BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Martin G. McCormick" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 30 May 2015 16:21:23 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
	In North-central Oklahoma, 6 had a weak opening to the
mid Atlantic region which is about par for the course on
Thursday, May 28 around 02:00 Z.

	I don't have a transmitter for 6 but do have a good
receiver and can hear SSB, CW, AM and FM.

	I would classify this opening as puny. I heard no CW
QSO's or even any CW beacons. I also heard no AM or FM at all.
The band was mostly dead with two or 3 signals audible near the
low end.

	One thing to mention. If you want to DX on 6, your best
antenna is probably circularly polarized because sky-wave
signals become circularly polarized when bouncing off the
ionosphere no matter how they started out. There is a "QST"
article about this topic from a couple of years ago. The way I
understood it, it is as if the polarization of the signal spins
so a circular polarization picks up as much of the signal as one
can hope to get. Obviously, if you had a stack of a hundred
circularized elements, you will really snag that DX, but the
idea was that the signal arrives at your QTH spinning so crossed
dipoles with the appropriate phasing harness is more efficient
than just a dipole.

	I can't quickly give you the reference information for
the article but the fellow who wrote it built a circular antenna
for WWV at ten MHZ out of two crossed dipoles and said that it
did work better than a single dipole.

Martin WB5AGZ

ATOM RSS1 RSS2