:
--- In FT817@y..., globaltestsolutions@y... wrote:
BE very careful with BNC's. There are 75 ohm as well as 50ohm
BNC's
out there...
The 50 Ohm and 75 Ohm BNC connectors have the same pin diameter in
the mating area, so they will interchange without any damage. ...
Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test

Newell, John O
 

I and I think John would be very
interested in an experiment with PSK 31
VE3XJ and N1XTR --

Yes, I'm interested in more tries with this all, and it's been an
educational discussion so far -- thanks to all here and on HFPack. (Haven't
heard anything from the NVIS group but maybe it's all the same folks? <g>)

I would like to try fiddling with more antennas. I'm also game to try
PSK31. My experiences so far are good, although without error correction I
wonder whether it really replaces packet? On a less technical level, I find
PSK31 very s-l-o-w and it also rattles my brain a little to be looking at
the visual equivalent of internet chatroom software. <|:-) Also, though it
may be great for casual use and maybe has some emergency comms use, for
footmobile use (/pm or pack-in stationary use) it has the disadvantage of
needing more hardware and more batteries. That is all beside the point,
though, so let's have at it!

I am also tied up the next two weekends, but should have time afterwards.

72/73
John Newell
KB1FPM




































------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may
contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the
attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are
not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute
this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: 817 Amps

F.B. Nutter, Jr.
 

Hi John,
They are unfiltered & require the addition of filters to keep the
FCC & your neighbors happy. I am thinking about 1 of these amps myself.
I guess CCI at least gives you schematics for the LPFs.
73, Fil W8FIL

"John O. Newell" wrote:

I'd recommend the Communications Concepts (CCI) amps, like model
#EB63 (as an example).
These are unfiltered? / / yes / / no / / maybe

73
John Newell
KB1FPM

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[www.debticated.com]


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet
or in print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test

[email protected]
 

Sorry for being away so long. I came down with something this week shortly
after the experiment between John (KB1FPM) and I. John, I hope that viruses
can't
travel by radio waves 8-).

I have been reading all of the comments and would like to thank you
for your suggestions.


Clearly, pactor/PSK-31 communications should
be considered in these instances. It was interesting to note that
they were using 20 watt radioes....

I have talked with John about this and I certainly think that tremendous
advantage could be
had by using PSK31 based upon some contacts I have made over the last few
months.


I must have missed that assertion that low power was in the 400 watt
range - that could be more of the peculiar military viewpoint - kind
of like the viewpoint that if one asprin will make my headache go
away, a whole bottle will do so much more quickly....
I have read about other experiments with much lower power that implies that
almost 100 percent copy
might be likely with NVIS to NVIS type antennas. Part of this is because the
noise floor
is lowered because you are not getting all kinds of QRM/QRN from sources far
far away. Because the
noise floor is lower a lower power signal has a much greater chance of
getting through.


But I recall one article where he discussed the advantages of NVIS
but from mostly from a military perspective. For example, Feilder
asserted that radiodetermination of a station using NVIS is much more
difficult because of the near-vertical take-off of the transmitted
signal producing an omni-directional signal. Additionally, I am sure
he also mentioned that this characteristic is compounded by the use
of low power, in the 10 to 20 watt range, HF radioes. Looks like I
will have to re-read the book (for the fifth time!).

I have read this also and makes perfect sense. It also says if I remember
correctly that the DF-ing
station cannot be within hearing range of the ground wave or else the
advantage is lost.



- the author(s) suggest that the best antenna for NVIS may
in fact be ye goode olde dipole (or , if the angle is not
too great, an inverted Vee) at low fractions to the ground,
possibly with a reflector below at a measured distance.


I think this point is made in several publication and by several people. I
haven't seen
anything with respect to this antenna that makes me think that it is wrong.


