After contacting the real W6ZR to confirm it wasn't him, I had some fun with the scammer:

Me:
Is the built in power supply working?  Does it include the NS roofing
filter?  I can send payment right away.

Mr Scammer:
My paypal is closed for now.
Yeah it has NS roofing filter...... and the built-in PS is working.
Payment is via PO money order.
73

Me:
This sounds great I can send the money order today.  Can you do me one
favor.  I will send a money order for $2700 and can you please cash
the money order and provide the difference of $1000 to my sister.  She
lives in your city and she will come pick it up.  She will be happy to
provide you with a ride if needed.  If you are interested in any top
brands jeans she can give you those at low price too.  Many thanks my
friend.

Mr Scammer:
Selling the rig for a friend....

Kindly send the PO MO to.

Name: Leonard Chiddister
Address: 11111 saathoff drive APT 415 ,
City: Cypress,
State: Texas
Zipcode: 77429.

And get back to me once payment is made..... so I will delete ad.
Radio is in my address but payment will be made to Mr. Leo.

Make the payment to him...... he will cash and transfer the $1000 to me for your relative to come pickup with the radio.
I will be needing some Polo Jeans too....
73
Ray.

Me:
Thank you kindly Mr. Ray.  We have Polo Jeans.  What size would you
like?  For a fellow ham the price is $20 per pair from size 28-40
waist.

Mr Scammer:
Okay.....
I would need 34 and 36....
73

I was pretty surprised by this and thought I would share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTeAtPFEuyc

I am very curious about the various criticisms of the TS-2000, particularly about receiver noise and sensitivity. As a long time TS-2000 owner (along with several other transceivers to compare it to) I believe that the criticisms are driven by some quantitatively verifiable measurement as well as some psychology.

Verified observations: 

1) The measured receiver sensitivity of a fully functional TS-2000 is is on par with other transceivers.

2) Noise produced by switching diodes on the LPF board are far below atmospheric noise levels when an antenna is connected.

3) Early TS-2000's did suffer from low gain in the 144 MHz preamplifier.  This did not affect any other band.
   
4) The TS-2000 S-meter is well calibrated on HF at S-9 according to the Collins standard but is pretty stingy at lower signal strengths.

5) A certain range of serial numbers have been manufactured with faulty ceramic filters, causing either decreased sensitivity and/or intermittent noise.

I find that the factory audio equalization of the TS-2000 produces a harsh hiss sound akin to an open squelch with the IF filter at its widest setting.  I lived with this for a few years before realizing that one can design their own audio filter with the ARCP software.  This provides pretty amazing control over the audio characteristics and allowed me to turn the TS-2000 into something that is pleasant to listen to.  I have been taken by surprise when I have had to reset the settings after a firmware update and the hiss returns.

Next to the TS-2000 has sat the following: IC-756, IC-756PRO, IC-756PROII, FT-950, and IC-7600.  Each time any criticism has been raised about sensitivity or noise in the TS-2000 I have done significant, boarder line obsessive A/B testing between all of these transceivers and I just can't find any meaningful difference in sensitivity between any of them.

Before purchasing the IC-7600, I visited AES where I had a TS-590, IC-7600 and TS-2000 in front of me to switch between.  To my surprise, I found that the TS-590 had a very similar hiss quality as the TS-2000.  After about 3 hours, I just could not find a major difference between the two Kenwood radios in terms of reading stations buried in the noise.  I imagine that there would be a big difference under crowded band conditions with high-gain antennas, but I couldn't notice it on a Cushcraft A-4S at 50ft.  I ended up purchasing an IC-7600 because I liked the ergonomics, NR quality and a few other features over the TS-590.

   

I don't mean to stir any emotions with this post but I do hope it is informative.  Since I have owned a TS-2000 for several years I have taken care to research any shortcomings and if they have merit, modify the transceiver to fix them.  I think I am quite unbiased because there are many things I don't like about the transceiver, but it is very functional.  As of now I am pretty convinced that when people say that they hear things on the TS-590 that they wouldn't be able to hear on the TS-2000 it is either because the TS-2000 is faulty, they are comparing the two using multiple stacked arrays, or they are comparing by memory and have a psychologically biased impression.  I think the complaints related to receiver sensitivity are driven by S-meter readings and those of receiver noise are related to users who never obtain the ARCP software to tweek the audio characteristics.

Another possibility is that all of the reported shortcomings of the TS-2000 are true and  I am insane.

73

Anthony
NR9R

This has become my new favorite place to order from.  They have a great website and professional service.  Everything has been shipped promptly, every email has been responded to, and my return has been accommodated beyond the written policy.  There are many amateur radio hobby-business e-stores with low quality websites (some using the modem BBS model style with order-form that doesn't even total your merchandise) and mediocre service.  It is nice to see a store like DX Engineering growing.

