Radio W4KAZ

Thanks for stopping by the virtual KazShack. Feel free to comment - I often approve them.

IOTA 2009 – N4A Rides Again

Looking forward to another expedition to activate Cape Lookout. Our expedition will again use the N4A call sign. We hope to be QRV before 6:00pm Friday, and will operate through Sunday. This year the crew is W0UCE, N3ND, N4YDU, and myself. Friday evening we will probably concentrate on operating from 6m down. If we are lucky enough to get any Es openings Friday evening, we’ll spend as much time as possible on 6m or 10m.

We will be handing out the NA-067 multiplier during the RSGB IOTA contest. We have three good CW ops(them, not me!), so the best chance to catch us on SSB will be during the afternoon Saturday(around 18:00z), on either 20m or 40m.

Paying For It

Here’s a nice piece on paying for it from Fox News. Some folks seem to be ashamed to admit they pay for it. Some folks are adamantly opposed to paying for it, and will hector and belittle those who see no alternative but to pay for it. But no matter how you get it, you are gonna pay for it, one way or another.

I don’t mind admitting to being in both categories. Some times I just need it so bad. But it is always a reasoned choice about how much I want it versus the true cost of getting it.

So, consider whether paying for it is worth what you are getting. And open a window if you need to have a cigarette afterwards.

11th Through n’th Place

Assuming someone enjoys contest operating, what motivates 11th through n’th place contesters?

OK. What if there’s slim chance of being in the top ten during a contest. Why bother? Some folks have a difficult time getting past that, or come to some similar point of frustration and bail on contest operating.

But the number of QSO’s in contest logs in the top ten boxes seem to keep pushing the bar, even with the reduced propagation at the sunspot minima. So there seems to be something in it beyond the noteriety associated with seeing a transitory mention of one’s operation in the after-action score reporting.

The obvious answer is the fun factor. For folks who enjoy it, contesting is just plain old fun.

Being exposed to other contesters via multi-ops, Field Day, and club meetings has led me to conclude that the best contest operators are definitely much better at the game. It is aways worth paying attention to those most proficient. What sets them apart? Like any other endeavor, different folks have different strengths and weaknesses.

There are some characteristics that are obvious. Good listening skills. Good logging skills. Pileup management. Ability to catch call signs from a pileup. Ability to dig out weak ones. Focus.

Over time I am enjoying each contest more than the last. There’s small chance of seeing my own callsign rise much above the mid N’ths in the score listings. Yet persistence is not futile.

For my part, it is a case of the journey being the best part of the trip. I suspect an actual win would be somewhat anticlimactic.

Compiler Benchmarks

Stumbled upon a blog post on a set of compiler benchmarks for a group of programming languages used on Unix platforms. (The benchmark library is kept by the Debian folks.) Many are widely used, some much less used. There are some graphical representations that present some of the program language trade offs visually.

The graphs are more or less code-size versus performance, with the “ideal” or 0,0 point of the graph being small code/fast performance. Presumably the reference to code size refers to the source code, since a good compiler can optimize several questionable programming practices. Also, it includes several interpreted languages, which are run on the fly rather than packaged and stored as machine level executable instructions by a program compiler. The graph for Java was maybe the standout, as it is not really compiled, but not stricly an interpreted language either. Obviously the Java buckaroos have been spending time on optimization in the underlying support libraries.

The folks over at FreeBasic have built a nice little GW basic compiler. They are trending towards OO techniques, but its not too hard to shoehorn a few old basic programs into compiling and working. No GUI front end though, so another package is needed to build windows user interfaces. Frebasic crosses the Linux/Windows divide too.

Revisions to Band Pass Filter Series

The Band Pass Filter Series has been amended to add additional self referential links.

Contesting Webinar Schedule

Jamie, NS3T, has posted a schedule of the PVRC Contesting Webinars on Radio-sport.net.