Yes, I think that was the message that I had picked up. Indeed, go
to the University of Hawaii Amateur Radio Club site and take a look
at their recommendations with respect to using a three-wire reflector
underneath the dipole.
I have seen this and it looks interesting also but would be difficult to put
up in the woods on a camping trip in the
woods of New England.



I tried a similar though simpler setup with a center fed dipole and a
reflector underneath. I consider that there
may have been several things wrong with my test though and intend to do it
again.


I have a few ideas to try and perhaps you and I and maybe others in this
part of the world can experiment on 40 and 80 metres over the
summer. I did a quick check with Mapblast, and I see we are not
quite 500 mile away via roads, so we are closer, I am sure, as the
crow flies. I don't know if I can get anything up for this Saturday,
but I sure would like to try. So let's keep in touch via e-mail.
I can't do anything on Saturday because of my son's birthday party but am
definitely game.
You are about 271 miles from me N1XTK and about 296 miles from John
(KB1FPM).


Have you any interest in trying to maintain a pactor link? I don't
have any means of undertaking a portable/mobile PSK-31, and I am
couldn't afford the Kantronics box!
I can't do Pactor but all you need to do PSK31 is a computer and a sound
card and transceiver.
I and I think John would be very interested in an experiment with PSK 31 at
some
time.

Also, it make me very happy to see the kind of response this has generated.

72,
Keith
N1XTK
Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test

 

John:


Thanks for the reminder. In fact, I have a copy of the book
you mentioned, but it had slipped far down in the reading
pile. I skimmed it, quite late last night, and will start
reading it. It looks very good. Among the points I noticed
skimming last night...

- the author says that, based on reports from many stations
over a number of years, low power stations can confidently
expect to succeed with NVIS; the rub is that "low power" is
400w <g> and he says operators of 20w backpack radios often
have great difficulty...
My best recollection is the experiment that was undertaken by one of
the authors (Fielder, I think) with a point-to-point communications
in south-east Asia (Thailand, I think). The link was established in
mountainous jungle terrain over a distance of 70 miles, testing three
antennae - a vertical, a half-wave sloper and a dipole at quarter-
wave heigth. The only antenna that was consistently reliable over a
24 hour period was the dipole, then the sloper and the vertical was
only good for about four hours of communications. The diagram
showing message error rate versus time of day for all the antennae
knocked my socks off! Clearly, pactor/PSK-31 communications should
be considered in these instances. It was interesting to note that
they were using 20 watt radioes....

I must have missed that assertion that low power was in the 400 watt
range - that could be more of the peculiar military viewpoint - kind
of like the viewpoint that if one asprin will make my headache go
away, a whole bottle will do so much more quickly....

But I recall one article where he discussed the advantages of NVIS
but from mostly from a military perspective. For example, Feilder
asserted that radiodetermination of a station using NVIS is much more
difficult because of the near-vertical take-off of the transmitted
signal producing an omni-directional signal. Additionally, I am sure
he also mentioned that this characteristic is compounded by the use
of low power, in the 10 to 20 watt range, HF radioes. Looks like I
will have to re-read the book (for the fifth time!).

- the AS2259-type antenna that Keith N1XTK and I were using
does indeed, as I had recalled, rate pretty low compared to
other types
On the other hand, they are simple to erect and take down. On the
other hand, I bet that it you were to double the height of the
supporting pole, the results would be improved.

I had thought of building one of those antennae but substituting twin-
lead for the coaxial line, and using my Z-11. But since I can as
easily tune a balanced fed dipole, I just didn't see the point.
However, maybe a case could be made for a manual tuner. What do you
think?

- the author(s) suggest that the best antenna for NVIS may
in fact be ye goode olde dipole (or , if the angle is not
too great, an inverted Vee) at low fractions to the ground,
possibly with a reflector below at a measured distance.
Yes, I think that was the message that I had picked up. Indeed, go
to the University of Hawaii Amateur Radio Club site and take a look
at their recommendations with respect to using a three-wire reflector
underneath the dipole.