This looks like a great product.  I think the complaint about the price is out of touch with reality because I view the various analyzers marketed to hams (MFJ, Autek, Palstar, etc.) as cheap measurement gear.  The user interface and color graphics alone put it ahead of these similar priced analyzers.

The original link posted brings you to the catalog link, but if you do some exploring you can find a dedicated site for the product with an impressive amount of info:
http://sark110.ea4frb.eu/home

If you follow the Test Results link it shows a comparison between the SARK-110 and many other analyzers measuring an impedance standard.

The analyzer was designed by a ham, EA4FRB.

If it holds up to the specs on the site I think it will be a hit.  I just wonder if they will be able to maintain the inventory.

BTW, this looks like an interesting store with many unique goodies.  Thanks for sharing

Fred,

This statement concerns me:
It kinda like a Rohn 25G. More likely US Tower Aluma whatever

It is essential to know exactly what model of tower you have before you can plan the construction properly.  There are many variations of TV antenna towers that look like Rohn 25G but have vastly different specifications.  Figuring out the type of tower you have should be the starting point.  If you are uncertain of the tower type then how do you know the structural specifications and mounting methods. 

Here are some critical questions: 

What is your resource for designing the foundation?

What tension will you use for the guy wires?

What is the maximum antenna wind load of the tower?

Will you be climbing the tower?

These questions cannot be answered by guesstimating.

Unfortunately you can't really do any comparisons with manufacturer specs and gut-feeling antenna reviews are even worse.

There are a few good on-air experiments with multiband directional antennas that are very insightful:
1) HF TRIBANDER PERFORMANCE - TEST METHODS & RESULTS by N0AX and K7LXC
2) Quads vs Yagis Revisited by N6NB appearing in Ham Radio Magazine, May 1979.

The tests compare various types of multiband designs to various monoband yagi designs.  I have walked away with a few basic conclusions from these tests:

1) Three bands (10, 15 and 20m) seems to be about the limit for trapped yagi designs that provide measureable gain and f/b over a dipole.  Designs with trapped WARC elements stuck between the triband elements appear to bring the performance close to a rotatable dipole.   

2) Yagis covering the 10-20m amateur bands with a compact boom length (less than 20 ft) struggle to achieve the performance of a LPDA or two element yagi of the same boom length.  This seems true regardless of how many elements for a given band can be squeezed on the boom.  People who have opted for a forward staggered design, used by Force-12 and Optibeam, with two active elements on each band have realized this limitation.  In other words, one must let go of the idea of achieving anything close to 6dBd of gain (1 S unit) with a compact broadband yagi with fixed element lengths.

3) It is difficult to design multiband yagis with fixed element lengths that maintain the same forward gain and f/b over the entire amateur band.  For instance, some designs have great performance in the SSB portion of the band and turn into rotatable dipoles in the CW portion.  This is where the LPDA design stands out.  It may not have the gain or f/b of an optimized 2 element yagi but at least it maintains some performance over a dipole throughout the entire band. 

A unique solution to all of the drawbacks I've mentioned is the Steppir antenna, which comes at the sacrifice of some mechanical robustness.  It is pretty deceiving though to think that the tiny 2 element Steppir should meet or exceed the performance of an impressive looking 9 element Optibeam or LPDA.

My advice is to go for the LPDA or Optibeam if you need the antenna to survive the elements and choose a Steppir if you are willing to do some maintenance every few years.

Hope this Helps.

   

What irks me is how antenna makers are labeling these non-resonant radiating elements as "multiband antennas."  ZeroFive Antennas is the worst offender I have found.  They have a "multiband verticals" category on their website with 10-40m versions to 10-160m versions.  They advertise "NO LOSSY TRAPS TO BURN OUT AND FILL UP WITH WATER.". 

ZeroFive also advertises a "6-20 METER MULTIBAND VEE LADDER LINE FED DIPOLE."  I was disappointed to find out that this antenna, like the others is simply an electrically fixed length radiating element--you deign and engineer the matching network for multiband capabilities.   

A few comments have mentioned the tone or quality of the receiver (revering to the K3) as an important factor.  I never did try the K3 but after trying the latest transceivers from just about every brand I found that the tone/fidelity/ quality character of the receiver to be a greater factor than dynamic range alone.  This is subjective and more difficult to quantify but very important.  I am able to tolerate some IMD products every once in a while on a receiver that is a joy to listen to, but a receiver with painful audio characteristics will ruin the fun no matter how impenetrable the filters are.  With that said, the reality is that the average station will never experience the signal power density levels that would overload typical mid-priced transceivers.  If you have a single yagi for the high bands and use wire antennas for the low bands then you probably wont notice much improvement in transceivers with narrow 1st IF filters and can have the best of both worlds: great audio fidelity from wide 1st IF filters without many IMD issues.   

