Radio W4KAZ

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

W4KAZ Softrock Based CW Skimmer Station – 05) Si570 Programmable Oscillator for Softrock CWSkimmers – or for “Whatevah”

Note: More links at bottom of page:  This is a simple-to-build Si570 oscillator for use with the Softrock Lite kits for CW skimmer and input to the Reverse Beacon Network.  It uses the Si570 chip and an AtTiny85-20 programmed with the PE0FKO firmware used for the Softrock Ensemble kits.

Currently a programmed ATTiny chip is available separately from K5NWA.  The firmware is available for download, so programming the AtTiny is also an option.  The PE0FKO site also provides the required USB device driver, software, and guidance on using them.  (links)  The Si570 is available from Digikey(digikey part#:336-2518-ND,  manufacturer part:570CAC000141DG).(SiLabs 570CAC000141DG part )

The oscillator itself is pretty simple, and is the bare essential hardware required for re-programming the oscillator for a needed single frequency to use with a Softrock Lite II rx.  It is based on what I saw in the the schematic of the Softrock Ensemble RX, nothing original, just pared down and hijacked from the original Ensemble design.  The Si570 part itself is the bulk of the expense of the oscillator, and the cost of the Si570 chip is almost as much as the Softrock Lite kit itself.    The oscillator signal is fed into the divider through a 10K voltage divider as in the Softrock RX.

So why an Si570 Programmable Oscillator ?

The RX Ensemble kit is a viable alternative expense wise.  It really depends on the intended usage.  Using separate Softrock Lites as single band CW skimmers leads to the choice of a programmable oscillator for customizing the center frequencies, especially for the high bands.  The method used for 20m using the third harmonic seems to result in a decrease in dynamic range.  That results in an increase in false mirror images being reported to RBN by the CW skimmer as actual spots.

Using the Si570, the oscillators can be set at the frequencies needed by the Softrocks, i.e. 4 times the center frequency.  (for 96Khz bandwidth the oscillator would need to be: 20m=56.188, 15m=84.188, and 10m=112.16).   A programmable oscillator also allows switching from 96Khz to 192 Khz bandwidth(20m=56.38,15m=84.38, and 10m=112.38).  Keeping just the bottom half of a 192Khz bandwidth CW skimmer would at a minimum eliminate at least 50% of bad mirror image spots.  There are also likely to be fewer stations CQ’ing below the “.096” section of a band(e.g., most often there is not so much regular CWactivity above 28.096 as there is below).  That is the idea anyway.

The Si570 Programmable Oscillator Prototype:

The first version is deadbugged on a bit of board scrounged from the parts bin.  Not many parts, but a bit more PCB real estate would have been better.  Functional rather than esthetic.  The USB connection is via the usb cable end clipped from an old computer mouse in the parts bin(unlabeled black coil in left of photo).   “Engineer the possible”.

Si570 Programmable Oscillator board for 10m Softrock CW skimmer

Si570 Programmable Oscillator board for 10m Softrock CW skimmer

Testing the original prototype board pictured resulted in three build mistakes to debug:  a missing 5v connection to the ATTiny and the reversal in polarity on both zener diodes across the USB data pins.  These mistakes prevented function without damage to the components.  After correction of the build errors the software was able to function with the Si570 as needed for both programming the oscillator(‘startup’) frequency and running as a stand-alone oscillator.

The Si570 when programmed for 112.36Mc was found to have an actual oscillation at close to 28.090 exactly from the Softrock divider, as measured with TS-590 and Elecraft K2.  This was with the oscillator inserted in-circuit as the Softrock Lite oscillator via a transformer(5 bifilar turns on a type 43 torroid core) and a 2.2k resistor.  The frequency is very consistent and stable when the power is cycled on/off.

Setting the frequency is accomplished using either the USB-Sync program by DG8SAQ or via the test program Si570_USB_test from the QRP2000 project from www.sdr-kits.net.  DGF8SAQ’s program is easiest.

Easy measurement of the actual frequency in place is good enough for initial setting up of the skimmer software. A few KC either way will make little difference in a CW skimmer set-up, as final adjustments were done in CW skimmer software to put the skimmer signals ‘on frequency’.  In this case the CW skimmer center frequency is nearly identical to the Si570 programmed frequency.  That has not been the case with the versions using ordinary crystal oscillators, those having a bit more drift off their nominal value.