If you compare my main antenna to their recommendations, on
40 and 80 it pretty much fills the bill (with the exception
of the reflector element).
Again, your situation gave greater creedance to Feilder's and
Farmer's views and suggestions. It is this reason that in my
opinion, your experiments and their results (including the failure on
80 metres) were of greater import than perhaps you had first
realized.

This reminds me of an
observation in an article I read recently on NVIS for packet
radio, in which someone was quoted as saying that there are
a whole lot more NVIS antennas out there than most people
suppose!
I can think of one - a horizontal half-wave radiator located one-
quater above ground, with a three wire reflector, as recommended by
our friends in Hawaii. The half-wave would be connected onto one
side of a quarter-wave balanced line shorted stub, fed with a balun
closer to the shorted end and then an undetermined length of coaxial
cable back to the station. The location of the balun on the stub
will be determined by SWR measurments up and down the stub. One
would notice that the ratio of the balun would determine the relative
distance from the short, i.e. a 1:1 balun will be located closer to
the short than a 4:1 balun. The baluns can be of any type, either
coaxial (4:1 only), or ferrite/toroidal (4:1 or 1:1). If anyone has
difficulty in understanding this arrangement, think of a 2 meter J-
pole, that is oriented from the vertical to the horizontal, then bend
the bottom part of the "J" hanging down vertically, and then scale it
for 40 metres or 80 metres.


So, more to read -- this book looks like an engaging and
profitable read, so thanks to Jim VE3XJ!
I am fortunate that I have five 35-foot military surplus pop-up masts
to simultaneously support many NVIS antennas in my rear yard. I have
a few ideas to try and perhaps you and I and maybe others in this
part of the world can experiment on 40 and 80 metres over the
summer. I did a quick check with Mapblast, and I see we are not
quite 500 mile away via roads, so we are closer, I am sure, as the
crow flies. I don't know if I can get anything up for this Saturday,
but I sure would like to try. So let's keep in touch via e-mail.

Have you any interest in trying to maintain a pactor link? I don't
have any means of undertaking a portable/mobile PSK-31, and I am
couldn't afford the Kantronics box!

73
Jim, VE3XJ
75 vs 50 Ohm BNC (WAS N elbow connector problem with FT-817)

[email protected]
 

--- In FT817@y..., globaltestsolutions@y... wrote:
BE very careful with BNC's. There are 75 ohm as well as 50ohm BNC's
out there. The difference is the center conductor. One is thicker
than the other. In one configuration the connection will not be
good
and the other you could damage the center pin. Someone else with
The 50 Ohm and 75 Ohm BNC connectors have the same pin diameter in
the mating area, so they will interchange without any damage. The
pin diameter of the 75 Ohm connector is the same throughout, the 50
Ohm is thicker in the rear.

The easist way to visually tell the difference is by looking at the
center of the connector - the 75 Ohm version does not have the
dielectric material around the outer spring.

73,

Rob, W8LX
Columbus, Ohio
Re: N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

[email protected]
 

BE very careful with BNC's. There are 75 ohm as well as 50ohm BNC's
out there. The difference is the center conductor. One is thicker
than the other. In one configuration the connection will not be good
and the other you could damage the center pin. Someone else with more
knowledge should tell us which impedance is the thick one.

There were some earlier postings about the BNC problem on the front
of the 817. You might want to check the FAQ's

73

Malcolm KO6SY ( out of lurk mode)

--- In FT817@y..., my_online_id@y... wrote:
Jeffrey,

I have a box full of BNC adapters including male-to-male elbows,
female-to-male elbows, barrel connectors...you get the idea. And I
can tell you that often times one BNC does not match another BNC in
the world of adapters.

