Elecraft

Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

Classic

List

Threaded

30 messages Options

Guy Olinger K2AV

Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

1) For the low bands, the overwhelming consideration is reduction in near
field losses, both dielectric and I squared R (I2R) losses.

2) We need to remember that for non salt water situations vertically
polarized RF is NOT reflected from dirt and rock. For all intents and
purposes it is absorbed. Vertically polarized reflection enhancement
happens over salt water, but certainly not over rocky or rock-based
surfaces.

3) Feedline loss is an issue for distant antennas, **particularly** what
the loss will become long term, after extended exposure to the environment.

4) On the low bands are 1/4 wave radials are really the great deal on low
bands that ham mythology says they are? We need a counterpoise, and 4 by
1/4 wave radials are only *one* choice with little to recommend it except
simplicity at the feedpoint. The worst thing about many counterpoise
schemes is that they induce current in the ground, and that is loss. The
mechanics that govern the induction are a bit murky and not at all well
known. We need a counterpoise to store electrons for a half cycle. Whether
that device is naturally resonant on frequency only saves you complexity at
the feedpoint. What you will be stuck with permanently is however much LOSS
is invoked by the design.

Again, the word is LOSS. Mitigate loss in your complete antenna *system*
design. Regarding your particular situation:

Stand at your two possible installation points. Look at your most distant
horizon in any important direction. ANYTHING below tree top, or mountain
ridge-top line, even 15, 30, 50 miles away, is severely attenuated, if not
lost to -30, -40 dB effects. If you have a clutterless view to distant
horizon, for vertical polarization this will advantage you the most because
it removes dielectric and I2R lossy clutter in the path to very useful low
angles. Remember that reflection enhancement in your situation only applies
to horizontally polarized antennas.

Designing your antenna, 1) use a counterpoise with least loss from ground
induction, 2) move the RF current maximum up on the vertical conductor, 3)
**expect and prepare yourself** for matching a miscellaneous impedance at
the feedpoint. This misc feed Z is most likely for the best combination of
1) and 2).

If you really are concentrating on efficiency, get the current maximum up
in the air, and use a low ground induction loss counterpoise.

If you go distant installation due to clutter considerations, PAY UP for a
permanent hardline coax feed, unless you are willing to put up ***BARE***
wire open wire feedline you construct yourself. Buryflex flooded coax would
be a medium solution but has all the critter and outdoor accident issues.

Commercial balanced line deteriorates in time. Been there, done that, never
again. Even with the open wire, you can have common mode issues on the
balanced line nearly impossible to rectify, unless you take steps in the
last quarter wave or so before the antenna. The balanced feedline run will
need to be an odd multiple of a quarter wave accounting for velocity
factor.

Common mode current on the line will go almost entirely to loss.

73, Guy K2AV

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016, Dauer, Edward <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So long as antenna discussions on the reflector haven’t been met with the
> “OT” cloture lately, I have an antenna question of a different sort. I am
> contemplating a ¼ wave vertical with four elevated radials for 80 meters.
> My choices for siting it are two – one is near the top of the property
> (about 8,600 feet ASL), somewhat in the clear, and within 100 feet from the
> operating position. The other is in a meadow near the property boundary,
> which is much more open and a just a bit higher – but it has two other
> significant characteristics. One is that the land slopes away from that
> site, over about half the compass from NNW to SSE, at a slope of 10 to 15%
> for about a half mile.
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes Stewart-2

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

I'll make a few closing comments, as I suspect the moderator will be cutting
this off soon.

When I used 45 degrees, that was a number out of a hat for illustrative purposes
only. The point being that we hams tend to think that we can "force" the TOA to
be lower, and lower is always "better." NM7M (SK) in his book, "The Big Guns
Guide to Low-Band Propagation" mentions the case where a low angle signal (10
degrees) can't penetrate the E-layer and needs many more hops than a higher
angle signal that does penetrate and gets to the F-layer were fewer hops are
necessary to cover the same path.

Eric, KL7AJ, has a couple of thought-provoking papers in QST that have a
different take as well. They are, "Gimme and X, Gimme an O", QST, Dec. 2010,
pp 33-37 and "Three Wrong Assumptions about the Ionosphere", QST, Mar 2012, pp
40-42.

