Goodbye RSGB, Hello ARRL.

Well, the Cornwall debacle between the RSGB and OFCOM was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Having never found the RSGB representing my particular views, concerns and interests, the latest 'rule-by-committee' rubbish was just too much, and I cancelled my membership over the weekend. 

So long, RSGB...

Already, this is proving to be an interesting exercise.  As soon as I ditched the RSGB, I joined the ARRL.  In return for about £20 per annum less than it costs me to join the RSGB, not only am I a member but also have 'QST' magazine delivered to my door each month!  Compared to the dull, dry writing by elderly and establishment figures in the RSGB's 'RadCom' magazine, QST is clear, practical and enthusiastic.

Add to that the instant ability to log in to the website and start enjoying member benefits, and a nice ARRL-based e-mail address and, already, it is feeling much more welcoming and practical than the RSGB's 'old man' club approach.


Sure, the ARRL will not be representing radio here in the UK.  But, then, neither very much is the RSGB.  By its own admission, it has given up lobbying for improvements to amateur radio rights in the UK, and is really only manifest in the magazine and some loose affiliation scheme with clubs around the country.

In the end, this is a journey.  I hope that a proper alternative that puts committees and society 'big wigs' to one side and members' interests to the fore will eventually emerge to oust the RSGB.  In this day of new media, it's surprising this hasn't already happened.  It might be I join some other society, like the European one.  Time will tell.


And, yes, I do take offence that a simple, member-based hobby society has a Managing Director earning in excess - possibly well in excess - of £60,000 a year.

An OFCOM 'Fudge' and an RSGB Win

After a year of making a mess of things, OFCOM, the UK communications regulator, has reached its final decision on the use of a permanent regional locator for Cornwall.

A Cornish fudge, made by OFCOM and the RSGB.  Can be difficult to digest.

The basic outcome is that, having changed its position a couple of times since last summer, OFCOM is only allowing a temporary RSL to be used - which has a maximum duration of one year.

The decision letter can be found here.

This will undoubtedly be seen by those running the RSGB as a success story.  Having supported OFCOM objections from the outset, and made several of its own, the RSGB has prevailed in preventing a new, permanent RSL for Cornwall.  This is despite the official National Minority Status granted to Cornwall by none other than the UK government.

Personally, I think this highlights three things:

(1) The RSGB used the argument that its members had not been consulted throughout this debacle.  Despite that, it supported initial OFCOM objections and put forward its own objections.  You will note OFCOM say, very clearly, that the RGSB "challenged" their decision to award a permanent RSL. So, there is now no ambiguity that the RSGB did, contrary to its own statements to this blog, object to the concept. Lack of consultation was never a bar to the RSGB in objecting.  It is reasonable to ask whether, therefore, the RSGB is properly accountable and democratic.  The society has even told me that they pick and choose what they consult on.  That may be constitutionally valid, but it isn't properly democratic.

(2) There has been a clear assertion by the RSGB that "Cornwall is an integral part of England".  This fails to have regard for the National Minority Status.  It also has no regard for the particular Celtic history of the area, and for most people interested in the story, would be seen as insulting, bordering on intolerance.

(3) OFCOM ought to lose all sense of credibility.  It first objected and refused the RSL (within five days).  Then it supported the RSL, writing to all Cornish MPs in that vein, and issuing an offer letter to Poldhu in September 2014.  Then it changed its mind, retracting the offer, folding under 'pressure', such as it was, from what appears to have been a very few bigwigs within the RSGB. Its final outcome is nothing other than an all-too-typical political fudge, where it can claim to have both supported Cornwall and the RSGB.  Ironically, some of the best, edible fudge is found in Cornwall, which I encourage you to buy.

The RSGB has, merely by stating a never-specified number of people complained to it, managed to both get OFCOM to make a u-turn upon a u-turn, and a complete fool of itself.

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming for OFCOM to formulate a rule - currently absent - that specifies how RSLs are awarded?  Here's my stab at it, in real time: "Permanent RSLs are available only to those regions within the UK designated as having National Minority Status, or where the historical narrative is so unambiguous as to have effectively granted the same."  The rubbish about everybody jumping on the bandwagon was always a red herring, and both OFCOM and the RSGB know it.

Unlike that left by real Cornish fudge, this episode leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  It yet again raises questions about the way in which the RSGB is run, and for what purpose.