A new Softrock Lite II is the 10m test bed, with 15m revision to follow.  These two bands suffer the most from poor dynamic range and false mirror images.  The 15m oscillator also has a nasty tendency to drift with temperature changes.  If the modified softrocks perform as desired it will be time to pair these two bands with the best of the sound cards available.  That will be a separate game of trial and error.  The 20m softrock skimmer may also be retrofit, as using the third harmonic for the softrock center frequencies seems to adversely impact the dynamic range.

Photo of 10m Skimmer

Photo of 10m Skimmer at W4KAZ

As an aside, the first 10m center frequency chosen was 28.060 into a 192Kc bandwidth sound card. Horrible choice, as it was close enough to the 15m harmonic that interference spikes were present on both bands every 900hz.  Resetting the Si570 oscillator to place the center Fo for 10m at 28.080 greatly reduced(but not eliminate) the problem.  Currently set on 28.090 as of 20150414.  More tinkering required, and migrating the 15m Softrock over to an Si570 oscillator may help.

The current Skimmer package for 20m, 15m and 10m. 20m and 15m will likely be re-worked to use Si570 Programmable Oscillators.

The current Skimmer package for 20m, 15m and 10m. 20m and 15m will likely be re-worked to use Si570 Programmable Oscillator.

Si570 Programmable Oscillator UPDATE, 2016-11-08

The Si570 oscillator as described was perfectly usable in this application.  However 10m and 15m performance was was poor on the softrocks, the primary difficulty being a low dynamic range.  This is indicated by mirror images that appear when SNR values on the actual signals were higher than 35dbSNR.

The most useful work around for this problem is to scan at 192Khz sample rate, and only use the lower half of the sample for the CW skimmer.  Using the upper 96kc might be easier, as the center frequency could be set at 28.0Mc and 21.0Mc.  The latter may ulimately be the best approach.  There are unlikely to be any useful signals below the bottom of the bands, and those could be readily discarded as false or otherwise unusable(i.e., out of band).

LINK LIST, Si570 Programmable Oscillator :

  1. W4KAZ Schematic

    Schematic for W4KAZ version of Si570 Programmable Oscillator

    Schematic for W4KAZ version of Si570 Programmable Oscillator

  2. W4KAZ BareBones Parts List (PDF) (HTML with links)
  3. KB9YIG Five Dash softrock products page
  4. K5NWA ATTiny85 page
  5. PE0FKO Firmware page
  6. Document:

 

Skimmer File Extracts Summer of 2014

File extracts for three summer contests from four skimmer stations for May 2014’s CQ WPX and June’s JARL All Asia and ARRL FD.  The files are by skimmer spotting station and are sorted in datetime order.

Spots from K1TTT

Spots from W1NT

Spots from W4KAZ

Spots from KM3T

CW Skimmer Station for WPX CW 2013

Some repairs to the skimmer station set up have been made after losing the 20m and 10m softrocks.  Both were probably damaged due to modifications I made to the voltage regulation circuits.  That appeared to eventually fry the QSD chip, which is the heart of a softrock.

The 20m skimmer was replaced completely with a new softrock lite.  10m is pending re-work, but replacement would probably be the best bet.

So for WPX 2013 there are five bands available, 160m through 15m.  These will be active during WPX intermittently.  I intend to bring them up and down based upon my own operating.  The skimmer will be down when I am operating.

Other changes made to the skimmer station include loading windows XP onto the Optiplex 360 that had been running windows vista.  Vista was able to run one instance of CW skimmer, but was not able to support two instances simultaneously due to sound card conflicts.  Windows XP does not seem to have a problem with the two sound cards, and is an OS supported by CWSkimmer(Vista is NOT supported by skimmer).

 

CW Skimmer Errors and RBN spots

After several contests, monitoring of the softrock skimmers has turned up a bit of a problem with using softrocks as the skimmer platform.  Very strong signals are producing a mirror image that is often reported as a spot to the RBN.  Certain to be annoying for the S&P packet crowd during a contest.  Annoying enough that a few flame mails have arrived.

The volume of the bad spots is relatively low on the lower bands, and more common on the higher bands.  40m is somewhere in the middle, with most of the bad spots being sent for domestic USA stations.

The problem is a combination of the hardware and software, both contributing to the problem.  A software fix could potentially be made to CW skimmer or to the RBN aggregator to correct for the problem.  Will inquire to the authors…..

In the meantime the best solution available is to throttle the RBN aggregator to allow only spots below the center frequency to be reported.  For example, the 15m skimmer is based on a softrock with a center frequency at approximately 21044.5Mc.  So for the duration of the ARRL DX CW contest, an entry in the “Notched Frequencies” will be active to not report 21044.5-21100 to the RBN.