Sometimes the center pins on the BNC adapters are thicker than
others. This creates a problem trying to get the antenna end of
the
BNC to push down, twist and lock on to the radio end. In fact, I
have found this to be the case on my 817, but I don't know if it is
an 817 problem or an adapter problem to be honest.
Re: N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

 

I use a PL-259 to SO-239 elbow with a PL-259 to BNC female adaptor. It works
fine. These are available from just about anyone who sells wire/cable. Not
sure if RS has them but their connectors are usually pretty poor. Connectors
one place to stay with a name brand and if they cost a few cents more
they're worth it.

-----
73, Rich - W3ZJ
www.w3zj.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Steinberg [mailto:jeffreys@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:15 AM
To: FT817@...
Subject: RE: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.


Woops: BNC. Like on the front of the 817.
-----Original Message-----
From: Julio [mailto:WB4OOJ@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:19 AM
To: FT817@...
Subject: Re: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.


Are you talking aout an N connector or a BNC connector?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Steinberg
To: FT817@...
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:44 AM
Subject: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.


I bought an N connector elbow so that when I use the rubber duck, it
stick
straight up
when the radio is on a table with speaker firing upward.

The connector when onto the FT-817 fine, but the rubber duck will not
for
the life of me go onto the other end
of the elbow. Paid $5.00 for this one; thought it was good. Am I
doing
something wrong or is the tolerance of this
antenna too tight for anything but the most on-spec elbow?

Anyone else have this problem? Know of a known N elbow source/part
number
that works?

--Jeffrey, K2MIT
-----Original Message-----
From: Julio [mailto:WB4OOJ@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:27 PM
To: FT817@...
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Power Output


Thanks for the reply Fred. I've also looked at the LDG meter, looks
like
I'm 2 meters behind you HI HI.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Winter
To: FT817@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output


--- In FT817@y..., "Julio" <WB4OOJ@A...> wrote:
> Fred how do you like the Oak Hills WM-2? Did you get yours as a
kit, and does it calibrate easily. I just finished building the
Z11
tuner and this is next on my list of projects.
>
> 73's Julio
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Winter
> To: FT817@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:03 PM
> Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output
>
>
> --- In FT817@y..., Elliott <edl@p...> wrote:
>
> >
> > At maximum selected power the output was ~4.5 watts 1.8-7.0
mhz
and
> ~4.0 watts 10-28 mhz. I have not checked 6 meters, 2m/440.
The
> power output in the 3 lower power settings was
> > proportionally lower, about 20%.
> >
>
> >
> > TIA es 72
> > Elliott WA6TLA
>
> I get exactly the same readings on my Oak Hills WM-2 QRP
wattmeter...
>
> Fred KD7T
>

I bought my used & already assembled. It is *very* easy to
calibrate. Has a calibration procedure/capabailaity built into
the
unit. You adjust a pot for a specified voltage & three more pots
for
a fixed output reading. Very easy...takes about two minutes.

The unit is well designed and appears to be quite accurate on all
three reading scales. (10W, 1W, 100mW)

The LDG digital wattmeter looks interesting also! I have yet to
try
one, but am considering purchasing one.

Fred KD7T


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet
or
in
print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in
print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

www. .com.net.org




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or
in
print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

www.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
MP-1 questions

[email protected]
 

I am fairly new to the list and I am sure this has all been covered
but if someone can take the time to e-mail me
[email protected] will really appreciate it.

What are the best lengths for the telescoping antenna on the various
bands (i.e. is it like the ATX?)and what is the best way to deal with
the counterpoise wires on each band?

Or is it just a matter of pulling the telescoping antenna out all the
way and leaving it and just drooping the counterpoise wires around the
room or over a table? Thanks! Jo K5HOY
Re: N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

Jeffrey Steinberg
 

Woops: BNC. Like on the front of the 817.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julio [mailto:WB4OOJ@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:19 AM
To: FT817@...
Subject: Re: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.


Are you talking aout an N connector or a BNC connector?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Steinberg
To: FT817@...
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:44 AM
Subject: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.


I bought an N connector elbow so that when I use the rubber duck, it
stick
straight up
when the radio is on a table with speaker firing upward.