Given that the RSGB only really provides what I find to be a rather poor magazine in return for the membership fee, and that it acts in the way this nonsense has shown, I really will be pulling the plug and terminating my membership this week.

The only positive thing in this debacle is that OFCOM identify the first use of RSLs as dating back to the 1950s.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, this demolishes the ridiculous view put forward by the RSGB that RSLs were limited to those parts of the UK which had their own governments and laws (which date back less than 20 years.)

Oh, and one more thing about OFCOM is that, in claiming it has no mandate to award RSLs, it doesn't explain why radio licensing custom and practice, unlike other areas of law,  is not used as a means of establishing how things go on in the future.  Indeed, if OFCOM doesn't have this competence, how could it recently award a 'C' RSL for Wales as a politically-correct sop to bilingualism in that nation (of which I am, incidentally, a welsh-speaking part), when it has, up until then, been firmly an Anglo-centric 'W'?

I haven't asked the RSGB the tricky question as to whether it now welcomes or decries the refusal to award a permanent RSL for Cornwall.  Whatever it says, I'm really not interested; the best you can do in cases like this is refuse to recognise those who claim to represent the radio community.

And for an example of the kind of childish invective out there amongst hams themselves, here is an extract from the Chiltern DX Club forum, which really does it little service at all:

China Rules!

Well, there was a time when I thought E-bay was a great way to bring the nation's items to my door.

More recently, things have gone much more international, with extremely cheap electronic products available not through expensive middle men, but directly from the manufacturers in China.  Now E-bay is even better!

Imagine that I could buy a stepper motor controller for my magnetic loop capacitor for just £2.99!  Ha ha!  This is just great; it's even better than an Arduino or Raspberry Pi shield!  Obviously, I hope the people making this product are treated reasonably well, otherwise I would be very unhappy.

This is where I got my controller, complete with remote control, for this fantastic price.  The service was absolutely perfect - about a week or so from order to delivery - from China!!

Cornish Locator - Announcement Due?

Will common sense prevail?  Image: Wikicommons.

Communications 'chatter' suggests there is an announcement to be made on the 'K' RSL for Cornwall very shortly.

Stay tuned...

"Bye for a Call", and other nonsense.

A lot of people on the ham bands are, like me, using English as their second language.  As a rule, they use that language quite properly, and stick to good RT procedure.

So, why is it that I regularly hear G stations - that is, stations based in England - calling CQ in a CB-like manner, ending with "... and bye for a call"?   [Now one of them has QSYd from 20m to 12m, obviously calling 'CQ 12, CQ 12 a' metres, bye for any call."  Idiot.]

It's pathetic.  It's out of date.  It's not how CQ is meant to be called.  Why declare the band you're using?  I mean, it's not usually the case that someone calling CQ spontaneously finds themselves on 70cm, is it?

Not the right image...

And, whilst I'm on a rant (again), why is it that the majority of RTTY users don't understand that the use of LSB means their noisy garble is regularly transmitted over other digital modes, just a handful of kHz below their QRG?

Go back to the blackboard, and take pride in your operating, why don't you?

'K for Cornwall' - We Didn't Oppose it.

Today, I received a response from Graham Coomber, following an invitation for the RSGB to answer as to their position during the 'K' regional secondary locator debacle.

Rightly, Mr. Coomber notes the society's "frustration in the extreme" that OFCOM have been somewhat uncertain of their position, and taken a long time to reach a final outcome - having already written to all Cornish MPs that they supported the new RSL in principle.

Handle with care...

I was very surprised to receive, however, the following words from Mr. Coomber, words I think that need to be tested against the evidence:

"The RSGB has not expressed strong opposition to the "K" for Cornwall concept"

Mr. Coomber also says:

"We have shared with Ofcom some of the potential implications if they were to issue a permanent RSL, but have also pointed out that there is recent precedent for allocating RSLs on a temporary basis and suggested that they might take this into consideration in their deliberations."

True enough, there is no explicit statement that says "The RSGB opposes strongly the 'K' for Cornwall concept."

But, what has the overall response from the RSGB been?

If we look at the OFCOM freedom of information request response, we see the following comments:


2014 October 29, RSGB to OFCOM.

"the Poldhu club kindly shared with me your subsequent response to [redacted] of 17th June 2014 in which you explained your reasons why Ofcom “are not prepared to designate “K” as a permanent RSL for Cornwall”. I have to say that I found your arguments at that time entirely persuasive and in line with the views expressed by the RSGB representatives at our meeting."  [my emphasis]

One might reasonably interpret those words as opposition, not support.