That solution does nothing to correct for half of the possible bad spots(i.e., a strong signal above the center frequency whose mirror image is being spotted below the softrock center frequency).  But it should alleviate many/most of the actual bad spots, since most run stations prefer to operate as low in the band as they are able.

Open to other suggestions short of replacing the softrocks with better (yet unaffordable) hardware.

Update 20130217, 2140Z:  There are new versions of both skimmer and aggregator.  Perhaps upgrade will help.

More on Xonar DX Experiments

A thread over on the softrock user group list spurred the curiosity…..: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/message/68324

G4ZFQ has  RightMark test data for a high end Xonar D2X card, as well as several others.  An internet search found other RightMark tests of several other Xonar cards, all of whose test data show curve trends remarkably similar to those of the D2X, albeit with somewhat worse IMD, spurious, and noise figures.

The curiosity is the test data shows a roll off on the frequencies above 50khz.  The nature of the loopback test is an issue, but it also seems likely that using a sound card as the source may be having an effect on the test results at the higher edges of the sound card frequency response.  But signal generators as input to the tests shows the same general trend.  SDR at wider bandwidths pushes at these edges of a ‘sound’ card’s ability….So perhaps the SDR software is compensating for the expected performance drop-off at frequencies above audible levels?

The Test- (Pertinent Excerpt from list post):

Having not yet thought of a better way to do a meaningful real-world test on the sound card with what is available in the KazShack, I fired up the 80m softrock on the xonar DX.

Test condx:
Transmitting a cw signal(a string of dashes at about 18wpm) at 5w into a dummy load on separate radio, noting the SNR readings obtained by CW skimmer from the SoftRock center frequency(353395x) to its upper limit. With the xonar DX set to 192khz scan rate, the actual upper limit on the readings was 3629.60. SoftRock connected to normal antenna system, a NE facing K9AY with W7IUV pre-amp. In summary, a sound card test using the SoftRock system as input source.

fq….—-SNR(dB)
3534.5—-42

3543-3593-42-40

3603——37
3613——35
3623——32
3629.6—-36

After CW skimmer collected a bit of data, the SNR readings above 3600 improved to 37-39.

So the worst case for CW skimmer(as currently configured) using a Xonar DX is being 6db less sensitive at the upper edge of the 192khz bandwidth than it is at the center. That is actually a lot better than I expected for an audio device pressed into service outside normal audio ranges (and I already liked the Xonar DX).

My curiosity is now nagging me to run the same tests on all of the other in-shack cards more methodically at their maximum scan rates(mostly 96khz), and to find a lower level outside signal source. I’ll try to recruit a fellow in the near field who will better be able to generate a low level test signal.  It would be useful to see what happens at the band edges when the best copy close to the center of the SoftRock’s scan range starts out at 20dB, 10dB, or 6dB SNR.

But with the WX here improving, all of that might not happen for several months.
😉

Engineer the Possible…

Xonar DX es SoftRock CW Skimmer

Yesterday, having not yet thought of a better way to do a meaningful real-world test on the sound card with what is available in the KazShack, I fired up the 80m softrock on the ASUS Xonar DX for a bit of putzing around.

Test condx:
Transmitting a cw signal(a string of dashes at about 18wpm) at 5w into a dummy load on separate radio, noting the SNR readings obtained by CW skimmer from the SoftRock center frequency(353395x) to its upper limit. With the xonar DX set to 192khz scan rate, the actual upper limit on the readings was 3629.60. SoftRock connected to normal antenna system, a NE facing K9AY with W7IUV pre-amp. In summary, a sound card test using the SoftRock system as input source.

fq….—-SNR(dB)
3534.5—-42

3543-3593-42-40

3603——37
3613——35
3623——32
3629.6—-36

After CW skimmer collected a bit of data, the SNR readings above 3600 improved to 37-39.

So the worst case for CW skimmer(as currently configured) using a Xonar DX is being 6db less sensitive at the upper edge of the 192khz bandwidth than it is at the center. That is actually a lot better than I expected for an audio device pressed into service outside normal audio ranges (and I already liked the Xonar DX).

My curiosity is now nagging me to run the same tests on all of the other in-shack cards more methodically at their maximum scan rates(mostly 96khz), and to find a lower level outside signal source. I’ll try to recruit a fellow in the near field who will better be able to generate a low level test signal.

