Date   

Re: WSJT Modes in Contests [1 Attachment]

Martin A Hall <gorrell77@...>
 

Sorry, missed out a key sentence.  We’d like to produce a tidied up version of this document to include similar guidance for using 13-character message modes in contests, including the new digital modes such as MSK144, if we can find a way of doing so.
 
73,
Martin
 

From: 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 12:12 PM
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] WSJT Modes in Contests [1 Attachment]
 

Hello Conrad,
 
I attach a guide that the GMDX contest group has been promulgating, which works with JT6M and FSK441.  It’s been offered twice to the RSGB VHF Contest Committee to include in its contest support documentation, but for reasons unknown it has not yet been taken on board.  I hope you find the guide useful.
 
If you or anyone else has any comments that will help us improve this document, I’ll be delighted to receive them.
 
Digital modes are an excellent way of making QSOs between GM and EU countries, either via Meteor Scatter, Troposcatter, Ionoscatter, or other weak-signal conditions, mainly on 2m, 4m and 6m, although GMs have been experimenting at higher frequencies as well.  JT6M seems particularly good at cutting through local noise in urban areas, which might extend its appeal, although our experiments are in their infancy.  Has anyone else experienced this with JT6M or other digital modes? 
 
I am particularly interested in using digital modes at microwave frequencies for contest exchanges, which really triggered this thread. 
 
Good contesting!
73,
Martin
 
 
From: Conrad PA5Y g0ruz@... [ukmicrowaves]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 11:19 AM
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] WSJT Modes in Contests
 

I was thinking of trying this to get a few extra multipliers in the UKAC. We need to add locators to the exchange that Andy has proposed. I know some people are already doing this. For me I cannot seem to work well into GM any other way.

How can we optimally make the necessary exchange of locator, serial number and report?

Regards

Conrad PA5Y

On 30 September 2016 10:57:16 CEST, "Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves]" <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
I don't recall that message on 7 September which was only a couple of weeks ago.  I've searched though the sent messages and can't find it...
Although do vaguely remember writing something like that a long while ago.
 
All the WSJT modes support free format text messages of up to 13 characters. 
Look at the messages the beacons put out . eg "GB3SCX IO80UU".  That uses free text format.
 
If you want to use  the WSJT modes in a contest, there must surely be a way of getting everything into a couple of free-text message exchanges.  How about :
 
eg.   CQ  G4JNT       [std format]
       G4JNT G8IMR      [std format]
       IMR JNT 59004     [free text]
       JNT IMR 53021     [free text]
       G8IMR G4JNT R   [std format]
 
To understand the differences between free text (13 characters) and standard messages (two callsigns and a one or two other bits of information) study the WSJT manual
 
Andy  G4JNT
 
On 30 September 2016 at 09:39, 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 
Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 
 


Re: WSJT Modes in Contests

Martin A Hall <gorrell77@...>
 

Hello Conrad,
 
I attach a guide that the GMDX contest group has been promulgating, which works with JT6M and FSK441.  It’s been offered twice to the RSGB VHF Contest Committee to include in its contest support documentation, but for reasons unknown it has not yet been taken on board.  I hope you find the guide useful.
 
If you or anyone else has any comments that will help us improve this document, I’ll be delighted to receive them.
 
Digital modes are an excellent way of making QSOs between GM and EU countries, either via Meteor Scatter, Troposcatter, Ionoscatter, or other weak-signal conditions, mainly on 2m, 4m and 6m, although GMs have been experimenting at higher frequencies as well.  JT6M seems particularly good at cutting through local noise in urban areas, which might extend its appeal, although our experiments are in their infancy.  Has anyone else experienced this with JT6M or other digital modes? 
 
I am particularly interested in using digital modes at microwave frequencies for contest exchanges, which really triggered this thread. 
 
Good contesting!
73,
Martin
 
 

From: Conrad PA5Y g0ruz@... [ukmicrowaves]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 11:19 AM
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] WSJT Modes in Contests
 

I was thinking of trying this to get a few extra multipliers in the UKAC. We need to add locators to the exchange that Andy has proposed. I know some people are already doing this. For me I cannot seem to work well into GM any other way.

How can we optimally make the necessary exchange of locator, serial number and report?