From the same, 29/10/14 document, RSGB to OFCOM:

"Our interpretation (and I believe the custom and practice over many years) is that the “different constituent parts” to which you refer are the separate nation states, separated legally and governmentally from England. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey all meet this criterion. Cornwall, however, will continue for the foreseeable future to be an integral part of England, and so to allocate a permanent RSL to it will set a precedent." [my emphasis]

Again, the overall nature of that part of the response indicates opposition, not support.

Moving on again in the same document:

"We, therefore, do not believe Ofcom was under any legal obligation to accede to this request and indeed the implication in your email that, had there been the risk of other cases, you would have refused this request, confirms that."

Pretty opposed, I'd say.

Coming to the end of the 29th October document, the letter concludes with:

"We believe that if Cornwall is allocated its own RSL this will have repercussions far beyond the boundaries of that county."

Hardly supportive words - which are indeed absent from any of the correspondence I've seen.

In response to the question: has the RSGB ever carried out a consultation of its members on the specific 'K' RSL issue?  the answer from Mr. Coomber is that it has not, adding that, as a result of this, the society:

"has not been in a position to offer a considered response."

As I have pointed out previously, this lack of consultation didn't stop the higher-ups in the RSGB making a case that can only reasonably be described as opposition.  And it did so in a manner that was considered - it uses at least three different lines of argument why the 'K' RSL would cause problems, as it saw things.


Whether it was "strong opposition" or not is rather academic - the RSGB does not seem to have expressed a positive view anywhere, save for supporting the idea of a very different, temporary "special event" RSL similar to the Scottish Homecoming RSL.  That again can only really be said to be opposition to, rather than support for the alternative, permanent RSL.

If we flip this on its side and look at what the RSGB could have said, it might have taken the following stances:

•  the RSGB hasn't consulted its members, is concerned about OFCOM's approach, and has no view to express until the consultation is conducted and complete.

 There is no indication in documents that the RSGB ever took this position.

• the RSGB is sensitive to cultural identity within the UK and beyond, and recognises the importance of National Minorty Status granted to Cornwall, and that this is based on sound arguments based on the culture and history of the area.  We welcome the increased attention this will bring to the region, but wish to canvass opinion amongst our members.

There is no indication of this diplomacy anywhere, and indeed, the society is clear that it views Cornwall as an "integral part of England", suggesting it had little regard for what the competent authority of the government has already granted to the region, and appears insensitive to the importance of identity.

So, sorry Mr. Coomber, but I think  the evidence for opposition heavily outweighs any suggestion that the RSGB was in any way supportive of 'K' for Kernow.

And, in concluding, I should advise readers that in this second round of correspondence with the RSGB, I gave the society another opportunity - which it did not take advantage of - to provide the exact value of the  "significant" number of members it claimed in various publications had expressed concern about the 'K' for Kernow issue (and not the wider RSLs issues.)

Really, is this Good Enough?

I like the concept of the RSGB.  I don't like the way it goes about things.

Above all, I don't like the way the most senior pay at the society is hidden from those who provide it with a large fraction of its income, and without whom the society would be moribund and insolvent.

Adhering strictly to private company accounting law, the RSGB chooses to tell its members only that one person - we can safely assume it's the General Manager - earns "more than" £60,000 per annum.

Now, that could be £60,001.  Or it could be £100,000.  We don't know.

I think it is utterly unacceptable that a member-based hobby society chooses only to tell those members this minimal amount of information on senior pay.

I want to lead the call to demand the RSGB publishes its senior pay in the interest of showing it is not again slipping into the non-transparent ways that permitted allegedly criminal conduct to hold sway under previous management.

It's all very well to say that the accounting and data protection laws only require this basic level of information.  None of those laws prevent any individuals from doing the right thing and granting their consent to publication of their salary.  

If "lessons are to be learned", as is always bleated, then let them be shown to have been learned - and soon.

OFCOM-RSGB Information Released

A few weeks ago, I covered the rather peculiar and not-very-clear situation that had developed over 2014 and continuing into 2015, over the regional secondary locator 'K' for Cornwall. 

For the uninitiated, a regional secondary locator (RSL) tells people all over the world where in the UK one is based. Wales, for example, has GW, Scotland GM, NI has GI.  My call, then, is MW1CFN. England has no RSL - it's just 'G'.