Carl, K9LA, in a presentation
(http://wwrof.org/webinar-archive/a-long-overdue-review-of-gray-line-propagation-on-the-low-bands-by-carl-luetzelschwab-k9la/)
shows an example where IONCAP says there is no (usable) path between two
stations, yet QSOs are made.

Wes

On 7/13/2016 5:48 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> I've played around with VOACAP a lot in the past. Possibly you want to argue
> with it's validity, but I can tell you that the percentage of time it shows
> signals optimally arriving at 45 degrees is much less than the percentage of
> time they arrive closer to 10 degrees ... certainly for any kind of DX work
> and most of the time for domestic work here in the U.S. That depends upon the
> band, of course, and also the time of the opening (optimum angles are lower at
> openings and closings versus mid-opening), but in general the best TOA's area
> lot lower than most hams assume.
>
> If low takeoff angles weren't generally desirable our hobby has several
> generations of very misguided members who have squandered millions of dollars.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 7/13/2016 5:02 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
>> Jim, I've looked at your stuff in the past.
>>
>> But, "improvement" is in the eye of the beholder. The ionosphere determines
>> the optimum TOA, not the antenna. Taking heroic measures to get the max TOA
>> down to 10 degrees (a near impossibility over dirt) when the signals are
>> arriving at 45 degrees is hardly optimum.
>>
>> Anecdotal evidence is mostly worthless but for what it's worth, I have 48
>> entities worked on 160 meters from here in the desert using no more than 500
>> watts into an inverted-V, apex at 45' ends at 6'. Everyone "knows" that this
>> can't possibly work because it radiates straight up. (Except that it doesn't)
>>
>> Wes

Jim Brown-10

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

On Fri,7/15/2016 10:07 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:
> shows an example where IONCAP says there is no (usable) path between
> two stations, yet QSOs are made.

Wes,

There are exceptions to every generalization, even when the
generalization is good most of the time. I recall some well known person
who had come up poor but was no longer saying "I've been poor and I've
been rich, and rich is better." :)

Sure, there are times when a higher angle path is better than a low
angle path (or exists when the low angle path is not present). But
N6BV's statistical data for paths to various locations shows low angle
paths to be better far more often than higher angle paths. It also shows
high angle paths some smaller percentage of the time.

The HUGE problem with using the concept of "takeoff angle," and ONLY the
takeoff angle to describe and evaluate antenna performance is that by
looking at only one curve at a time, it fails to compare one antenna or
mounting height to another. Again, my work looking at the effects of
antenna height in a "flatland" QTH have all plotted the complete
vertical pattern ON THE SAME GRAPH, which clearly shows that for the
range of vertical angles where we can use the ionosphere, higher is
better! N6BV presents this quite well as a "figure of merit" for the
plots of his elevation studies in HFTA, while also showing the complete
vertical data.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

briancom

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

Guys,

There is another issue here.

That is :

Just because ones antenna pattern is inferior to an optimum one by 5 or
even 20 db at the best arrival angle, that doesn't mean there is zero
energy at the most important arrival angles. It just means there is less.

QRPers often work the same stations as QRO guys. You see it all the time
in contests. Likewise guys with high radiation angle antennas do work
DX. Maybe just not always the really rare ones, or as many or as quickly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be more interesting to discuss something like $/db to get to
closer to optimum. Going from low dipole to a higher one might cost
zero to a couple hundred and gain 3 db at about $10-$100/db. Going from
that higher dipole to something directive that picks up 4 db more might
cost a couple kilobucks - $200-500/db. Going from this directive array
to something that picks up another 3 db might cost 5 to 10 kilobucks.
Now you're at > $1000/db. Diminishing returns can happen quickly.

Desktop dB are near the cheapest. One can pickup 10 db (from 100 w) for
about $100-200/db by buying a used amp. Desktop dB can be easier to
keep "in the air" too.
--------------------------------------
So what is that extra db worth to you? Real world constrains besides
money often limit what's possible too.

Paper and electricity is cheaper than hardware. Learn how to use EZNEC
or another antenna modeling program. Spend pennies/per bad new antenna
design rather than big bucks. Go after the cheap dB first. Debunk the
myths about magic or folklore antennas that waste time and money.

Don't forget feedline loss. One example was a local who was trying to
work satellites using 50' of RG58 feedline. Switching him over to
LMR-400 doubled his uplink radiated power and improved reception by even
more.