The connector when onto the FT-817 fine, but the rubber duck will not
for
the life of me go onto the other end
of the elbow. Paid $5.00 for this one; thought it was good. Am I
doing
something wrong or is the tolerance of this
antenna too tight for anything but the most on-spec elbow?

Anyone else have this problem? Know of a known N elbow source/part
number
that works?

--Jeffrey, K2MIT
-----Original Message-----
From: Julio [mailto:WB4OOJ@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:27 PM
To: FT817@...
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Power Output


Thanks for the reply Fred. I've also looked at the LDG meter, looks
like
I'm 2 meters behind you HI HI.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Winter
To: FT817@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output


--- In FT817@y..., "Julio" <WB4OOJ@A...> wrote:
> Fred how do you like the Oak Hills WM-2? Did you get yours as a
kit, and does it calibrate easily. I just finished building the Z11
tuner and this is next on my list of projects.
>
> 73's Julio
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Winter
> To: FT817@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:03 PM
> Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output
>
>
> --- In FT817@y..., Elliott <edl@p...> wrote:
>
> >
> > At maximum selected power the output was ~4.5 watts 1.8-7.0
mhz
and
> ~4.0 watts 10-28 mhz. I have not checked 6 meters, 2m/440. The
> power output in the 3 lower power settings was
> > proportionally lower, about 20%.
> >
>
> >
> > TIA es 72
> > Elliott WA6TLA
>
> I get exactly the same readings on my Oak Hills WM-2 QRP
wattmeter...
>
> Fred KD7T
>

I bought my used & already assembled. It is *very* easy to
calibrate. Has a calibration procedure/capabailaity built into the
unit. You adjust a pot for a specified voltage & three more pots
for
a fixed output reading. Very easy...takes about two minutes.

The unit is well designed and appears to be quite accurate on all
three reading scales. (10W, 1W, 100mW)

The LDG digital wattmeter looks interesting also! I have yet to try
one, but am considering purchasing one.

Fred KD7T


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or
in
print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in
print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

www. .com.net.org




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in
print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

www.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
atx ant

Bob Conder
 

Message text written by "Doug Kaherl"
Bob I noticed your comments about the ATX antenna and I seem to have the
same problems tuinging it. Did you get any good answers?

Doug K8DK<

Hi Doug,
Got two very interesting and helpful answers:
1) When tuning, extend the whip fully, and tune from the top down, not
bottom up! The SWR readings are worse from the bottom up.
2) You lose abt 1db of pwr for each external connector. I used a radio
shack right angle coax connector, terminated into a coax to male BNC
connector when I got the really bad swr readings from the 817 display.
-To further test my curousity, I connected (with the BNC male to coax
connector) to a MFJ antenna analyser. Connected the appropriate
counterpoise to the analyser's grd terminal. Got a 1.3:1 reading at
14.250Mhz. However, the swr on 17m and 10m (with appropriate counterpoises
per ATX instructions) were >25. I'm a relative newbie to the ant analyser,
so it may be my problem.
-As a stationary portable, I use the MFJ 971 and obviously have good
results. (With the MP-1 and this tuner, can only get 4 wts out, per the
meter reading).
-Using the ATX connected to the BNC terminal, as a pedestrian mobile, don't
have specific readings, but on 10m have worked international DX (Denmark,
Czech Rep, Ecuador and Brazil and others) while walking on the beach (great
ground there).
-Best,
Bob K4RLC
Windy Hill, SC
Meant to say BNC (was N elbow connector problem with FT-817).

Steinberg, Jeffrey
 

Karl,

Thanks. I meant to say BNC, not "N" I left B and C off. I am
describing my front BNC connection.

I can't get the rubber ducky to connect to the BNC elbow I successfully
put onto the front of the radio.

Jeffrey, K2MIT

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanalz, Karl [mailto:karl.kanalz@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:47 AM
To: 'FT817@...'
Subject: RE: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.