This post provides the response provided today under a Freedom of Information Act request, which reveals more of the RSGB's attitude towards Cornwall and its bid for an RSL of its own.

The Cornish contingent had drummed up very wide support from the community, including cross-party political support, for the 'K for Cornwall' campaign.  The campaign itself was spurred on by the formal recognition of Cornwall by the government as an official minority group, identifiable with a geographical region.  People who understand British history - especially that of the Celtic nations - will immediately understand why this is both logical and important.  Sadly, not everybody in the UK is quite so clued-up, and that seems to have included the RSGB. 

For itself, I understand the Poldhu club members hadn't conceived of their campaign as something that necessitated RSGB-wide consultation, but were later anxious to embrace democracy and subjected the idea to closer scrutiny by the society.  However, to my knowledge, such a member opinion survey has never been carried out, with the whole idea of getting the RSGB involved seeming, in retrospect, a terrible mistake.

Was the RSGB flying the flag for Cornwall?  Image: Western Morning News.

So, Cornwall was being recognised as a part of the Celtic nations, something enjoyed already by the Scots, Welsh and Irish since anyone can remember.

And that is where the troubles began.  From the very scant information indeed made available by the RSGB through its meeting minutes, it seemed there was some pretty fierce opposition from somewhere to the whole affair.  It's not at all clear who was opposed to it - or how many.  More on that later...

Unfortunately for OFCOM, it came to support the new RSL - changing its position in October 2014 from not supporting it just a few weeks earlier - at the time when a consultation on licence matters - which might have included the new RSL - was underway.  That, certainly, was a valid objection from the RSGB's point of view.  There was also confusion due to the suggestion by OFCOM than RSLs should become optional.

But, by the time the RSGB opposition was being made clear, OFCOM had already written to every Cornish MP to tell them the good news about 'K' for Kernow. 

But my sympathy with the society only goes so far.  In June - not long before it started complaining - the RSGB minutes only state that the Cornish had submitted their papers to OFCOM - via the RSGB - and no mention of bad timing is made there.

In the January 2015 minutes, the RSGB was using words like "escalation" within OFCOM to press home its point.  OFCOM, for its part, was waiting for legal advice about something.  It's unclear what leverage the RSGB actually has in order to push OFCOM into doing its bidding, but the society clearly felt it could try.  It was on seeing rather banshee-like terms like this that I started asking myself: what on earth was going on?

The response to this matter came a few weeks ago from Graham Coomber on behalf of the RSGB.  In short summary, it says that the RSGB was solely concerned with the decision-making process, which it wanted clarified.

Throughout, and including in the documents that follow, the RSGB claimed strongly that a "significant number" of members were said to be concerned about this specific issue (and not the wider issue of optional RSLs), hence pressuring the society to get a response from OFCOM as to why it had changed its position from not supporting the 'K' RSL, to supporting it - and telling all Cornish MPs that this was the case.

When asked by this blog a month ago, Graham Coomber was unable to provide the number of members that had made representations, and no figure has since emerged.

Given the reliance of the society on these "significant numbers", this lack of information on how many were pressurising the society is surprising.  One is, inevitably, led to believe that, if it was relying on member pressure as an argument to press OFCOM for so long, yet it now cannot tell us how many those were, those numbers were probably well short of "significant", and/or that those who did write in were mainly concerned about the optional RSL idea, not the Cornish issue itself.

What the FoIA release from OFCOM shows is a pretty strong set of representations from the RSGB.  Perhaps most revealing of all is the following from the society to OFCOM:

"As you will recall, this matter was first discussed at our regular forum meeting on 12th June 2014. The minutes state that “Ofcom advised that policy and practical concerns were such that the request is unlikely to be agreed”, a position that we agreed verbally to support. We stated at the time that we had not consulted our Members about the proposal and, to the best of our knowledge, there had been no wider discussion of the proposal." [my emphasis]

Taking all the documents into account, I can agree with the RSGB that OFCOM, as its own representatives accept, were a little unclear about the decision first to not grant, and then to grant the new RSL, and that contact was sometimes lax.  In that, OFCOM had struggled somewhat with definitions of what minority groups were, and then rationally worked their way in a reasonable time through to the very proper decision that Cornwall was a special case, unlikely to be repeated in other areas of the UK.

