[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[IRCA] NE Oregon TPs, Sunday--good for DU
This morning was good for DU reception, one of the best for me for level of
audio on 891. I was up 15 minutes earlier, which seemed to make a difference
for LWBC Radio Rossii--153 poor, 180 weak, 189 weak/medium, 234 poor, 279
weak/medium around 1145 utc. (KAZ--note there are no beacons below 198.)
MW had hets galore, almost every channel up to about 1200 kHz, along with
1548. Audio, all definite or presumed DU: 594 poor DU talk; 738 poor DU
talk; 774 poor/weak DU talk; 837 very poor ?; 855 poor DU talk; 864 very
poor ?; 891 best audio, rising to medium/loud several times, up to 30-45
seconds with woman and man discussing opera in Australia; a second station
playing vocal pop music fading in and out, weak; 1107 very poor ?; 1116 weak
DU talk. 891 the last to fade away around 1250 utc, with the two stations
fading in and out. (First MW audio at 1200 utc.) All in all, an excellent
morning for MW and LWBC audio.
I hope KAZ made the effort to get up and check the band this morning.
Addressing his comments of yesterdsy: 1098 presumed Marshall Islands
carrier is almost always at least a weak het; on good mornings like today it
rises to "loud" and would surely give decent audio if modulation were
present. Today is only the second morning since I've changed over to the
active loops on the Wellbrook broadband phaser so I really need more
comparison checks. Today, when 891 was at medium/loud level on the longwire,
it was weak with much poorer signal to noise ratio on the Wellbrook setup.
When levels were weak on the longwire, the signal was gone on the phaser.
I'm guessing that levels are about the same between the active verticals and
the active loops--I can't directly switch from one to the other for instant
comparisons. Better side lobe suppression that John Bryant observed for the
loop over the vertical is not an issue for me for the TP reception, and I
don't have enough domestic usage to be able to notice a difference there. If
anything, I would say the active verticals give a little better signal
overall.
I have not recently tried using the conventional Misek/Lankford homebrew
phaser with my two parallel longwires, used "over the shoulder" for the TP
reception. I briefly tried it last year with inconclusive results. I have
limited time to try to optimize another "gadget", and am also checking for
LF beacons, where the Wellbrook phaser or the conventional phaser don't
work, so I haven't really done much trying to see if MW levels can be
boosted with the conventional phaser.
I have not noticed 576 kHz as having a het here. This morning I was writing
down the various hets heard, and 576 was not on the list; 567 was, though.
Comparing the Wellbrook broadband phasing system to the conventional
Misek/Lankford phaser--I would class them as more like apples to oranges.
The Wellbrook, you initially set the phasing and balance controls on a
signal as close to 180 degrees in the null (E/W directions, for my
dual-antenna setup), then you just forget about tweaking anything. Just
switch the E or W control as you tune the radio, if you want to check
signals from either direction. Of course the conventional phaser you're
constantly tweaking for best null anytime you tune to a new frequency. The
Wellbrook is "set and forget" for the most part. On domestics, you can tweak
the controls for the absolute best null on some signals, usually ones
considerably away from 0/180 degrees, but otherwise no tweaking is needed
from 530-1700 kHz. John Bryant's various reports in the past using the
Wellbrook phasing system give much better detail than my limited experience
using it on domestics. Once you get your own Wellbrook setup going, it will
be very interesting to hear what you have to say about it.
Steve
NE Oregon
R75, AR7030, longwires, Wellbrook broadband phaser
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx