Call Search

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Friends Remembered
Survey Question

DX Cluster Spots

Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 Next
 on: Today at 06:13:27 PM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by KC0W
 That's some serious thumb & index finger action going on!!!

                                  Tom KC0W

 on: Today at 06:12:16 PM 
Started by HS0ZIB - Last post by VA3VF
Off the DXCC list, now!  Grin Grin Grin Grin

 on: Today at 06:09:22 PM 
Started by VK4WTN - Last post by VA3VF
hi all, I have started using JTDX for FT8. Just a quick question on TX auto sequencing.When I CQ my tx sequences work ok up to sending RRR but when I receive 73 from the other station I dont automatically sequence to send 73 back. So my auto sequence ends at sending RRR. I can work around this by manually sending 73 or untick the RRR box and send RR73 as my last sequence.Any ideas anyone?
Just for a matter of interest I am finding that JTDX is producing more decodes than WSJTX, very impressed by it.
regards Wayne VK4WTN

I noticed that too, and it's disconcerting. It only happens if you initiate the CQ, not when replying to a CQ. The RR73 may be a work around.

There are some other strange things as well, but keep in mind that this is not a general release.

 on: Today at 06:05:22 PM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by VK5EEE
Very nice sending from OM F8DGY as always his videos are great to watch, he is one of those who have MASTERED CW and can use any key:

There will be the usual complaints from those who don't appreciate the music and flexibility of CW, e.g. in this case to send dits at approaching 50 WPM.

When using an electronic keyer, it's easy to send 40 WPM dahs and dits, but on a bug, much relaxing to send slower dahs, and faster dits, thus achieving a faster overall throughput with perfect legibility and lovely sound.

But such technique is then complained about by Western Robots and Human-droids who insist that women must have dimensions that fit a mathematical formula and that Mozart be reduced to an electronic equation.

Naturally, if you can receive 50 WPM machine-sent (or keyer sent) CW, then you have no problem to copy a bug with dits at 50 WPM and the dahs, creating music at anywhere from 20 to 30 WPM or so. So if you cannot copy keyer at 50 WPM why complain about 50 WPM dits on a bug?

Here is the same OP in the same QSO now doing 50 WPM on electonic keyer:

Did you copy that with ease? If not, why complain when the same OPs switch to bug? Someone recently insisted on this forum that we should all call CQ at a slow speed. Wow. And then asked if, we QRQ Ops receive a call at QRS, if we will answer. I think there are very few who would not be happy to take a slow speed reply and match the speed of the other operator. I always thought that went without saying.

And here a nice video of a side swiper being used at higher than average dit speed, in the hands of the same maestro:

This last video is funny as NX2X says he has seen Chris' videos on YouTube and doesn't realize he is being recorded in another video :-)

 on: Today at 05:57:39 PM 
Started by N1AUP - Last post by N8AUC
I'd say get the Handbook first. Then get the Antenna book.

I think every ham should have a copy of each on their bookshelf. (I do.)

Both are worth having.

73 de N8AUC

 on: Today at 05:57:10 PM 
Started by VK5EEE - Last post by VA3VF
I think you gentlemen are focusing solely on the non-radio part of hamradio.

Skill is a wonderful thing in all life endeavours, but radio is RF first and foremost. What is before the TX antenna, and after the RX antenna, is not strictly radio (one way path only described here).

We all have mode preferences, but what matters to some people, once called experimenters, is making RF that you generated, carrying some intelligence, to be received by another station, and vice-versa.

We may need to split the hobby between users and enablers.

 on: Today at 05:55:07 PM 
Started by W4KYR - Last post by K0UA
I suspect that the bias current would be quite a bit less than the average of about 4 amps for the 100 watt version.  This would make the rig more viable for portable operation. The 10 watt version would have even less bias current.   Just turning down a 100 watt radio to say 5 watts or 10 watts does not in any way give you the efficiency that translates into less battery usage, that a 5 or 10 watt radio will exhibit.

 on: Today at 05:51:34 PM 
Started by NEVBEN - Last post by N8EKT
A small beam (2 or 3 element) would not only have a more gain, it would have a much wider vertical beamwidth which is more important in your terrain and it would be small enough to disguise.

Also a stacked set of offset dipoles which will produce 9 db gain over a dipole and 17 degree vertical beamwidth would be a good choice.

 on: Today at 05:45:57 PM 
Started by W3BJ - Last post by K0UA
You gotta luv those Windows updates...  not.

 on: Today at 05:35:51 PM 
Started by KW9WK - Last post by VK1AZ
It seems that the various Cobweb designs are peaky and touchy to get tuned Smiley

I built one based on my own folded wire dipole design and spent days tuning it as all the elements react to each other in some fashion but once I got close it was easy to fine tune using the Rigexpert 230zoom.

I used a 1:1 current balun but really should change it to a 1:2 as the resonant dips all seem to come in around 25 +j something. Only 10M is very narrow and not under 2:1 vSWR over most of the band at the feedpoint. 10M has at best 400k bw but I tuned it to my area of interest.
12/15/17/20 all tune fine with the internal antenna tune on the IC7610.

Things move around a little when it gets wet but nothing the internal tuner can't handle though 15M for some reason gets a bit high when wet

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!