What I am very surprised indeed about is the fact that the RSGB's position was contentment with OFCOM's initial stance not to approve the new RSL for Cornwall.  Indeed, June the 12th was remarkable for being when the Poldhu (Cornish) club say the submission was put in via the RSGB, and also being the date the RSGB agreed with OFCOM's position that it would likely refuse to grant it - a refusal that was issued five days later.

One is led to wonder why the RSGB asked Poldhu to submit the application through their offices, only to sit at a meeting with OFCOM and object to it - even though there was no member mandate for the RSGB to take that position.  I understand from good sources that later submissions on the K for Kernow issue were made directly to OFCOM and not through the RSGB, although the society had "approved" this route.  It's not clear whether bypassing the RSGB was an indication of dissent at Poldhu.

From the rather insistent response by the RSGB, it seems that it was certainly not content with the new RSL subsequently being granted in October 2014.

This opposition to the new locator is emphasised later in the same RSGB response:

"Our interpretation (and I believe the custom and practice over many years) is that the “different constituent parts” to which you refer are the separate nation states, separated legally and governmentally from England. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey all meet this criterion. Cornwall, however, will continue for the foreseeable future to be an integral part of England, and so to allocate a permanent RSL to it will set a precedent."

Sadly for the RSGB, it was not until fairly recently that Scotland (1999), Northern Ireland (1999) and Wales (2006) had their own more-or-less fully fledged governments, who operate in compliance with UK-wide law, not entirely dislocated from it.  All this devolution came very long after regional locators had been in use in those areas.  For example, I was granted MW (Wales) in 1997 - a fully nine years before the Act that established the Welsh Government, and two years before the more administrative body of the Welsh Assembly.

So the RSGB's understanding and interpretation was fundamentally flawed.

What the RSGB failed to comprehend throughout, I think, is that the national minority status granted to Cornwall was a very big deal for the Cornish.  Relating directly to their identity, it's something they have been chasing for a long time, and, just as has been the case earlier for the other national regions of the UK, has often met with strong and persistent resistance from the English establishment.  It's a sad thing to see the RSGB apparently perpetuating that resistance, albeit, ultimately it would seem, to no good effect.  This is how they put it:

"From our understanding of the Framework Convention on National Minorities, there appears no imperative for an RSL in this case unless it can be shown that RSLs are normally used to designate sub-country groups, which they are not. We, therefore, do not believe Ofcom was under any legal obligation to accede to this request and indeed the implication in your email that, had there been the risk of other cases, you would have refused this request, confirms that."

The RSGB also failed to see - and then to accept, it seems - the entirely logical and rational conclusion drawn - yes, rather belatedly - by OFCOM, that the national minority status awarded to Cornwall was extremely rare and unlikely to be repeated soon, if ever.  The RSGB just kept on bleating that there would be a proliferation of requests for new RSLs:

"We believe that if Cornwall is allocated its own RSL this will have repercussions far beyond the boundaries of that county."

Well, the granting of the minority status wasn't ever county-based, as the RSGB still held at that point, and I've yet to hear a stampede calling for new RSLs and hence the doomsday scenario of "repercussions" for the wider world, which the RSGB elsewhere stated would cause "confusion."  If it's one thing hams don't get confused much about, it's geography and the chance to bag a different callsign!  Many in the former British colonies, of course, are extremely interested to contact areas from which their forefathers came, and this is a very frequent topic of conversation with folks in those 'new' lands.

So, a difficult and potentially sensitive issue for OFCOM, certainly, but not one made any easier by the RSGB, which seems to have taken the view, at least during the period of these contacts, that Cornwall ought not to have its RSL. The RSGB had a view that, to many outside England, and some within, is highly offensive, and fails to have regard for the national minorty status granted by the government itself:

"Cornwall, however, will continue for the foreseeable future to be an integral part of England, and so to allocate a permanent RSL to it will set a precedent."


For sure, we can confidently say from these documents that Graham Coomber was not fully representing the society's position when he said in his response to me that the society was only concerned with the decision-making process by OFCOM.  He also failed to show, as I think any transparent, member-based organisation should - how many members justify the use of the word "significant", and just exactly what those representations actually said.

I think it's fair to say the society was quite firmly opposed to the new RSL over many months as the situation changed at OFCOM, and its reasons are at least reasonably laid bare in the release.  It does seem that it went a  fair way beyond simply not having canvassed the members, and into territory where the RSGB leadership dissented from the whole concept from the word go.