Read all you can. For example, K9YC's paper referenced in this thread
illustrates how difficult it is to make a vertical work as well as even
reasonable height dipole on the higher frequency bands. The ground
reflection gain of a horizontal antenna (event a zig zag one) is hard to
overcome.

73 de Brian/K3KO

On 7/15/2016 18:02 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Fri,7/15/2016 10:07 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:
>> shows an example where IONCAP says there is no (usable) path between
>> two stations, yet QSOs are made.
>
> Wes,
>
> There are exceptions to every generalization, even when the
> generalization is good most of the time. I recall some well known person
> who had come up poor but was no longer saying "I've been poor and I've
> been rich, and rich is better." :)
>
> Sure, there are times when a higher angle path is better than a low
> angle path (or exists when the low angle path is not present). But
> N6BV's statistical data for paths to various locations shows low angle
> paths to be better far more often than higher angle paths. It also shows
> high angle paths some smaller percentage of the time.
>
> The HUGE problem with using the concept of "takeoff angle," and ONLY the
> takeoff angle to describe and evaluate antenna performance is that by
> looking at only one curve at a time, it fails to compare one antenna or
> mounting height to another. Again, my work looking at the effects of
> antenna height in a "flatland" QTH have all plotted the complete
> vertical pattern ON THE SAME GRAPH, which clearly shows that for the
> range of vertical angles where we can use the ionosphere, higher is
> better! N6BV presents this quite well as a "figure of merit" for the
> plots of his elevation studies in HFTA, while also showing the complete
> vertical data.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

On Fri,7/15/2016 12:16 PM, brian wrote:
> It might be more interesting to discuss something like $/db to get to
> closer to optimum. Going from low dipole to a higher one might cost
> zero to a couple hundred and gain 3 db at about $10-$100/db.

You will find exactly that analysis here.

http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

Also, several changes of a dB or two add up. Anyone who's ever tried to
make QSOs over a difficult path in a contest can tell you that as little
as 2dB can be the difference between making the QSO and the other
station CQing in your face.. Years ago, our NCCC resident statistician,
N6ZFO, even managed to assign a percentage increase in Sweepstakes
scores to a dB. In my station, I've worked to squeeze every dB out if
that I can -- everything from antenna height to a better feedline to
more accurately reading TX power (I use N8LP's power meter, which allows
me to get right to the limit, whether it's 1.5kW or 5W).

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Alan Bloom

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

On 07/15/2016 11:02 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> There are exceptions to every generalization, even when the
> generalization is good most of the time.

"All generalizations are wrong."

Alan N1AL

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Phil Wheeler-2

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

Including that one? :-)

Phil W7OX

On 7/15/16 2:06 PM, Alan Bloom wrote:
> On 07/15/2016 11:02 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> There are exceptions to every generalization,
>> even when the
>> generalization is good most of the time.
>
> "All generalizations are wrong."
>
> Alan N1AL

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Rick WA6NHC-2

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

No. That was a specific statement. The general version would read
"Most generalizations..." Alan used 'All' which is a specific.

Ah the vagaries of language...

Rick nhc

On 7/15/2016 2:46 PM, Phil Wheeler wrote:

> Including that one? :-)
>
> Phil W7OX
>
> On 7/15/16 2:06 PM, Alan Bloom wrote:
>> On 07/15/2016 11:02 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>
>>> There are exceptions to every generalization, even when the
>>> generalization is good most of the time.
>>
>> "All generalizations are wrong."
>>
>> Alan N1AL
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

David Gilbert

Re: Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

In reply to this post by briancom

Agree with your points. I've said for a couple of decades now that one
of the least expensive ways to improve a modest station (assuming one
has at least a decent antenna) is to add an amplifier. Lots cheaper
than a bigger tower and a bigger antenna.

Also, to your point about arrival angles ... HFTA calculates a "figure
or merit" for several common paths. N6BV (the author of HFTA) ran a few
thousand simulations in VOACAP between various parts of the world for
the parameter TANGLE ... the optimum takeoff angle for that path. He ran
it for every month of the year over a full sunspot cycle (typical solar
fluxes) for each path to generate a statistical profile of the
normalized signal strength for each takeoff angle. I believe the data
for those profiles is included with the ARRL Antenna Book. HFTA's
"figure of merit" for a particular antenna over a particular terrain
overlays the calculated radiation pattern over that VOACAP statistical
profile of takeoff angles and sums the combination for each angle.