As others have mentioned, the noise can depend on how close the antennas are.  In may case, I have a small lot with my shack only about 30 ft from my vertical and I could hear noise on my Samlex SEC-1223.  When the capacitors failed after a year I started researching other switching supplies and could not find convincing information that other models are any more quiet. 

There are QST reviews suggesting that many supplies have pretty good noise filtering under high current load and no-load conditions.  However, I remember also finding some other testing that showed some supplies peaking in noise undo loads of a few amps, close to an HF transceivers receive current.  If you search the web you will also find modifications for improving the noise filtering for most popular switching supplies, so that tells you something.

The other complaint people have about compact switching supplies is the acoustic noise from the cooling fan.  There are many mods out there for improving that too.

In the end I decided to just go back to a reliable Astron linear supply.  I'm glad I did because the few dollars you save with a small switching supply was not worth the other hassles for me.  It just sits under my desk unnoticed and will likely keep working for decades.  I bet if I replaced the capacitors every 20 years and kept the cabinet from corroding it would keep working indefinitely.  I don't have the same confidence with a switching supply.

I will share my experience of trying a few different rigs over the past few years and learning what I find important in making a decision. 

As far as the FT-2000, many people really like it but I ended up turning away.  It has great ergonomics but there are some quirks with the receiver that I couldn't get used to after many visits to AES to play with one (if you join the FT-2000 yahoo group you can learn the details).  There is a potential to be disappointed to go from a well refined analog transceiver, such as your TS-940S, to the FT-2000 with an early generation DSP and 1st IF filter system.

If you decide to pass on the FT-2000, here are some general guidelines for making the choice.  First, don't get too hung up on the receiver IMD numbers craze.  My personal experience has been that a modest ham station with a single beam and wire antennas for the low freq bands will very rarely encounter a power density that requires hot-rod receivers with narrow roofing filters.  I read the yahoo groups for all of the newer transceivers with narrow roofing filter options and it is amusing how many people post with a concern that their receiver is not functioning because they can't notice a difference between switching from the narrow to wide filters.  Unless you have a multi-tower station that allows you to receive S9 + 10dB stations at regular intervals you won't notice a lot of difference (BTW, this only goes for CW.  For SSB narrow 1st IF filters do even less). 

The second piece of wisdom I picked up was that the WOW factor of second receivers and spectrum scopes wears off pretty quickly.  I have had rigs with those features but never found them practically useful for my operating.  What I really like about newer rigs is that 6m is now standard and DSP filtering provides more filter choices than ever before.  While DSP brings a different digital sounding tone, I have found the filter choices to be a greater plus.   

To name a few rigs, I'd check out the TS-590S, IC-7400, and FT-950.  Depending on your operating habits, the TS-2000 may also be a consideration. They are pretty good values.  In fact my personal experience has been that I have kept a TS-2000 for several years.  Every once in a while I have become swayed by all the people who claim it is a bad performer and buy a higher end radio to make sure I'm getting the most out of HF.  I have bought and sold the IC-756, PRO and PROII, FT-950, and currently also have an IC-7600.  Each of these have been great radios, but after comparing the TS-2000 to each of them for a few months I never heard a station I couldn't hear/work on one and not the other, so I end up selling it off and keeping the TS-2000.

...that's what I know.

Search "non penetrating roof mount."  This mount is made for placing a mast on a flat roof without making any holes (just want you want to do on the ground.  It provides a frame to stack concrete blocks on for a counterweight. 

I also checked archives.org previously. It appears to be indexed but there are no files.  If it was available online in the past then someone must have a copy...


 

I am trying to find the article "Quads vs Yagis Revisited" that appeared in the May 1979 issue of Ham Radio magazine.  All that I can find on the web are links to peer-to-peer file sharing sites, which I don't use.

If you can help, please email me via gmail, the first part of my address is asrick

Thanks,

Anthony

I recently noticed that US Tower now provides 90 mph, 3 second gust wind load data for ham towers on their website: http://www.wix.com/ustower/usttest#!__product-pages/ham-towers.  If you click on the model series tab and scroll all the way to the bottom you will find it.

As an example, the MA series tubular towers have been rated:
MA-40: 3 sq ft
MA-550:1.4 sq ft
MA-770: 1 sq ft at 85 mph
I have a feeling that 85 mph is used for the MA770 data because it would probably be less than zero at 90 mph.

This info may be useful to anyone considering a new tower.