But with the WX here improving, all of that might not happen for several months. 😉

engineer the possible….
73 de w4kaz

Skimmer Station

Added a new page to the skimmer station fun facts list.

The new page describes observations from using several different sound cards for both music and as the interface for SoftRock software defined radios and the CW Skimmer software.

2012 ARRL Feel Day(i.e., “Field Day”)

Operated 2012 Field Day with N4YDU and N4GU.  Seriously considered entirely ditching FD earlier in the year, but finally decided to swing back into the saddle.  Using the Central Carolina Contesters call K4FQU, how could I not?

K4FQU – Class 1A, Ops: N4GU, N4YDU & W4KAZ….  1499 QSO’s(942CW, 557SSB)

N4YDU bird-dogged an excellent site by getting permission for operating on the north end of the Franklinton High school campus.  The school has a horseshoe shaped service road around its perimeter.  The north side of campus has a nice line of pine trees parallel to the service road which runs due E/W for about 500 feet.  All in a mostly rural very RF quiet location.  A very good Field Day site, one of the better sites we have used.

We set up the station near a break in the tree line.  Operating as 1A, we put up two antennas.  The 80m dipole was set up as a vee, broadside to N/S.  The other antenna was the four band open sleeve dipole, set up facing E/W.  The apex of both antennas was up at about 70 to 80 feet.

The wx threatened rain on Saturday, but that never happened.  The cloud cover helped moderate temperatures right up until almost 1800z, so the set up was not terribly uncomfortable.  The humidity levels rose all through Saturday night.  A change in the WX about dawn Sunday, and a drier breeze picked up early Sunday morning.  The WX was very pleasant for the duration.  Probably one of the most comfortable FD weekends in a long time outside of the trips to the mountains.

Radio conditions did not seem all that good, but the rates were consistently good anyway.  At times the rates were surprisingly good.  N4YDU had unusually good rates in the “wee hours” on Sunday morning from 2:00am thru 6:00am(local), and turned the graveyard shift into a nice fat 350+ qso count.

For my own part, the best rates I saw were the first hour of my late evening shift from 11:00pm to 2:00am(local), where there was very fun rates on 80m CW as ‘fresh meat’.  Getting a SSB run going proved difficult, but I managed to find a decent 40m frequency close to 2:00am Sunday morning, and N4YDU hit the ground running for the graveyard leg.  The rates kept him awake.  😉

N4GU Power and Light supplied emergency power in the form of a 1000w Honda generator.  We located the generator on an asphalt drive about 125 feet away from the station, and could not hear the generator at all over the ambient background noise of the location(School AC units, birds tweeting, road noise, etc.)  N4GU also supplied shelter in the form of a couple of EZ-Up canopies.  My own concerns about blood-sucking insects or T-storms were not realized, so the lack of side-walls was never a problem.

Over all the event went off without a hitch.  Murphy was probably off elsewhere knocking over towers and breaking yagi’s at other more tempting FD sites.  All of the overnight lighting was supplied by battery operated LED lamps, over concerns we might overload the generator.  Generator overload was never an issue, as a Kill-a-Watt in the AC supply line showed that the power draw never got over 500w.  With the single run station going, the draw was around 300-350watts.   The generator ran for about 7 hours between fill-ups, and was very easy on the gas.  A sweet package.

Propagation seemed to favor the North-South paths for most of the times I was at the controls.  With the 40m-up antenna at 75 feet, it seemed to under perform my expectations on 40m and 20m.  That may have been just propagation, which seemed very short on 20m.  In the evening, it did a better job out to the west, but I found myself using the 80m dipole on the 40m band more than I expected.  Both antennas were fed with 450 ohm ladder line into balanced tuners, allowing them to be loaded where needed.

Reviewing the Reverse Beacon Network spots was interesting.

We wound up besting our QSO totals from 2011 by a couple of hundred Q’s.  10m never opened, 6m was a flop, and 15m was mediocre.  But 80m, 40m, and 20m produced enough activity that we were able to keep the logging computer busy and the operators awake.  Operating 1A with N4GU and N4YDU was just about perfect – both great ops and great fun.  Class 1A also insured we were almost always ‘fresh meat’ somewhere, which made the butt-in-chair time fun as well.

The only real goal I had this year was to have some fun.   Mission Accomplished.

After action reflections indicated if we were to revisit the location we might make a few minor tweaks to the general set-up by re-locating the antennas, but probably nothing too drastic.  The E/W roadway invites flat-topping the dipoles rather than center supporting them as inv-vee’s.   A few other minor station set-up re-arrangements.  None of those would be of large consequence in terms of extra effort, but might pay QSO and comfort dividends.

