|
GUYANA, 3290 kHz, May 11, 2010
** GUYANA, Voice of Guyana, 3290, 11 May 2010 at 0714z onward, fair
signal at S-7 - S-9, but comparable noise level and only modest audio. SSB helps a lot, LSB best despite strong interference from periodic RTTY ID and carrier on 3287.44. Notch kills the het OK, but just gotta live with the RTTY ID when it comes up. OM kin English, barely discernible, plus musical numbers. If I had a bit more tonight I'd try a reception report for QSL - maybe later this week. Bruce Jensen California, USA |
GUYANA, 3290 kHz, May 11, 2010
bpnjensen wrote:
** GUYANA, Voice of Guyana, 3290, 11 May 2010 at 0714z onward, fair signal at S-7 - S-9, but comparable noise level and only modest audio. SSB helps a lot, LSB best despite strong interference from periodic RTTY ID and carrier on 3287.44. Notch kills the het OK, but just gotta live with the RTTY ID when it comes up. OM kin English, barely discernible, plus musical numbers. If I had a bit more tonight I'd try a reception report for QSL - maybe later this week. Bruce Jensen California, USA Up late, are we? I'm listening to 'Coast to Coast' from Sacramento 1530 am. I tried 3287.44 and that is where I got the 'zero' beat on lsb. I only get the sporadic RTTY, no voice whatever. mike r75, 100 ft north/south antenna Calgary |
GUYANA, 3290 kHz, May 11, 2010
On May 11, 12:47*am, m II wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: ** GUYANA, Voice of Guyana, 3290, 11 May 2010 at 0714z onward, fair signal at S-7 - S-9, but comparable noise level and only modest audio. *SSB helps a lot, LSB best despite strong interference from periodic RTTY ID and carrier on 3287.44. *Notch kills the het OK, but just gotta live with the RTTY ID when it comes up. *OM kin English, barely discernible, plus musical numbers. *If I had a bit more tonight I'd try a reception report for QSL - maybe later this week. Bruce Jensen California, USA Up late, are we? I'm listening to 'Coast to Coast' from Sacramento 1530 am. I tried 3287.44 and that is where I got the 'zero' beat on lsb. I only get the sporadic RTTY, no voice whatever. mike r75, 100 ft north/south antenna Calgary There is indeed a strong zero beat at 3287.44 - that's the RTTY carrier (which I had hoped might be R. Madagasikara the other night, but no cigar). 3280 Guyana has vox and mx, but it's a pretty small station, maybe just 1 kW? Depending on its antenna orientation (or yours vs. mine) or that extra bit of space between Califormia and Calgary, it may be lost in the hash. The LSB was definitely more substantially modulated, and easier to hear. Bruce Jensen R75, 50 foot inverted-L NE-SW + AD DX Ultra ESE-WNW, phased for noise reduction (this arrangement helped a great deal too - I was able to gain a few dB s/n ratio over BG Noise with the MFJ-1026). near Frisco, California |
Chesterfield Island
0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4
Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles |
Chesterfield Island
On May 12, 5:28*am, dave wrote:
0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce |
Chesterfield Island
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 12, 5:28 am, wrote: 0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce My PC monitors a 2 KHz window from 14070.5 KHz to 14072.5 KHz The software decodes the messages, and looks for a repeated call sign after the word "de". If it catches a callsign, the software reports this reception to the pskreporter map. The sending station then gets almost real time confirmation that they are "getting out". Unless the stars talk back to you, it's completely different. |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 7:37*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 12, 5:28 am, *wrote: 0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! *Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce My PC monitors a 2 KHz window from 14070.5 KHz to 14072.5 KHz The software decodes the messages, and looks for a repeated call sign after the word "de". *If it catches a callsign, the software reports this reception to the pskreporter map. *The sending station then gets almost real time confirmation that they are "getting out". Unless the stars talk back to you, it's completely different.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Uh, no Dave, it is a near perfect analogy. It is still the reception and confirmation of photons from a distant location, only the technology is different (and even less so if one is doing radioastronomy). You can nitpick this to death if you like, but most people are going to spot the similarities almost right away. |
Chesterfield Island
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote:
In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" Why, yes. Yes, it does. Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart. |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 8:05*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce * *Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" * *Why, yes. Yes, it does. * *Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. * *When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 9:12*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 13, 8:05*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce * *Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" * *Why, yes. Yes, it does. * *Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. * *When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. *With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. *Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. *After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. *I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. *It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) We used to go to star parties in the local mountains and it was always interesting to play around with someone's Dob, like wrestling a water heater, because there was so much to see even if you didn't want to bother to convert RA-Dec to Alt-Az and use the inclinometer to find something in particular.. -- Operator Bob Echo Charlie 42- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's what I love about 'em :-) Running across something just for the heck of it! |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 11:32*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 13, 8:05 am, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce * * Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" * * Why, yes. Yes, it does. * * Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. * * When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. *With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. *Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. *After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. *I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. *It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) That's very quaint. *There are objects way too faint to see in real time. *Do you not try to image them? *Film? *CCD?