Regards

Conrad PA5Y

On 30 September 2016 10:57:16 CEST, "Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves]" wrote:
I don't recall that message on 7 September which was only a couple of weeks ago.  I've searched though the sent messages and can't find it...
Although do vaguely remember writing something like that a long while ago.
 
All the WSJT modes support free format text messages of up to 13 characters. 
Look at the messages the beacons put out . eg "GB3SCX IO80UU".  That uses free text format.
 
If you want to use  the WSJT modes in a contest, there must surely be a way of getting everything into a couple of free-text message exchanges.  How about :
 
eg.   CQ  G4JNT       [std format]
       G4JNT G8IMR      [std format]
       IMR JNT 59004     [free text]
       JNT IMR 53021     [free text]
       G8IMR G4JNT R   [std format]
 
To understand the differences between free text (13 characters) and standard messages (two callsigns and a one or two other bits of information) study the WSJT manual
 
Andy  G4JNT
 
On 30 September 2016 at 09:39, 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 
Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 
 


Re: WSJT Modes in Contests

Martin A Hall <gorrell77@...>
 

Yes, time does fly when you’re retired, doesn’t it, Andy!  My question was somewhat delayed for the same reason.  Your response gives me something to think about further, but there are some flaws in your example, one fatal, I believe:
 
Your example doesn’t include the 6-figure locator.  I could send GM8IEM IO78HF within the 13 characters, but not CQ GM8IEM IO78HF, although protocols could define the shorter message as such, I guess (i.e. GM8IEM IO78HF = CQ GM8IEM IO78HF).
 
It would be possible to get both calls within 13 characters, unless /P, for example GM8IEM GM4VVX, but where in the sequence does GM4VVX return his 6-figure locator?  I think this is the fatal flaw. 
 
The fourth line in your example would have to be JNT IMR R53021 if the QSO isn’t going to get stuck in a loop, but that exceeds 13 characters.  It would be possible to send GM4IMR R53021 within the 13 characters, and I think that would be acceptable, since both full calls have already been exchanged.  
 
Also GM4VVX GM8IEM R exceeds 13 characters, though I could send VVX IEM R, or just GM8IEM RRR, both of which would be quite acceptable.
 
Both ends also have to ensure that the short message format (Sh) is disabled, of course.
 
I’ve studied the WSJT manual and other support documentation – my question really revolves around how we can best use the 13 characters we have available in the new modes in a contest scenario. 
 
At VHF, in the Post Code contests, where digital modes have shown themselves useful when other modes fail, an extra 2 digits are required (e.g. the IV post code information) and I think that becomes impossible with just 13 characters and 5 messages, so the older modes are likely to continue in use.
 
I would be interested in any comments from others.
 
In contests, if we are stuck with the older modes where we can exceed 13 characters, which would be the best modes for the bands between 430 MHz and 10 GHz?
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF
 
 

From: Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 9:57 AM
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] WSJT Modes in Contests
 

I don't recall that message on 7 September which was only a couple of weeks ago.  I've searched though the sent messages and can't find it...
Although do vaguely remember writing something like that a long while ago.
 
All the WSJT modes support free format text messages of up to 13 characters. 
Look at the messages the beacons put out . eg "GB3SCX IO80UU".  That uses free text format.
 
If you want to use  the WSJT modes in a contest, there must surely be a way of getting everything into a couple of free-text message exchanges.  How about :
 
eg.   CQ  G4JNT       [std format]
       G4JNT G8IMR      [std format]
       IMR JNT 59004     [free text]
       JNT IMR 53021     [free text]
       G8IMR G4JNT R   [std format]
 
To understand the differences between free text (13 characters) and standard messages (two callsigns and a one or two other bits of information) study the WSJT manual
 
Andy  G4JNT
 
On 30 September 2016 at 09:39, 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 
Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 
 


Re: 23cm Yagis

ian hope (2E0IJH)
 

Presume you mean stauff clamps, http://www.pipelineproductsdirect.com/c-17632-stauff-pipe-clamps-standard-series.aspx
 
use the basic ones, just the plastic clamp for 2m and 70cm yagis, have not thought about using them on 23cm as a standard clamp only goes down to 6mm, you'd need the light guage ones http://www.pipelineproductsdirect.com/c-21894-group-1-32-8mm.aspx to fit smaller elements, and I have no idea on there suitability.
 