I don't believe, Jeffrey, that "N" series connectors will work on the
FT-817. The front panel connector is a BNC, and the rear connector
is an SO-239 ("UHF" series).

Karl K - W8TIF
McKinney, Texas

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Steinberg [SMTP:jeffreys@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:44 AM
To: FT817@...
Subject: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

I bought an N connector elbow so that when I use the rubber duck, it
stick
straight up
when the radio is on a table with speaker firing upward.

The connector when onto the FT-817 fine, but the rubber duck will not
for
the life of me go onto the other end
of the elbow. Paid $5.00 for this one; thought it was good. Am I
doing
something wrong or is the tolerance of this
antenna too tight for anything but the most on-spec elbow?

Anyone else have this problem? Know of a known N elbow source/part
number
that works?

--Jeffrey, K2MIT
-----Original Message-----
From: Julio [mailto:WB4OOJ@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:27 PM
To: FT817@...
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Power Output


Thanks for the reply Fred. I've also looked at the LDG meter, looks
like
I'm 2 meters behind you HI HI.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Winter
To: FT817@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output


--- In FT817@y..., "Julio" <WB4OOJ@A...> wrote:
> Fred how do you like the Oak Hills WM-2? Did you get yours as a
kit, and does it calibrate easily. I just finished building the
Z11
tuner and this is next on my list of projects.
>
> 73's Julio
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Winter
> To: FT817@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:03 PM
> Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output
>
>
> --- In FT817@y..., Elliott <edl@p...> wrote:
>
> >
> > At maximum selected power the output was ~4.5 watts 1.8-7.0
mhz
and
> ~4.0 watts 10-28 mhz. I have not checked 6 meters, 2m/440.
The
> power output in the 3 lower power settings was
> > proportionally lower, about 20%.
> >
>
> >
> > TIA es 72
> > Elliott WA6TLA
>
> I get exactly the same readings on my Oak Hills WM-2 QRP
wattmeter...
>
> Fred KD7T
>

I bought my used & already assembled. It is *very* easy to
calibrate. Has a calibration procedure/capabailaity built into
the
unit. You adjust a pot for a specified voltage & three more pots
for
a fixed output reading. Very easy...takes about two minutes.

The unit is well designed and appears to be quite accurate on all
three reading scales. (10W, 1W, 100mW)

The LDG digital wattmeter looks interesting also! I have yet to
try
one, but am considering purchasing one.

Fred KD7T


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
<>
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet
or
in
print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
<>
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in
print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
<>
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in
print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
<>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<
063108:N/A=682980/*
pt=992526952> Check out great fares at Orbitz!

<
mail/S=1700063108:N/A=682980/rand=104548980>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
<>
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or
in print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<> Service.
Re: N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

[email protected]
 

Jeffrey,

I have a box full of BNC adapters including male-to-male elbows,
female-to-male elbows, barrel connectors...you get the idea. And I
can tell you that often times one BNC does not match another BNC in
the world of adapters.

Sometimes the center pins on the BNC adapters are thicker than
others. This creates a problem trying to get the antenna end of the
BNC to push down, twist and lock on to the radio end. In fact, I
have found this to be the case on my 817, but I don't know if it is
an 817 problem or an adapter problem to be honest.

The ducky works just fine. And the Maldol whip I have works just
fine, but the Maldol does seem to resist locking into place, although
it does after a bit of effort.

I have a BNC elbow on the front of the radio now as the rig sits on
my desk and the elbow does NOT lock onto the radio like it should. I
can not get it to fully twist and lock. I have a VHF/UHF vertical
in my yard that I'm using with this configuration.

Another post suggested that your connector might have gotten tweaked
out of shape. That certainly is another possibility, but if you just
bought the elbow it should be shaped OK...doesn't mean it isn't but
you'd think something new would not be bent.