For example, N6BV ran 121 TANGLE calculations (12 months and 11 years)
from W7 to Europe, compiling the signal strength at every degree of
elevation for each of the 121 runs. Adding up the strengths for each
angle and dividing by 121 gives the statistical profile for the TANGLE
calculation. Overlaying the HFTA radiation pattern for the terrain
profile pointing from W7 to Europe onto the TANGLE profile, and then
adding up the result for each degree, gives the HFTA Figure of Merit.
The net result gives an interesting assessment of the antenna/terrain
for a particular path taking into account an entire sunspot cycle.

That being said, TANGLE is an empirically generated projection based
upon actual data taken during the International Geophysical Year and
other times, and one of the key scientists who worked on VOCAP and
adapted it for general use (Greg Hand) has pointed out that of all the
20 or so parameters that VOACAP can produce, TANGLE is probably the
least rigorously substantiated. Still, I think that HFTA Figure of
Merit offers a useful assessment of the combination of horizontally
polarized antennas and terrain for a desired path. I've used HFTA quite
a bit, and my on the air results subjectively correlate quite well with it.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 7/15/2016 12:16 PM, brian wrote:

> Guys,
>
> There is another issue here.
>
> That is :
>
> Just because ones antenna pattern is inferior to an optimum one by 5
> or even 20 db at the best arrival angle, that doesn't mean there is
> zero energy at the most important arrival angles. It just means there
> is less.
>
> QRPers often work the same stations as QRO guys. You see it all the
> time in contests. Likewise guys with high radiation angle antennas do
> work DX. Maybe just not always the really rare ones, or as many or as
> quickly.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> It might be more interesting to discuss something like $/db to get to
> closer to optimum. Going from low dipole to a higher one might cost
> zero to a couple hundred and gain 3 db at about $10-$100/db. Going
> from that higher dipole to something directive that picks up 4 db more
> might cost a couple kilobucks - $200-500/db. Going from this
> directive array to something that picks up another 3 db might cost 5
> to 10 kilobucks. Now you're at > $1000/db. Diminishing returns can
> happen quickly.
>
> Desktop dB are near the cheapest. One can pickup 10 db (from 100 w)
> for about $100-200/db by buying a used amp. Desktop dB can be easier
> to keep "in the air" too.
> --------------------------------------
> So what is that extra db worth to you? Real world constrains besides
> money often limit what's possible too.
>
> Paper and electricity is cheaper than hardware. Learn how to use
> EZNEC or another antenna modeling program. Spend pennies/per bad new
> antenna design rather than big bucks. Go after the cheap dB first.
> Debunk the myths about magic or folklore antennas that waste time and
> money.
>
> Don't forget feedline loss. One example was a local who was trying to
> work satellites using 50' of RG58 feedline. Switching him over to
> LMR-400 doubled his uplink radiated power and improved reception by
> even more.
>
> Read all you can. For example, K9YC's paper referenced in this thread
> illustrates how difficult it is to make a vertical work as well as
> even reasonable height dipole on the higher frequency bands. The
> ground reflection gain of a horizontal antenna (event a zig zag one)
> is hard to overcome.
>
> 73 de Brian/K3KO
>
>
>
> On 7/15/2016 18:02 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Fri,7/15/2016 10:07 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:
>>> shows an example where IONCAP says there is no (usable) path between
>>> two stations, yet QSOs are made.
>>
>> Wes,
>>
>> There are exceptions to every generalization, even when the
>> generalization is good most of the time. I recall some well known person
>> who had come up poor but was no longer saying "I've been poor and I've
>> been rich, and rich is better." :)
>>
>> Sure, there are times when a higher angle path is better than a low
>> angle path (or exists when the low angle path is not present). But
>> N6BV's statistical data for paths to various locations shows low angle
>> paths to be better far more often than higher angle paths. It also shows
>> high angle paths some smaller percentage of the time.
>>
>> The HUGE problem with using the concept of "takeoff angle," and ONLY the
>> takeoff angle to describe and evaluate antenna performance is that by
>> looking at only one curve at a time, it fails to compare one antenna or
>> mounting height to another. Again, my work looking at the effects of
>> antenna height in a "flatland" QTH have all plotted the complete
>> vertical pattern ON THE SAME GRAPH, which clearly shows that for the
>> range of vertical angles where we can use the ionosphere, higher is
>> better! N6BV presents this quite well as a "figure of merit" for the
>> plots of his elevation studies in HFTA, while also showing the complete
>> vertical data.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Guy Olinger K2AV

Sloping Terrain vs Feedline Losses

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Jim Brown <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> Also, several changes of a dB or two add up.