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 11:32*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 13, 8:05 am, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce * * Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" * * Why, yes. Yes, it does. * * Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. * * When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. *With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. *Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. *After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. *I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. *It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) That's very quaint. *There are objects way too faint to see in real time. *Do you not try to image them? *Film? *CCD?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm a visual observer. I like the romance of real photons on my retina. There are lots of people out there who tinker with CCDs, and I appreciate what they do, but they don't need me joining in. I am simply not a high-tech-gadget guy. Bruce |
Chesterfield Island
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 7:37 am, wrote: bpnjensen wrote: On May 12, 5:28 am, wrote: 0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce My PC monitors a 2 KHz window from 14070.5 KHz to 14072.5 KHz The software decodes the messages, and looks for a repeated call sign after the word "de". If it catches a callsign, the software reports this reception to the pskreporter map. The sending station then gets almost real time confirmation that they are "getting out". Unless the stars talk back to you, it's completely different.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Uh, no Dave, it is a near perfect analogy. It is still the reception and confirmation of photons from a distant location, only the technology is different (and even less so if one is doing radioastronomy). You can nitpick this to death if you like, but most people are going to spot the similarities almost right away. I don't log these. I don't QSL them. I just noticed the catch on the pskreporter page. I only log real live QSOs. The autospotting goes on while I'm at work. I really have nothing to prove to anybody. All the bad **** I said was gonna happen happened. I'm having a blast. |
Chesterfield Island
D. Peter Maus wrote:
imepiece. When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart. http://smallwonderlabs.com/Rockmite.htm |
Chesterfield Island
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 8:05 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" Why, yes. Yes, it does. Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) That's very quaint. There are objects way too faint to see in real time. Do you not try to image them? Film? CCD? |
Chesterfield Island
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" Why, yes. Yes, it does. Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart. It depends what you want to do. I think virtually all of the mounts designed for imaging include goto these days because some of the targets we image are too faint to be seen in real time with a transportable scope. It's not uncommon for me to need to take a couple 10-20 second exposures just to compose my frame. While some goto scopes are not critical on polar alignment, (in fact many of them are alt-az instead of equatorial) the Astro-Physics ones pretty much demand you have a reasonably good polar alignment, because if you just do a multiple star sync and have the mount calculate things out you'll end up with field rotation if you're imaging. An incredible advantage to goto is for public outreach. It's not fun hunting down an elusive target if you've got a couple dozen people standing around waiting. With goto, after everyone has looked, I can punch a few buttons and while the scope slews to the object I can tell them about the next object we'll be looking at. The Dobsonian mount was a wonderful invention because it made useful scopes affordable and larger portable scopes possible, but even John Dobson tells people it has it's limitations. Haven't seen him in a couple years, but before he had a stroke, he was a regular visitor to the North East, and I'd usually run into him a few times a year. Last time he was out he helped a kid make a transportable 10" f8 dob with a mirror I got from North American Rockwell. It's a beast to use as things drift out of the field quickly, but the optics are incredible. And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? |
Chesterfield Island
On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote:
And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 12:12*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? * *That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. * *As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. Would sheets of plastic inserted between the coils to prevent contact plus an overall clamp to maintain shape do the trick? Once done, it could be 'set and forget'... |
Chesterfield Island
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. I was thinking I could put it over a section of pvc pipe. Or I may just buy a screwdriver antenna. Can't count on having trees to hang an antenna at a star party. My AT-271 worked fine for RX, but now I'm doing the tx thing too. |