Ian
2E0IJH

 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:57 AM
From: "BOB VK6KW rlockley@... [ukmicrowaves]"
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] 23cm Yagis
 

Try plastic clips made for hydraulic lines : I recall someone finding them very suitable, certainly for size and strength, but materials will vary between manufacturers. 73, Bob VK6KA.

"Paul Nickalls paulnick@... [ukmicrowaves]" wrote:

>When assessing mounting insulators I was advised to put a glass of water
>in the corner of the microwave oven and put an insulator under test on
>the turntable. If it gets hot then is is not good at microwave
>frequencies. Black plastics tend to be carbon loaded and should always
>be tested.
>
>Paul
>G8AQA
>
>On 29/09/2016 18:29, Christopher Bartram cbartram@...
>[ukmicrowaves] wrote:
>> Hello Brian
>>
>> >> horrific at the spacing I had. It was only when I got a spacing of
>> getting on for 3 or 4 cm it began to look OK. I don't have pipe-clips
>> tall enough, so I'm thinking about a thru-boom design, but a bit wary of
>> it.
>>
>> That's very interesting, indeed. My only comment is that my measurements
>> made some years ago. It would be very interesting to repeat the
>> measurements, or possibly better to simulate them in a 3D EM simulator.
>>
>> The clips I've used were made by Netlon and place the centre of the
>> element 20mm above the surface of the boom. They are no longer made. I'd
>> have attached a photo, but my camera's battery ran-out of electrons as
>> I was trying to take it. However, you can see one on Derek, G4CQM's site
>> <http://g4cqm.www.idnet.com/antennadesigner/paraclips.htm> I attach my
>> insulators to the boom using self-tapping screws from the 'other' side
>> of the boom. The clips make a good mount, and I didn't even had problems
>> with the elements I used on a 80MHz yagi I used to detect ( a very few!)
>> meteor bursts on the video carrier frequency of the CJON-TV transmitter
>> in St.Johns, Newfoundland.
>>
>> Derek has designed, and had made an improved clip which is, I believe,
>> available from G6HKS. I've not used them, but it seems that they may
>> result in the element sitting a few mm further away from the boom.
>>
>> When you model the boom/element structure, it might well be worth
>> including the effect of the insulator. I've not tried this, and I've
>> never seen it suggested, but the polyprop sleeve which effectively
>> encloses a section of the element, in the case of both the Netlon and
>> 'CQM clips might , by slowing the propagation rate of the EM wave along
>> the element, produce a lengthening effect which could compensate for the
>> shortening effect of the proximity of the boom. That could be
>> particularly significant at 23!
>>
>> Vy 73
>>
>> Chris
>> GW4DGU
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>


Re: WSJT Modes in Contests

Conrad, PA5Y
 

I was thinking of trying this to get a few extra multipliers in the UKAC. We need to add locators to the exchange that Andy has proposed. I know some people are already doing this. For me I cannot seem to work well into GM any other way.

How can we optimally make the necessary exchange of locator, serial number and report?

Regards

Conrad PA5Y


On 30 September 2016 10:57:16 CEST, "Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves]" wrote:
I don't recall that message on 7 September which was only a couple of weeks ago.  I've searched though the sent messages and can't find it...
Although do vaguely remember writing something like that a long while ago.

All the WSJT modes support free format text messages of up to 13 characters.  
Look at the messages the beacons put out . eg "GB3SCX IO80UU".  That uses free text format.

If you want to use  the WSJT modes in a contest, there must surely be a way of getting everything into a couple of free-text message exchanges.  How about :

eg.   CQ  G4JNT       [std format] 
       G4JNT G8IMR      [std format]
       IMR JNT 59004     [free text]
       JNT IMR 53021     [free text]
       G8IMR G4JNT R   [std format]

To understand the differences between free text (13 characters) and standard messages (two callsigns and a one or two other bits of information) study the WSJT manual

Andy  G4JNT

On 30 September 2016 at 09:39, 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 

Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 



Re: WSJT Modes in Contests

Andy G4JNT
 

Ah ha
The advanced search facility in Yahoo Groups found it.
Was that really only sent on 7 Sept ?  Seems much longer ago now.
Time flies when you're retired !

'jnt


On 30 September 2016 at 09:57, Andy Talbot <andy.g4jnt@...> wrote:
I don't recall that message on 7 September which was only a couple of weeks ago.  I've searched though the sent messages and can't find it...
Although do vaguely remember writing something like that a long while ago.