Oh Yeah.

Particularly on any band where it's common to have poor but open paths.

Oh Yeah.

Sing it again, Sam....

These last few dB's count on 160 particularly, just about all the time, on
80 an awful lot of the time. These are bands where even a merely moderate
loss can put you in the noise at the other end.

The real expenditure of resources needs to be with the grey matter. As one
evil friend persists in saying regardless of who it offends,
"Don't-do-dumb-sh*t doesn't cost any money".

RF loss is mostly self-inflicted.

Maybe because looking at model patterns, we think we can get that predicted
gain just by throwing up some wires in the same shape. But the model is
missing the implementation and the environment.

We have proven cases of self-inflicted 12 dB total losses to an antenna
system. You *can* buy an amp to cancel out the 12 dB, that would be the
same as 100 watts after fixing the 12 dB. Yeah, *measured* that one. That
bad surely *is* uncommon. But would you take total 6 or 7 dB loss
eliminated? That happens a fair amount.

My evil friend also says "Fix stupid before spending money". He must have
laughed for 15 minutes when I told him the 12 dB story. He could barely
breathe.

Of course that's really no fun if it was you or I that just did stupid, and
my evil friend says "Fix stupid before spending money". Grrrr.

But loss is loss. In some professions it's "First, do no harm." In antenna
system design and implementation it's "First, do no loss."

There are some exceptions. Distance to antennas and cost/suitability of
feedline is a balancing act. Just do your best. At least try to quantify
it, and mull on it for a while. Read up. Talk to someone who is not inside
your own brain. We all have our personal blind spots, and good friends who
will tell us the truth are priceless.

Just one example, one local ham (not the evil friend) put up ON4UN style 4
x 1/8 wave raised radial systems for his phased pair of 160m verticals
using #14 THHN. He did not strip the insulation. UV destroyed the
insulation in only two years which had deteriorated to a rather strange
appearance, but "something" was left of the insulation still hanging on the
#14.

The *measured* effective series resistance of the two radial systems was 18
and 21 ohms. The radials were replaced with BARE #12. After that the
*measured* effective series resistance of the two radial systems was 4 and
5 ohms respectively. The R component of the repaired system feed of the
vertical with the 5 ohm radials was now 38 ohms. Calculating backward, the
16 ohms of unnecessary deteriorated insulation series resistance would have
produced a feed R of 54 ohms and a completely amazing 1.5 dB loss caused by
the THHN insulation on the four 1/8 wave elevated radial wires.

We don't know whether the THHN was that lossy from the get-go, as this
parameter was not measured right after the THHN initially went up. It could
have gotten better with the deterioration. We will never know.

The local ham bought the THHN from his local home improvement store, just
like me and the rest of us, for the reduced bulk cost, which is typically
half the cost of the same length of bare wire from outlets who will
actually sell you spools of bare #12. Said local ham is witness to a
stripping technique I used that will allow you to strip the wire with a
dull pocket knife at walking speed.

Back to my evil friend, who says "Fix stupid before......" Grrr....

I will say positively that stripping THHN to create bare copper will
eliminate certain losses. One really should consider it.

My evil friend says "Leaving THHN insulation on wire used in antenna
systems is stupid." Go shoot HIM.

You should see his list of "stupids". Grrr, Grrr, and triple Grrr. It's
hardly just leaving the insulation on THHN used for antenna wire.

K9YC (not the evil friend) says "Also, several changes of a dB or two add
up." And he surely is right, especially on the low bands. They do add up.
Death by a thousand paper cuts.

Used to hear a thing on TV a lot, "Do you know where your children are?"
Remember that?

Do you know where your losses are?

Be just as irritated about a 2 dB loss out in the feed and antenna systems
as you would be if your supposedly 1500 watt brick-on-key
super-pileup-stomper amp, for which you just spent multi-kilo-bucks, would
only load up to 950 watts, no matter the drive power.

Oh yeah, 2 dB loss in an antenna system used for QRP? On any given day that
can be the difference between weak-but-heard and no contact.

The low band contesting season is just a few short months away, and
approaching at the same speed as Christmas and New Year's. Go eliminate a
loss or two.

73, Guy K2AV.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]