Chesterfield Island
On 5/13/10 14:18 , Mark S. Holden wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote: On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. I was thinking I could put it over a section of pvc pipe. Or I may just buy a screwdriver antenna. Can't count on having trees to hang an antenna at a star party. My AT-271 worked fine for RX, but now I'm doing the tx thing too. Depending on power applied, within the slinky, you may have to deal with volume of dissipation in the coil. It's not a copper conductor. Nor is it uniformly round, which will make the areas of electric and magnetic field density vary around the surface of the conductor. And being a flat conductor will produce less effective skin conductivity surface than the equivalent cylindrical surface area. This will make capacitance distributed across the breadth of the coil a more significant issue, and, dependent on frequency, this could be a considerable tuning issue and SWL issue for the transmitter. An antenna tuner will help with the match, but losses in the antenna will continue to be losses, antenna tuner or not. If losses are not a significant issue in your setup, then a slinky can be an adequate loading device. If losses will matter, then there are better solutions. |
Chesterfield Island
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 13, 12:12 pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. Would sheets of plastic inserted between the coils to prevent contact plus an overall clamp to maintain shape do the trick? Once done, it could be 'set and forget'... If I go this route, I'd be looking to stretch it out a bit so I can tap it at different spots for different bands. |
Chesterfield Island
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/13/10 14:18 , Mark S. Holden wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. I was thinking I could put it over a section of pvc pipe. Or I may just buy a screwdriver antenna. Can't count on having trees to hang an antenna at a star party. My AT-271 worked fine for RX, but now I'm doing the tx thing too. Depending on power applied, within the slinky, you may have to deal with volume of dissipation in the coil. It's not a copper conductor. Nor is it uniformly round, which will make the areas of electric and magnetic field density vary around the surface of the conductor. And being a flat conductor will produce less effective skin conductivity surface than the equivalent cylindrical surface area. This will make capacitance distributed across the breadth of the coil a more significant issue, and, dependent on frequency, this could be a considerable tuning issue and SWL issue for the transmitter. An antenna tuner will help with the match, but losses in the antenna will continue to be losses, antenna tuner or not. If losses are not a significant issue in your setup, then a slinky can be an adequate loading device. If losses will matter, then there are better solutions. I have an antenna tuner, but it sounds like it would make sense to pick up an antenna analyzer - on that basis I'll need to do more thinking. Space is at a premium when I'm heading to star parties. |
Chesterfield Island
On 5/13/10 14:55 , Mark S. Holden wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote: On 5/13/10 14:18 , Mark S. Holden wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. I was thinking I could put it over a section of pvc pipe. Or I may just buy a screwdriver antenna. Can't count on having trees to hang an antenna at a star party. My AT-271 worked fine for RX, but now I'm doing the tx thing too. Depending on power applied, within the slinky, you may have to deal with volume of dissipation in the coil. It's not a copper conductor. Nor is it uniformly round, which will make the areas of electric and magnetic field density vary around the surface of the conductor. And being a flat conductor will produce less effective skin conductivity surface than the equivalent cylindrical surface area. This will make capacitance distributed across the breadth of the coil a more significant issue, and, dependent on frequency, this could be a considerable tuning issue and SWL issue for the transmitter. An antenna tuner will help with the match, but losses in the antenna will continue to be losses, antenna tuner or not. If losses are not a significant issue in your setup, then a slinky can be an adequate loading device. If losses will matter, then there are better solutions. I have an antenna tuner, but it sounds like it would make sense to pick up an antenna analyzer - on that basis I'll need to do more thinking. Space is at a premium when I'm heading to star parties. Then you'd want a broadband antenna. If you're VHF, a discone is a good broadband, and compact, solution for RX & TX. If losses are not an issue, an antenna tuner can match a VHF discone for HF use. |
Chesterfield Island
On May 13, 12:48*pm, "Mark S. Holden" wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 13, 12:12 pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 5/13/10 13:39 , Mark S. Holden wrote: And to include some closer to on topic content - has anyone here experimented with using a slinky as a loading coil for a "portable" vertical antenna? If so, any thoughts on if it's worthwhile? * *That was discussed pretty much to death about a decade ago. And a dozen or so members tried it. With, as you'd expect, mixed results. * *As a quick-deploy horizontal, a slinky does pretty well in the field. As a loading coil for a vertical, not so much. Largely because it needs a form to keep the coil stable. Would sheets of plastic inserted between the coils to prevent contact plus an overall clamp to maintain shape do the trick? *Once done, it could be 'set and forget'... If I go this route, I'd be looking to stretch it out a bit so I can tap it at different spots for different bands.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Nice idea - thanks! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com