All the WSJT modes support free format text messages of up to 13 characters.  
Look at the messages the beacons put out . eg "GB3SCX IO80UU".  That uses free text format.

If you want to use  the WSJT modes in a contest, there must surely be a way of getting everything into a couple of free-text message exchanges.  How about :

eg.   CQ  G4JNT       [std format] 
       G4JNT G8IMR      [std format]
       IMR JNT 59004     [free text]
       JNT IMR 53021     [free text]
       G8IMR G4JNT R   [std format]

To understand the differences between free text (13 characters) and standard messages (two callsigns and a one or two other bits of information) study the WSJT manual

Andy  G4JNT

On 30 September 2016 at 09:39, 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 

Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 




Re: WSJT Modes in Contests

Andy G4JNT
 

I don't recall that message on 7 September which was only a couple of weeks ago.  I've searched though the sent messages and can't find it...
Although do vaguely remember writing something like that a long while ago.

All the WSJT modes support free format text messages of up to 13 characters.  
Look at the messages the beacons put out . eg "GB3SCX IO80UU".  That uses free text format.

If you want to use  the WSJT modes in a contest, there must surely be a way of getting everything into a couple of free-text message exchanges.  How about :

eg.   CQ  G4JNT       [std format] 
       G4JNT G8IMR      [std format]
       IMR JNT 59004     [free text]
       JNT IMR 53021     [free text]
       G8IMR G4JNT R   [std format]

To understand the differences between free text (13 characters) and standard messages (two callsigns and a one or two other bits of information) study the WSJT manual

Andy  G4JNT

On 30 September 2016 at 09:39, 'Martin A Hall' gorrell77@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 

Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 



WSJT Modes in Contests

Martin A Hall <gorrell77@...>
 

Andy ‘JNT gave us a very helpful and comprehensive explanation of digital modes in his message “Transmitter Linearity” on 07/09/2016 at 11:54.  Since I am a keen contester (non-EME for now), and participate in the NRAU Activity Contests from time to time, where digital modes are extensively used, and also use digital modes in the RSGB UK contests now that the barrier to their use has been removed, the following comment attracted my attention:
“The weak signal WSJT modes take all this into account and I think really do represent the best we are going to get on the amateur bands for weak signal Dx type working.    They don't support real time waffle type QSOs, where RTTY and PSK31 would be used, but for contest and EME exchanges and pre-formatted  messages can't be beaten”
The contests I refer to above require 6-figure locator plus (in the case of UK contests) a serial number, as well as signal report.  Modes such as JT6M and FSK441 support the exchange of such information since messages are relatively free in their format (within limitations).  The superior optimal modes that will replace them for general QSOs (minimal exchanges), such as MSK144 and QRA64 are, like JT65, highly structured, and don’t in their current form support the exchange of the contest information I’ve described.  So, I would be interested, Andy, if you would expand your comment about pre-formatted messages for contests using the new modes.  Am I missing something?
 
It leads me to wonder what is going to happen in the future.  Are operators going to continue to use JT6M and FSK441 in contests, and more effective modes outside contests?  Are digital modes being developed that will handle the contest exchanges I’ve described in a more efficient manner?
 
Whilst on this topic, I’d be interested in any feedback from members of the group on the best digital modes for terrestrial contest use on 430 MHz up to 10 GHz for contacts using scatter and for limit-range direct tropo.
 
Apologies if there are references to non-microwave activity in my message – although slightly off-topic they do relate to Andy’s original posting; and please forgive me if my questions appear naive – I’m still learning about digital modes.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF    
 
 


Re: 23cm Yagis

Martin A Hall <gorrell77@...>
 

I’ve been following the discussion on this subject with interest, and maybe others will find my experiences helpful.
 
In the 1970’s I worked at the same establishment as G3JVL, and Mike gave me much needed guidance in the building of his antennas.  I used a 39el 23cm  quad loop yagi very successfully for over 20 years, and the only reason I stopped using it was because the impedance presented to my new VLNA23 caused it to go unstable under certain circumstances.  It may well have become detuned over the years, and since I was having difficulty re-tuning it to provide a good match I replaced it with the 67 el WiMo.  I found this to be an excellent antenna in its electrical performance, but mechanically not strong enough for the stormy conditions here on the north-west coast of Scotland, and the mounting failed in under 2 years.  It was then replaced with the much more mechanically robust 60 el Powabeam, my current antenna.  I’ve never done any comparative measurements, but the Powabeam doesn’t quite seem to have the edge that the the WiMo had, although it is of course a smaller antenna.
 