If that wasn't the case, then it has to explain why, having not canvassed its members, it nevertheless opposed the RSL issue throughout anyway; it ought to have simply stated it had no view, whether opposition or support, until the members had been asked. 

Certainly, there is no document that shows the RSGB supported the idea at any stage, and inside sources suggest that whilst the RSGB appeared to be supportive at first, there was never any open announcement to that effect.  As to asking members about the Cornish issue, it never seems to have done so. 

Allegations were later made that the rationale for the opposition might have been based on concerns about relative positions in radio contests, and how the 'K' RSL might give those operators an 'advantage'. If true, that really would be very sad and unjust.

The full FoIA release by OFCOM can be read here. [No longer hosted - 2022]

RIGHT OF REPLY.

This article is published in good faith and in the public interest, drawing on documents provided by OFCOM, the RSGB and Poldhu radio club.  OFCOM's release is not expressly copyright protected, but in any event journalistic exemptions granted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act permit such publication.

Anyone wishing to put forward their reasonable views can submit them under 'Comments', which are not currently moderated. Update, 02/2022: no views received since publication.

70cm Yagi

I was very pleased with yesterday's 70cm Moxon, made for nothing more than the cost of my time and putting together some bits of wire and wood.

So, let's be clear and say that the 70cm Moxon is very successful, yielding strong signals to a repeater over 100km away on just under 5 Watts.  But a little more gain is always useful.

Unfortunately, fairly modest 70cm beams aren't all that easy to find.  The smallest I could see online was a 10 element - far too much for my situation - and costing £50.  That's a lot of money for a simple antenna.

Last night, reading some antenna books in bed as one tends to do far too often, I came across the 'Cheap Yagis' section in the ARRL Antenna Handbook.

Brilliant performance across to the Isle of Man repeaters on 5W. 

Now, those outside the UK will recognise the infuriating adherence in the US to English measurements, rather than metric.  And it was with that resigned sort of attitude I decided to try one of the cheap Yagi designs for 70cm.  I was so resigned to it all that I worked in inches!

I didn't have any spare wood, save for some very thin square section 8x 8mm (what's that in inches?)  So I used epoxy glue to stick two of these on top of one another, yielding a stronger structure and one that was ideally sized for the elements, especially the folded driven element, to stick together.

Untreated soft timber doesn't last forever, but from experience in the wind, salt and rain-lashed coast of Wales, varnishing in hot weather that lets the coating dry thoroughly means you can expect several years before rot sets in.  A better idea is to visit your local timber merchant and ask if you can have the pressure-treated ('tannelised') wood strips that separate the stacks of larger wood that come on pallets.  These last for a very long time, and don't need varnish.  Normally, they are just treated as waste, to see if you can get some!


So, not wanting something to communicate with deep space, I opted for a four element Yagi.  Following the measurements below, and being only moderately careful with lengths, the design came in at a good SWR of 1.1.2 or so - more than adequate for it to go straight into service.  Even just placed horizontally on top of a woodshed roof, it was easily opening the Isle of Man repeaters 100km away, so an instant success!

The element wire - 2mm craft wire in my case - is simply pushed through tight-fitting holes drilled in the timber, and then stuck in place using epoxy glue. A good dollop of exterior varnish to the whole antenna reduces the impact of salt-laden air and rain.

Test feedpoint detail.  Use plenty of heat as the element absorbs lots of it!  When properly installed, you can use non-conductive grease or varnish to seal the connection.

For posterity, here are the measurements I used for 434MHz (the Yagi seems less sensitive to small measurement errors than the Moxon, which was very fussy.) 

Reflector:

Position 0 inches (mm), length = 13.5 inches (34.29mm)

Driven Element:

Position 2.5 inches (63.5mm), total length (including bend to give gap of about 0.5 inches (13mm)) and the folded part of the element =  20.25 inches (514mm)

Director 1:

Position 5.5 inches (51.43mm), length = 12.5inches (318mm)

Director 2:

Position 11.25 inches (28.58mm), length = 305mm

70cm Moxon

Over the past few months, I've been experimenting a fair bit on 70cm.  I've bought a lovely helix for more serious, satellite work when I eventually put everything together on a alt/az rotator.  But, for now, messing about on terrestrial repeater work is fun enough.

70cm is attractive from this QTH as it has a line of sight over the Irish Sea to three, internet-linked repeaters on the Isle of Man, a good 100km away.  What's more, folk on the Isle of Man seem to be quite active, whereas my more local repeater is always empty.