Try the elbow on other devices you have with BNC's on them and see if
it works OK. If it does, then maybe we have some type of issue with
the 817 connector since I too have experienced some resistance to
twisting and locking on BNC's to the rig.

Has anyone else had problems like this?

Jason (NF6E)


--- In FT817@y..., "Jeffrey Steinberg" <jeffreys@c...> wrote:
I bought an N connector elbow so that when I use the rubber duck,
it stick
straight up
when the radio is on a table with speaker firing upward.

The connector when onto the FT-817 fine, but the rubber duck will
not for
the life of me go onto the other end
of the elbow. Paid $5.00 for this one; thought it was good. Am I
doing
something wrong or is the tolerance of this
antenna too tight for anything but the most on-spec elbow?

Anyone else have this problem? Know of a known N elbow source/part
number
that works?

--Jeffrey, K2MIT
Re: N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

Kanalz, Karl
 

I don't believe, Jeffrey, that "N" series connectors will work on the
FT-817. The front panel connector is a BNC, and the rear connector
is an SO-239 ("UHF" series).

Karl K - W8TIF
McKinney, Texas

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Steinberg [SMTP:jeffreys@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:44 AM
To: FT817@...
Subject: [FT817] N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

I bought an N connector elbow so that when I use the rubber duck, it stick
straight up
when the radio is on a table with speaker firing upward.

The connector when onto the FT-817 fine, but the rubber duck will not for
the life of me go onto the other end
of the elbow. Paid $5.00 for this one; thought it was good. Am I doing
something wrong or is the tolerance of this
antenna too tight for anything but the most on-spec elbow?

Anyone else have this problem? Know of a known N elbow source/part number
that works?

--Jeffrey, K2MIT
-----Original Message-----
From: Julio [mailto:WB4OOJ@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:27 PM
To: FT817@...
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Power Output


Thanks for the reply Fred. I've also looked at the LDG meter, looks like
I'm 2 meters behind you HI HI.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Winter
To: FT817@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output


--- In FT817@y..., "Julio" <WB4OOJ@A...> wrote:
> Fred how do you like the Oak Hills WM-2? Did you get yours as a
kit, and does it calibrate easily. I just finished building the Z11
tuner and this is next on my list of projects.
>
> 73's Julio
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Winter
> To: FT817@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:03 PM
> Subject: [FT817] Re: Power Output
>
>
> --- In FT817@y..., Elliott <edl@p...> wrote:
>
> >
> > At maximum selected power the output was ~4.5 watts 1.8-7.0 mhz
and
> ~4.0 watts 10-28 mhz. I have not checked 6 meters, 2m/440. The
> power output in the 3 lower power settings was
> > proportionally lower, about 20%.
> >
>
> >
> > TIA es 72
> > Elliott WA6TLA
>
> I get exactly the same readings on my Oak Hills WM-2 QRP
wattmeter...
>
> Fred KD7T
>

I bought my used & already assembled. It is *very* easy to
calibrate. Has a calibration procedure/capabailaity built into the
unit. You adjust a pot for a specified voltage & three more pots for
a fixed output reading. Very easy...takes about two minutes.

The unit is well designed and appears to be quite accurate on all
three reading scales. (10W, 1W, 100mW)

The LDG digital wattmeter looks interesting also! I have yet to try
one, but am considering purchasing one.

Fred KD7T


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently
Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or
in
print without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become
public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test

David Perry
 

What a funny old thing...the dipole wins again!

p.s., excuse my ignorance, but wht does <g> represent???

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "John O. Newell" <jnewell@...>
To: <FT817@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test


I think most of your answers would be answered in Feilder's and
Farmer's book "Near Vertical Incidence Skywave Communications --
Theory, Techniques and Validation". I highly recommend it.
Jim --

Yes, I think we will continue experimenting!

Thanks for the reminder. In fact, I have a copy of the book
you mentioned, but it had slipped far down in the reading
pile. I skimmed it, quite late last night, and will start
reading it. It looks very good. Among the points I noticed
skimming last night...