Other JVL antennas I’ve constructed were a 70cm variant, I don’t recall how many elements, but this was used successfully for a number of years before I replaced it with something less bulky.  Many years ago I also built a 44 el QLY for 13cm, which hasn’t been used yet, but which will hopefully be tried out when I get my station completed for that band.  I’ve chosen to mount it in the same manner as the Powabeam, as shown in the attached photo, and hope that this arrangement won’t cause any detuning.  Comments appreciated on this mounting arrangement!  There are plans for a feed on 13cm for a 1.1m dish, but this will only be usable under benign weather conditions.  The WiMo 67 el wasn’t too badly damaged when the mount failed, and I have plans to re-mount it in the same way as the QLY in the photo, again hoping that its performance won’t be degraded by the new mechanical arrangement.
 
73,
Martin
GM8IEM – IO78HF
 
 
 

From: Jim Davidson seumasd@... [ukmicrowaves]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:12 PM
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] Re: 23cm Yagis
 

Hi Ian

I, too, would recommend the JVL loopyagi. 26 element in 2m boom at
1296MHz. I find them very good on 23 and 13cm and have one working on 9cm.

Making the reflector loop slide on the boom gives adequate adjustment.

More info if required.

73 JimD, GM3UAG

On 26/09/2016 07:22, pa0jme@... [ukmicrowaves] wrote:
> though it's an aged design by now (30+years) I can recommend the G3JVL loopyagi.


Re: 23cm Yagis

Bob Lockley VK6KW
 

Try plastic clips made for hydraulic lines : I recall someone finding them very suitable, certainly for size and strength, but materials will vary between manufacturers. 73, Bob VK6KA.

"Paul Nickalls paulnick@... [ukmicrowaves]" <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:

When assessing mounting insulators I was advised to put a glass of water
in the corner of the microwave oven and put an insulator under test on
the turntable. If it gets hot then is is not good at microwave
frequencies. Black plastics tend to be carbon loaded and should always
be tested.

Paul
G8AQA

On 29/09/2016 18:29, Christopher Bartram cbartram@...
[ukmicrowaves] wrote:
Hello Brian

<I tried a wire-grid model of the boom on 4NEC2 and the detuning was
horrific at the spacing I had. It was only when I got a spacing of
getting on for 3 or 4 cm it began to look OK. I don't have pipe-clips
tall enough, so I'm thinking about a thru-boom design, but a bit wary of
it.

That's very interesting, indeed. My only comment is that my measurements
made some years ago. It would be very interesting to repeat the
measurements, or possibly better to simulate them in a 3D EM simulator.

The clips I've used were made by Netlon and place the centre of the
element 20mm above the surface of the boom. They are no longer made. I'd
have attached a photo, but my camera's battery ran-out of electrons as
I was trying to take it. However, you can see one on Derek, G4CQM's site
<http://g4cqm.www.idnet.com/antennadesigner/paraclips.htm> I attach my
insulators to the boom using self-tapping screws from the 'other' side
of the boom. The clips make a good mount, and I didn't even had problems
with the elements I used on a 80MHz yagi I used to detect ( a very few!)
meteor bursts on the video carrier frequency of the CJON-TV transmitter
in St.Johns, Newfoundland.

Derek has designed, and had made an improved clip which is, I believe,
available from G6HKS. I've not used them, but it seems that they may
result in the element sitting a few mm further away from the boom.

When you model the boom/element structure, it might well be worth
including the effect of the insulator. I've not tried this, and I've
never seen it suggested, but the polyprop sleeve which effectively
encloses a section of the element, in the case of both the Netlon and
'CQM clips might , by slowing the propagation rate of the EM wave along
the element, produce a lengthening effect which could compensate for the
shortening effect of the proximity of the boom. That could be
particularly significant at 23!

Vy 73

Chris
GW4DGU


------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links



Re: 23cm Yagis

Paul G8AQA
 

When assessing mounting insulators I was advised to put a glass of water in the corner of the microwave oven and put an insulator under test on the turntable. If it gets hot then is is not good at microwave frequencies. Black plastics tend to be carbon loaded and should always be tested.