K4FQU, 1A NC - Quick snapshot of score:

band/mode  Qs       Pts
80 cw     222      444
80 ph     181      181
40 cw     440      880
40 ph     164      164
20 cw     231      462
20 ph     141      141
21 cw      45       90
21 ph      63       63
50 cw       4        8
50 ph       8        8
-----------------------------
         1499     2441

Pwr mult 2

Raw score 4882

Bonus pts
100% Emergency power             100
Public Location                   100
W1AW Message                      100
Online submisson                 50
Total bonus pts                   350

Total Score     4882 + 350 = 5232 pts

*

Skimmer Notes

Created a page of links and several related pages of information on the ongoing construction of the CW Skimmer station at W4KAZ.

Because of the nature of the blog package used for this website, it is easier to save this skimmer related info on ‘pages’ rather than as a “post” because it seems like a project that I’d like to have semi-permanently documented, and have the documentation easily found.  Whooop…there it iz….Incomplete, but slowly growing, and probably to be frequently edited in the short term.

Open Sleeve Dipole, Tribander Plus

Tribander Plus?  Plus what?  Friends with benefits maybe?

Back in 2002 or so, references to the “open sleeve dipole” sparked a curiosity in the topic.  Very few web references were available back then(in the internet dark ages).  The article that initially tweaked the curiosity was N6LF’s article “A Wideband 80-m Dipole”, which built upon an earlier article by K9AY from 1995. The open sleeve idea is also mentioned by Bill Orr, W6SAI.  Current ARRL Antenna books have information on this topic in Chapter 10, but that was not available in 2002.  Not much else, but there are a few engineering references going back at least as far as 1945.  None of which were readily available a decade ago.  Time marches…..

Recently Joel Hallas, W1ZR, ran a couple of articles on the subject in QST. This article on adding 6m to a tribander duplicated an idea I had myself, although I was more interested in the possibility of easily adding 17m to a tribander. W1ZR uses the term favored by K9AY, the “coupled-resonator”, from K9AY’s article “The Coupled-Resonator Principle: A Flexible Method for Multiband Antennas” in the ARRL Antenna Compendium #5.  K9AY’s “coupled-resonator” terminology is more precise and accurate as a general description of the principle for amateur uses.  Yet my own fuzzy gray matter remains wed to the term “open-sleeve”, which is really an example of the general principle in a narrow usage.

More references are available today: NQ6K with a well written treatment used as a sloper, and DK7ZB has a good page briefly explaining the concept. Plus a new ARRL Antenna book(Chapter 10.4-10.5) entry. This is the idea in general terms.  Placing another wire in parallel and “close” to another dipole allows you to feed the antenna at two different resonant frequencies.  The feedline is attached to the longer dipole only, the second(and/or third) wires are excited parasitically.  By carefully spacing the two wires, it is possible to get a 50 ohm match for both resonances.

Pretty handy idea….but….

O’course, the trick is in the details.  Getting the spacing correct can be tricky if you are intent on that 50 ohm match.  EZNEC modeling is simple enough for this gray cat, and it is easy enough to fiddle the dimensions of the second dipole and its length to get that 50 ohm match.  It turns out you can also add a third dipole too, but the spacing dimensions become a lot more critical.  Much like a fan dipole.

Generally, it seems that the higher frequency dipole winds up being slightly shorter than it would if it were a single dipole, and that is more pronounced as additional resonators are added.  Harmonic combinations also seem more sensitive to dimension changes affecting feed point impedance.  [NOTE: ARRL antenna book, chapter 10.5 contradicts my note of “slightly shorter”, indicating the dipoles might need to be slightly LONGER due to the capacitive coupling.  Hmmmmmmm.  Mayhaps wire spacing….?]

Outside the box of conventional

But what if we do NOT concentrate on the 50ohm match? What if we wish to use a balanced line feeder and a tuner, like for, oh, maybe a multi-band wire antenna for FIELD DAY?  Something with improved and predictable radiation patterns over a non-resonant doublet?

That seems to be a pretty good option.  The dipoles are resonant, even if they show an impedance that is not 50 ohms.  Resonance does not imply 50 ohms….that is just a happy convenient choice since radios are designed to have input impedances coincidental with the general impedance of a half-wave dipole fed in the center. But an end fed half wave is just as resonant even though the impedance is nowhere near 50ohms.