- the author says that, based on reports from many stations
over a number of years, low power stations can confidently
expect to succeed with NVIS; the rub is that "low power" is
400w <g> and he says operators of 20w backpack radios often
have great difficulty...

- the AS2259-type antenna that Keith N1XTK and I were using
does indeed, as I had recalled, rate pretty low compared to
other types

- the author(s) suggest that the best antenna for NVIS may
in fact be ye goode olde dipole (or , if the angle is not
too great, an inverted Vee) at low fractions to the ground,
possibly with a reflector below at a measured distance.

If you compare my main antenna to their recommendations, on
40 and 80 it pretty much fills the bill (with the exception
of the reflector element). This reminds me of an
observation in an article I read recently on NVIS for packet
radio, in which someone was quoted as saying that there are
a whole lot more NVIS antennas out there than most people
suppose!

So, more to read -- this book looks like an engaging and
profitable read, so thanks to Jim VE3XJ!

73
John Newell
KB1FPM

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FT817-unsubscribe@... and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked
Questions ) see
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group become public
domain upon submission and may appear anywhere on the Internet or in print
without notice or compensation.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to


Re: N elbow connector problem with FT-817.

Charles Scott
 

Jeffrey:
I'm curious, since the connector on the rear of the radio is a "UHF"
(SO239), and since I have never seen an elbow that has a plug to match
that on one end and a BNC on the other side, what is the actual
configuration you're using? Do you have a UHF elbow and then a UHF to BNC
adapter?
BNC's will generally fit without problems. The most common reason when
they don't is that the connector has been squished and is now slightly
out-of-round. If that's the case, you may be able to fix it by carefully
reshaping the connector. Since the antenna still plugs into the front
connector on the radio, it's would most likely be your adapter (assuming
you do have the right connector on the adapter.

Chuck - N8DNX

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Jeffrey Steinberg wrote:

Woops: BNC. Like on the front of the 817.

I bought an N connector elbow so that when I use the rubber duck, it
stick
straight up
when the radio is on a table with speaker firing upward.

The connector when onto the FT-817 fine, but the rubber duck will not
for
the life of me go onto the other end
of the elbow. Paid $5.00 for this one; thought it was good. Am I
doing
something wrong or is the tolerance of this
antenna too tight for anything but the most on-spec elbow?

Anyone else have this problem? Know of a known N elbow source/part
number
that works?
Re: NVIS Saturday afternoon test

John O. Newell
 

I think most of your answers would be answered in Feilder's and
Farmer's book "Near Vertical Incidence Skywave Communications --
Theory, Techniques and Validation". I highly recommend it.
Jim --

Yes, I think we will continue experimenting!

Thanks for the reminder. In fact, I have a copy of the book
you mentioned, but it had slipped far down in the reading
pile. I skimmed it, quite late last night, and will start
reading it. It looks very good. Among the points I noticed
skimming last night...

- the author says that, based on reports from many stations
over a number of years, low power stations can confidently
expect to succeed with NVIS; the rub is that "low power" is
400w <g> and he says operators of 20w backpack radios often
have great difficulty...

- the AS2259-type antenna that Keith N1XTK and I were using
does indeed, as I had recalled, rate pretty low compared to
other types

- the author(s) suggest that the best antenna for NVIS may
in fact be ye goode olde dipole (or , if the angle is not
too great, an inverted Vee) at low fractions to the ground,
possibly with a reflector below at a measured distance.

If you compare my main antenna to their recommendations, on
40 and 80 it pretty much fills the bill (with the exception
of the reflector element). This reminds me of an
observation in an article I read recently on NVIS for packet
radio, in which someone was quoted as saying that there are
a whole lot more NVIS antennas out there than most people
suppose!

So, more to read -- this book looks like an engaging and
profitable read, so thanks to Jim VE3XJ!

73
John Newell
KB1FPM
107921 - 107940 of 115837