Paul
G8AQA

On 29/09/2016 18:29, Christopher Bartram cbartram@... [ukmicrowaves] wrote:
Hello Brian

<I tried a wire-grid model of the boom on 4NEC2 and the detuning was
horrific at the spacing I had. It was only when I got a spacing of
getting on for 3 or 4 cm it began to look OK. I don't have pipe-clips
tall enough, so I'm thinking about a thru-boom design, but a bit wary of
it.

That's very interesting, indeed. My only comment is that my measurements
made some years ago. It would be very interesting to repeat the
measurements, or possibly better to simulate them in a 3D EM simulator.

The clips I've used were made by Netlon and place the centre of the
element 20mm above the surface of the boom. They are no longer made. I'd
have attached a photo, but my camera's battery ran-out of electrons as
I was trying to take it. However, you can see one on Derek, G4CQM's site
<http://g4cqm.www.idnet.com/antennadesigner/paraclips.htm> I attach my
insulators to the boom using self-tapping screws from the 'other' side
of the boom. The clips make a good mount, and I didn't even had problems
with the elements I used on a 80MHz yagi I used to detect ( a very few!)
meteor bursts on the video carrier frequency of the CJON-TV transmitter
in St.Johns, Newfoundland.

Derek has designed, and had made an improved clip which is, I believe,
available from G6HKS. I've not used them, but it seems that they may
result in the element sitting a few mm further away from the boom.

When you model the boom/element structure, it might well be worth
including the effect of the insulator. I've not tried this, and I've
never seen it suggested, but the polyprop sleeve which effectively
encloses a section of the element, in the case of both the Netlon and
'CQM clips might , by slowing the propagation rate of the EM wave along
the element, produce a lengthening effect which could compensate for the
shortening effect of the proximity of the boom. That could be
particularly significant at 23!

Vy 73

Chris
GW4DGU


Re: Suspicious ADF4351 Devices - a verdict

David Robinson
 

From experience, once feedback is posted it cannot be altered by the submitter

 

My seller was forced by EBAY to refund the 19.99 for the duff module and the 9.25 for getting the module back, recorded delivery

 

Dave

G4FRE

 

From: ukmicrowaves@... [mailto:ukmicrowaves@...]
Sent: 29 September 2016 22:54
To: ukmicrowaves@...
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] Suspicious ADF4351 Devices - a verdict

 




On 29 September 2016 at 20:56, Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:

 

A slight update - pending...

 

The seller of the dubious ones contacted me to apologise, and say he had tested them and I was right - the /32 and /64 didn't work.    He is "... sending me two replacements and when I get them can I contact him about removing the negative Ebay feedback "

 

If they work properly, and as he has admitted his fault I will, no-doubt,  oblige.

 

Andy  G4JNT

 

Andy, it is hard to believe this is not a negative experience, even if you do finally get working devices. So I'm somewhat puzzled why you would remove the negative feedback.

Personally I feel you do other people a dis-service by removing negative feedback, but what feedback you leave is up to you of course.

 

Dave G8WRB.





No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13108 - Release Date: 09/28/16


Re: Suspicious ADF4351 Devices - a verdict

Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) <drkirkby@...>
 

On 29 September 2016 at 20:56, Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:


A slight update - pending...

The seller of the dubious ones contacted me to apologise, and say he had tested them and I was right - the /32 and /64 didn't work.    He is "... sending me two replacements and when I get them can I contact him about removing the negative Ebay feedback "

If they work properly, and as he has admitted his fault I will, no-doubt,  oblige.

Andy  G4JNT

Andy, it is hard to believe this is not a negative experience, even if you do finally get working devices. So I'm somewhat puzzled why you would remove the negative feedback.

Personally I feel you do other people a dis-service by removing negative feedback, but what feedback you leave is up to you of course.

Dave G8WRB.


Re: Suspicious ADF4351 Devices - a verdict

Andy G4JNT
 

A slight update - pending...

The seller of the dubious ones contacted me to apologise, and say he had tested them and I was right - the /32 and /64 didn't work.    He is "... sending me two replacements and when I get them can I contact him about removing the negative Ebay feedback "

If they work properly, and as he has admitted his fault I will, no-doubt,  oblige.