The test timber-and-wire Moxon.  Not pretty, but at 1:1.2, why worry?

So, having started off with a slimjim, I thought I'd throw together a Moxon for 70cm, just to turn those handheld 5 Watts into something more easy to listen to on the other end.

Before I give you the measurements, remember I'm in the UK, and working repeaters.  So, I'm up at 434-point-something MHz.

A few internet-sourced plans came in with quite significant variations in element size and spacing.  After a bit of cursing, resoldering and cutting, I found the following brings home an SWR of about 1:1.2

Each half of the DRIVEN element (half of A) is 125mm, with B being 25mm.  Of course, you need to make two of these.

The REFLECTOR has A as 260mm, with D being 50mm.   A is slightly shorter for the driven side, because of the small gap for the feedpoint, which is made up by the short coax tails, which radiate, used to connect up.

The SPACING - C - is about 20mm.

I found that it is the length of the driven elements that has the biggest impact on SWR reduction - the already-published versions were too long by several mm - a result of most being designed for SSB frequencies.

A good line of sight, here during good Fata Morgana (superrefraction) conditions, to the Isle of Man.

You may need to bend, nibble or even extend on these measurements, but you should be fairly close on what I found to work.  The coax does tend to interact with the antenna a fair bit, so an arm to take away the coax at right angles to the beam direction is a good idea.

Used as a vertical, this Moxon works remarkably well.  MD6ICL/P reported my signal of 5W FM was very loud, and an easy QSO was had whilst Mike whirred away on some power tool at work.

So there you go - cost nothing - except for when I come to make a more durable, cosmetically appealing Moxon!

PMSE Keep on Coming

The MST radar at Aberystwyth, mid-Wales, is detecting strong PMSE day after day now.  This bodes well for those of us interested in Es, to which PMSE have a loose relation, and what appears to be a renewed interest in summer solstice short path propagation (SSSP.)

Latest MST radar plot, courtesy NERC/David Hooper.

I'm not an expert on the 6m band by any means, less so its detailed propagation characteristics.  However, useful work can be done to increase the number of well-equipped stations transmitting across the north pole between the end of May and the start of August.

Interest again is being shown by a few in whether or not noctilucent clouds have any role in propagation.  Whether it's NLC or PMSE is a matter for debate, but we can deal with that later on!

Do NLC play a part in SSSP on 6 m?  You can help find out.

Whilst studies have been performed on SSSP, I think that the number of stations involved is so small as to rule out any definitive conclusions; this is a problem that afflicts things like WSPR and the reverse beacon network - it all looks terribly sensible until you realise there are vast swathes of the globe where there are no stations!

I'm hoping a call for help to the UK Six Metre Group via the RSGB might bring some interest both here and afar, remembering we need interest on this and the other side of the pole!

New Cobwebb Antenna - But is it Viable?

QRZ.com's Facebook page just carried an announcement about a new Cobbwebb antenna, covering the five bands 20-10m.

To be fair, this is a very nice antenna, and for those with more modest budgets, space restrictions or intolerant neighbours, this can put you on the air very effectively.

How difficult can it be to make your own - and save some dosh?

OK, it's just a set of nested, folded dipoles giving a near-omnidirectional pattern.  But, taking just 2.5 metres a side, and easily pushed up and down on a lightweight aluminium mast or similar, it's an antenna with a lot going for it.  If you've ever tried to cover that many bands with conventional dipoles, you'll know what a headache and space-consuming thing it can be!

There are, of course, plenty of people on well-known online auction sites that sell these antennas as well.  They can even tailor them a little to your needs - maybe stronger supports and wire for very windy locations like mine.

The trouble for this newcomer would seem to be price - you can find them for half the listed price - and the simplicity of the design - which leads you to instantly think: hey!  I can make one of those for no money!

The aluminum plate and Stauff clamp arrangement is very nice, and more than adequate to survive the worst the winds can throw at it.  Indeed, it's so nice and clearly presented on the website that it serves as an ideal template to follow.  A piece of 2 or 3mm aluminium plate, a few clamps and some spare fibreglass arms, and you're away!  I'd guess well under £70 if you bought all the pieces new.

So, there you go.  There seem to be plenty of takers for even the simplest wire dipole, so I guess there will be plenty, too, happy to part with their money for this antenna.