This is the beginning in what is expected to become a series of webinars going forward, focused on the contest community. This has a lot of potential to be a great resource for folks who may haveinterest in the subject matter, but not the financial resources or time to take part in other venues like the Contest University.

The webinars scheduled are open to anyone, anywhere.

For details see: http://www.pvrc.org/webinar/webinars.htm

BPFF – The Kludgy Switch Box – Part4

Part 4 of the W4KAZ filter project series comments on the process leading up to the integrated box full of NVARC Ugly filters for use in the KazShack. The quest continues.

Notes: Link to photos of the project at bottom of this page. If you want to read about the project from the beginning, go to the”Band Pass Filter Fever” series page.

Part of the project goal is to put all of the NVARC filters into a switched box to allow for SO2R and use at Field Day and on IOTA expedition. The original idea was to use a simple rotary switch. Somewhere along the way the idea morphed into using relays set up to allow control from a band decoder.Toying with the relay switching idea brought up a couple of issues that I chose to avoid. Instead, the individual filters were tied together with a two pole ten position switch.

A previous project resulted in a seven position remote antenna switch.That switch is lossy on 15m and 10m because of the point to point dead-bug style wiring. I didn’t see an easy way to avoid this problem, and I’m not set up for PCB design/manufacture. Using PCB’s and strip line runs would solve the issue. I have an idea for making strip lines that may work, but it is a bit Rube Goldberg-ish, so I chose to shelve that temporarily.

So, back to the rotary switch. I had a 2-pole 10 position switch in the junk box. The contacts are silvered brass, and seem beefy enough for the job, so I tested it out by wiring up the input/output to a bypass position.

Ick. Needless to say, it is not an ideal solution. The loss through the switch alone on 10m is about 0.6db. Losses are lower on 40m and 80m, just barely measurable.

So, WTF. I used it anyway. More suitable switches are a bit pricy if bought new, and this one was already in my sweaty little hands. Impatience, “good enough”, and zero cost won out over quality. Engineer the possible.

After all of that hand wringing was done, some other practical construction choices needed to be thought out. The end goal of constructing a switched filter box could have been implemented in several ways.

Method 1: Use the existing set of filters, switching them in via an external switch box, all connected via a rat’s nest of coax jumpers.

Method Zwei: Build another set of filters into a larger enclosure, and incorporate the switch into the new design.

Method III: Use some less aesthetically pleasing choice that will also benefit from poorly conceived and hacked together engineering practices.

Well the choice was clear – use Method III!

The rationale unfolded as a matter of “least inconvenient compromise” rather than “optimal design”. I was limited in the number of parts available. That was the primary limiting factor for method 2, not enough capacitors of the proper values on hand for a full second set of filters. Keeping the individual filters available was desirable for the sake of future flexibility, so ripping them apart and re-assembling was not considered.

Parts count also played a part in ruling out method 1, as it would use up 20-plus pl-259’s, plus the coax.

My compromised solution was to use the individual filters with a slight modification. Rather than remove the so-239 connectors, I merely tacked on a pigtail of coax for the runs to and from each switch. It is a compromise in every way, electrically, mechanically, and aesthetically. But it sure was simple.

It also seemed to work electrically better than I expected, as none of the loss figures vary substantially from the losses I would expect from the switch plus those of the original individual filters. In other words, the db losses through the filter added to the db losses from the switch in bypass add up to the total loss, when each band is measured separately.

The completed box shows losses on all bands of approximately 1.0 db. This is a bit odd, given the losses of the switch itself vary by band. But the insertion losses of the filters are lowest on 10m, and highest on 80m. Since the losses through the switch component are high on 10m and low on 80m, they all seem to coincidentally hover in the 1.0db range.

It appears that the insertion losses on 40m and 80m filters are a bit higher than the NVARC spec. This is probably because of compromises made in the physical construction, as the coils in those filters are closer to the sides of the enclosure than they should be. They were built last and the enclosure used were more difficult to work with due to their non-standard construction.