Andy  G4JNT

On 21 September 2016 at 16:01, Andy Talbot <andy.g4jnt@...> wrote:
My one that works is a professional looking black coated PCB with connections on a 10 way header arranged 5 x 2

The dubious one(s) are on a larger, square green coated PCB with connections via 10 way single in line header.

'jnt


On 21 September 2016 at 15:56, 'mike' mb.golfmad@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 



Unless I missed a post where they were listed, could we produce a list of those ebay seller who are know to be selling pukka ADF4351 PCB's?
I would like to buy one but not be caught out buying a re-branded 4350..
 
regards
 
Mike G6TRM
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ukmicrowaves] Suspicious ADF4351 Devices - a verdict

 

WELL DONE David  , and very7 usefull information too ...............................

On 20 September 2016 at 19:51 "'Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)' drkirkby@... [ukmicrowaves]" <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:

 


 

On 31 August 2016 at 08:22, Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:


The verdict is in:

The two chips on my original two (lower cost) PCBs are FAULTY; they are not as they should be, they are Un-ADF4351 devices, they have been lied-about by their maker; they are false ADF4351s  [*]

I hope you are going to make an ebay claim of counterfeit, and leave negative feedback.

On a more expensive item ($800 GPS frequency reference), I actually reported it to the police and got a crime reference number. The letter from the police said do not send it back, as it might need to be inspected. I then created a case on eBay for a counterfeit item, gave eBay (but not the seller) the police crime reference number, and uploaded the letter from the police. I think realizing the game was up, the seller, the infamous yixunhk refunded me, without eBay getting involved any further.

By getting a letter from the police telling you to hold onto the item until such time as its investigated, you avoid having to return it and pay any postage fees. Of course, you are not going to involve the police on a $20 board, but I did on an $800 frequency standard.


 


 


 




Re: 23cm Yagis

jerry.tuyls@...
 

Hello Brian
 
 
73's
 
Jerry, ON4CJQ 


Van: "Brian Howie brian@... [ukmicrowaves]"
Aan: ukmicrowaves@...
Verzonden: Donderdag 29 september 2016 17:54:46
Onderwerp: Re: [ukmicrowaves] 23cm Yagis

 

In message <57EA2BCD.9060500@...>, "Christopher Bartram
cbartram@... [ukmicrowaves]"
writes
>Hello Ian
>
>I don't mount my elements through the boom. Doing so, particularly above
>432MHz, adds too many uncertainties to the design. I've looked at the
>amount of detuning which the insulators I use on the 25mm boom - no
>longer manufactured polypropylene trellis clips - cause at 1296MHz when
>the elements are mounted, and even with a decent network analyser it so
>small that it's difficult to quantify: of the order of hundreds of kHz.
>That is completely insignificant in terms of antenna bandwidth.


How high above the boom did the elements end up ? And what did the
trellis clips look like ?
I started building a copy of the F9FT 55 ele but used a 15mm stainless
steel water pipe as the boom and 15mm pipe clips suitably drilled. The
elements end up about 0.8 cm above the top of the boom. .


I never quite completed it but seemed to have gain and directivity.


I am now revisiting it. I tried a wire-grid model of the boom on 4NEC2
and the detuning was horrific at the spacing I had. It was only when I
got a spacing of getting on for 3 or 4 cm it began to look OK. I don't
have pipe-clips tall enough, so I'm thinking about a thru-boom design,
but a bit wary of it.


Brian GM4DIJ
--
Brian Howie



Re: 23cm Yagis

Christopher Bartram <cbartram@...>
 

Hello Brian

<I tried a wire-grid model of the boom on 4NEC2 and the detuning was horrific at the spacing I had. It was only when I got a spacing of getting on for 3 or 4 cm it began to look OK. I don't have pipe-clips tall enough, so I'm thinking about a thru-boom design, but a bit wary of it.

That's very interesting, indeed. My only comment is that my measurements made some years ago. It would be very interesting to repeat the measurements, or possibly better to simulate them in a 3D EM simulator.