With resonance the radiation patterns are more predictable, and there are less likely to be odd lobes as might be the case with a generic doublet.  In the past we have used several different options for loading up a doublet on multiple bands, with mixed results.  So in April I decided to cobble an open sleeve antenna together and try it out for a few days.

Models?  We don’ neeed no steeeenkeeeng models…

No, but in this case the model was interesting.  Going for a decent compromise of performance versus convenience, a bit of EZNEC tinkering showed that a 40m/20m/10m  combination of elements might produce decent  radiation pattern results for four bands. Input impedance?  Maybe not so ideal.

The plan modeled was using 18ga ladderline for the mid-section, and attach legs on the ends for the 40m resonator.  Spacing the 10m wire at about 1.5 inches in the model produced a more stable impedance curve for 10m, so rather than just taping the 10m wire to the ladderline, small spacers are used.  Radiation patterns for 40m and 20m resemble normal dipole patterns.  The 15m pattern is normal for a 40m wire pressed into 15m service – a dipole pattern that is  breaking into two lobes with a nulled lobe perpendicular to the dipole.  The 10m pattern without the 10m element would show the same butterfly pattern.  Adding the 10m element makes a huge difference on both the radiation pattern and the feedpoint impedance in this instance.

Actual antenna

The antenna was constructed from a segment of 18ga 450 ohm ladder line and some scraps for 14ga thhn laying about.  The ladder line section was from a 20m folded dipole.  The parasitic radiators modeled best if the were slightly shorter than they would be in a single wire dipole.  So the ladderline was shortened to the model’s 20m dimensions.  Enough wire to complete the 40m legs to model dimensions was added to the fed wire. Dimensions were pulled directly from the model for all legs – no other trimming, and the pieces stitched together.  [No point in trimming since the intent is to feed the antenna with ladder line to a tuner, rather than obtain a 50 ohm match directly.] The 10m radiator was attached to the ladder line via a few sections of PVC pipe cut into 2 inch lengths for use as spacers.  These spacers were drilled and attached to the ladderline via cable ties and tape.  The 10m element then is attached to the outside of the spacers, away from the ladderline.

In hindsight, adding the 10m element with spacers is problematic for a “portable” antenna.  The spacers complicate storing and deploying the antenna.   Just taping the 10m element to the ladderline is probably worth the efficiency trade off – unless you have real reason to expect 10m to be significantly better than it has been of late.

The end result is a dipole that exhibits the radiation pattern of resonant dipoles on those three bands, and also is relatively easy to load on 15m.  The model show the 15m pattern is “butterfly” shaped, which is normal for a 40m dipole pressed into service on 15m.

Workee workee

It is now hung at almost exactly 30 feet height, and shows the expected performance on those four bands.  One of the major lobes on 15m must be favoring Europe, as the EU stations are better on this antenna than anything else in the yard.  20m and 40m are equivalent to the other dipoles.  Not much 10m activity heard yet, so no idea there.

I expect a similar fan dipole could be used in the same manner, where all of the dipoles are physically attached.  My experiments with fan dipoles was in an attempt to match to 50 ohms.  Very difficult to do for more than 2 bands.

Another caveat to be aware of is that combinations of dipoles at widely separated frequencies, i.e., more than a harmonic, will tend to have “unusual” patterns.

There were too many outside issues to allow much butt-in-chair time in one of my favorite contests, CQ WPX CW. But enough of a chance to try the antenna out, and I’ happy with the results.  The butterfly lobes on 15m must be in very favorable directions.  During the contest Europeans had huge signals, and I worked three JA stations on Sunday afternoon….which are certainly the only JA’s worked from this QTH this decade.

I’ll not leave it up permanently, because running the ladder line into the shack always raises RFI issues.  This antenna is RFI “cranky” on both 40m and 15m inside the shack, but thats probably more an issue related to the kludged feed-thru into  shack and the general in-shack rat’s nest of wiring rather than the antenna.  It is worth testing out for a bit longer though.

Maybe a few RFI issues will find resolutions during the testing.

Interesting open sleeve(coupled resonator!) ideas….

NQ6K  slopers…. http://findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/20-15-10m_Triband_Sloper

N6LF Wideband 80m dipole:  http://rudys.typepad.com/ant/files/antenna_broadband_dipole.pdf

Dan Levin, N6BZA and Marty Levin, W6BDN: Notes on phase delays when stacking: http://www.k6if.com/c3_stack_article.html