The insertion losses in the 1.0 db range are significant enough to be a concern, but everything is a compromise. This is the compromise I’m required to make for SO2R without outlay of more ca$h. The ca$h reserves are currently at less than optimal levels, but there is a lot of that going on. It will be an even larger compromise operating with low power than it would be if the filters were followed by an amplifier, but such is life. Engineer the possible!

In the grand scheme, the finished NVARC box shows about 0.2db more losses than I could expect from the commercial Dunestar series, and maybe 0.4db more loss than is expected from the W3NQN variety. On a positve note, this one cost less than $50.00USD in materials, not to mention everything I learned during the construction. The time required for construction was an educational investment, and was well spent.

Pictures of the KazShack NVARC filter box and K4VX filter sample.

Previous in series: Band Pass Filter Fever – The Guinea Pigs – Part 3

Next in series: BPFF – Guess-timating the Filter Efficacy – Part 5.

Pollenating The Antennas – More 80m Folded Dipole

Whilst toying with some new KazShack toys, I found out an interesting and useful fun fact. The 80m folded dipole does a great job at ignoring some of the AM harmonic mixes. Death to harmonics! W4SAT seems to have the best on-line description of a folded dipole.There is very little written on the internet about this great antenna option. My own original post has a link to a web reprint of the original ARRL design article.

The KazShack is less than a mile from the 50KW WPTF(680) transmitter, and only about two miles from the 10KW WRBZ(850) transmitter. This results in all manner of harmonics and harmonic mixes that I can hear and identify. Pretty much any combination of the numbers 680 and 850 added and subtracted together produce a frequency that have audible audio artifacts that can be identified as from either AM station. Some of the mixes are much worse than others. Some are barely audible. The mixes that fall within the ham bands are obviously the ones of the most pertinent concern.

While playing with some new home brew band pass filters filters and the SixPak, I flipped the radio to 80m. While connected to either 40m antenna or the 20m antenna, I could hear a loud garbled mix centered at about 3570. The WPTF audio was clear. The WBRZ audio was also identifiable, although very garbled. That works out to the 4th harmonic of WPTF mixed with WBRZ’s 850. (i.e., [4*680]+850=3570)

This seemed really curious, since this never seemed to be a problem before. On the 40m antenna broadside to WPTF, the mix was S9+, and at least S7 on the other 40m and 20m antennas. So, it will probably blow my socks off when I switch to the 80m folded dipole, right?

Nope. Switching to the 80m folded dipole, the mix disappeared completely. No more WPTF audio on 3570. No more WBRZ. Both were Gone. Zip, zero, nada. Hmmmm.

Then I rememberated reading that folded dipoles were useful on their primary frequencies and their odd harmonics. So an 80m folded dipole could possibly be pressed into service on 30m, but it is deaf as a dummy load on 40m. That was a fact I have proven experimentally, both on purpose and by accidently flipping to 40m and wondering where all of the signals have gone(duh-uh!). The 80m antenna was rejecting the WPTF fourth harmonic well enough to eliminate the two station mix.

It would appear that a folded dipole also helps to reject the even sub-harmonics as well. This would probably have been obvious, but the thought had never crystalized within my addled gray matter before that moment. That fact could prove very useful for several settings. SO2R. Field Day. Field DXpeditions. IOTA. Sweet.

So, one additional yet seldom documented method to reduce the n/2 sub harmonic is to use a folded dipole. I would expect the folded dipole will also attenuate an interference your transmitter is generating on it’s 2nd harmonic, so switching either antenna to a folded dipole will probably help. This won’t help a 40m/15m problem, but applies to the other common harmonic situations.

Every little bit helps.

Lost Island DX Society

Don’t miss the best source for up to date contesting news available on the internet. The new source for all manner of contest trivial is now up and running at the home page of the Lost Island DX Society. I sure wish I were going to be at Hamvention this year to catch the L.I.D.S. hospitality suite.

Time to Kill

Or a way to kill time. WB4AEJ has a matrix with a slew of assorted hame domain links. Just scratched the surface….