The clips I've used were made by Netlon and place the centre of the element 20mm above the surface of the boom. They are no longer made. I'd have attached a photo, but my camera's battery ran-out of electrons as I was trying to take it. However, you can see one on Derek, G4CQM's site <http://g4cqm.www.idnet.com/antennadesigner/paraclips.htm> I attach my insulators to the boom using self-tapping screws from the 'other' side of the boom. The clips make a good mount, and I didn't even had problems with the elements I used on a 80MHz yagi I used to detect ( a very few!) meteor bursts on the video carrier frequency of the CJON-TV transmitter in St.Johns, Newfoundland.

Derek has designed, and had made an improved clip which is, I believe, available from G6HKS. I've not used them, but it seems that they may result in the element sitting a few mm further away from the boom.

When you model the boom/element structure, it might well be worth including the effect of the insulator. I've not tried this, and I've never seen it suggested, but the polyprop sleeve which effectively encloses a section of the element, in the case of both the Netlon and 'CQM clips might , by slowing the propagation rate of the EM wave along the element, produce a lengthening effect which could compensate for the shortening effect of the proximity of the boom. That could be particularly significant at 23!

Vy 73

Chris
GW4DGU

--


Re: 23cm Yagis

Brian Howie <brian@...>
 

In message <57EA2BCD.9060500@...>, "Christopher Bartram cbartram@... [ukmicrowaves]" <ukmicrowaves@...> writes
Hello Ian

I don't mount my elements through the boom. Doing so, particularly above
432MHz, adds too many uncertainties to the design. I've looked at the
amount of detuning which the insulators I use on the 25mm boom - no
longer manufactured polypropylene trellis clips - cause at 1296MHz when
the elements are mounted, and even with a decent network analyser it so
small that it's difficult to quantify: of the order of hundreds of kHz.
That is completely insignificant in terms of antenna bandwidth.
How high above the boom did the elements end up ? And what did the trellis clips look like ?
I started building a copy of the F9FT 55 ele but used a 15mm stainless steel water pipe as the boom and 15mm pipe clips suitably drilled. The elements end up about 0.8 cm above the top of the boom. .

I never quite completed it but seemed to have gain and directivity.

I am now revisiting it. I tried a wire-grid model of the boom on 4NEC2 and the detuning was horrific at the spacing I had. It was only when I got a spacing of getting on for 3 or 4 cm it began to look OK. I don't have pipe-clips tall enough, so I'm thinking about a thru-boom design, but a bit wary of it.

Brian GM4DIJ
--
Brian Howie


Re: Call for data on IC

GORDONJ REASON <gordonj.reason@...>
 

Just in case Steen does'nt have the relavent detail ...........

On 29 September 2016 at 08:22 "Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves]" <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:

 

 

If you look at  the value of the two resistors around the 317 voltage regulator it will let you calculate the voltage.
Vout = (R2/R1 +1) * 1.25V

Where R1 is the resistor between two pins on the device, ouotput and Feedback, and R1 goes from feedback to ground

There's a good chance teh IC works from 5V - most older devices did, but check anyway

Andy  G4JNT


On 28 September 2016 at 12:13, steen.la5goa@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from steen.la5goa@... [ukmicrowaves] included below]

 

Hi
Is there someone who knows the component that is attached info
It is a frequency divider ca. 10.535 GHz and gives out a frequency  below 1.100 GHz
since it is max for the next circuit
My problem is that I can not test it because of lack of knowledge about the voltage it should have.
It gets its voltage from a TL317c which in turn receives its control voltage from a voltage divider
with two resistors, thereby the stability and voltage of the input voltage that determines the voltage
and the input voltage is the unknown factor


LA5GOA

Steen Erik

 

 

 


 


 


Re: Call for data on IC [1 Attachment]

Steen Erik Hansen LA5GOA
 


Took a spell check in googel and ground were the soil, not quite the same
Assumes that you understand what I want to communicate

LA5GOA

Steen Erik


Re: Call for data on IC [1 Attachment]

steen.la5goa@...
 

Hi
Many thanks for your reply
Must have committed a calculation error earlier when I tried to get a reasonable value for Vo
Now I get 5.99 V and it may seem logical
There are three voltages related to soil.
+5 V it is straightforward to follow the components to be supplied with 5V.
- X V it will supply power to - 5V regulators, so I reckon X = -8 to -12 V
+ Y V page 317 will deliver + 6V I guess Y = +9 to +12 V
Attaching a picture of the entire unit, would anyone have info on this I would be very happy if
you would share it with me.


LA5GOA

Steen Erik