1606
General Radio Discussion / Re: Official french Medium Wave transmissions end on 31 december 2015.
« on: January 02, 2016, 0504 UTC »
AFAIK, the 162KHz longwave transmitter is likely soon headed for shutdown, too.
Shortwave Pirate Radio In North America And Around The World, And Other Signals That Go Bump In The Night
We seek to understand and document all radio transmissions, legal and otherwise, as part of the radio listening hobby. We do not encourage any radio operations contrary to regulations.
Always consult with the appropriate authorities if you have questions concerning what is permissible in your locale.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1607
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: XFM 6955 AM 0133 UTC 02 Jan 2016
« on: January 02, 2016, 0459 UTC »
Great show as usual, and on a personal note, thanks for the quick playlist diversion. 
Happy new year RH, and hope ya' have a great 2016! 
Happy new year RH, and hope ya' have a great 2016!
1608
Shortwave Broadcast / Re: Radio Havana Cuba 6870 AM 0102 UTC 2 Jan 2016
« on: January 02, 2016, 0456 UTC »
IIJM and on a potentially related note, has RHC had some possible transmitter issues in recent days?
RHC routinely hits S9+50 (without preamp) here at night, but it recently has been intermittently as low as a barely above the noise floor.
RHC routinely hits S9+50 (without preamp) here at night, but it recently has been intermittently as low as a barely above the noise floor.
1609
North American Shortwave Pirate / UNID 6950 USB 0359 UTC Jan 2 2016
« on: January 02, 2016, 0400 UTC »
0359z - S9+ with techno music. No ID noted.
0409z - Asian traditional music, perhaps?
0411z - Daft Punk remix.
~0415z - Off air?
0409z - Asian traditional music, perhaps?
0411z - Daft Punk remix.
~0415z - Off air?
1610
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: XFM 6955 AM 0133 UTC 02 Jan 2016
« on: January 02, 2016, 0248 UTC »
Not to break the current theme, but how about a play later of perhaps the most screwed up music video of 2015? "Not Butter" by Dillon Francis. o.0
1611
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: XFM 6955 AM 0133 UTC 02 Jan 2016
« on: January 02, 2016, 0237 UTC »
Improving. 
1612
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: UNID 6930 USB 0122 UTC 1/2/16
« on: January 02, 2016, 0156 UTC »
Heard it while casuallly turing the VFO tonight. Barely moved the needle at times, but nonetheless right above the noise floor. No ID noted.
1613
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: XFM 6955 AM 0133 UTC 02 Jan 2016
« on: January 02, 2016, 0153 UTC »
0152z - Intermission and ID. Comments about popular tracks for 2015.
Around S9 with some fades and atmospherics. Great audio quality. SINPO 44334.
Thanks for the broadcast, shoutout, and requested play.
Around S9 with some fades and atmospherics. Great audio quality. SINPO 44334.
Thanks for the broadcast, shoutout, and requested play.
1614
10/11 meters / Re: 11 meter DX 15 December 2015 1700 UTC
« on: December 30, 2015, 0323 UTC »
The biggest issue IMO is the lack of pirate enthusiasts actively listening/monitoring upper-HF comms, epsecially during daytime hours. Even among the larger community of general SWL listeners, how many actually bother to check the 11m BCB band these days? It has been largely vacated for many years now.
On a more positive note, if propagation is the concern, this is one of the best times of the year to work upper-HF for North America. Sporatic-E opportunties are often present around mid-December into part of January, even during otherwise slow solar cycles - such as the current one. The openings, which can sometimes persist for hours, are typically daytime into early evening hours. 500-2000+ miles is not uncommon even at relatively QRP levels.
On a more positive note, if propagation is the concern, this is one of the best times of the year to work upper-HF for North America. Sporatic-E opportunties are often present around mid-December into part of January, even during otherwise slow solar cycles - such as the current one. The openings, which can sometimes persist for hours, are typically daytime into early evening hours. 500-2000+ miles is not uncommon even at relatively QRP levels.
1615
10/11 meters / Re: 11 meter DX 15 December 2015 1700 UTC +
« on: December 28, 2015, 1044 UTC »
Great log.
With the abundance of sporadic-e propagation in recent days - at least arriving into my location - the nearly abandoned 11m shortwave broadcast band probably could generate some interesting QSL and report opportunities for pirates if interested.
With the abundance of sporadic-e propagation in recent days - at least arriving into my location - the nearly abandoned 11m shortwave broadcast band probably could generate some interesting QSL and report opportunities for pirates if interested.
1616
MW Loggings / Re: MW antenna ideas
« on: December 28, 2015, 1012 UTC »
If your radio is decently grounded, try using only the center conductor from the A99 coaxial feedline. Simply unscrew the PL-259 at the radio, and slide it out just enough to disconnect the outer shell of the connector.
Actual technical aspects aside, you now have a 18' vertical "longwire" instead of a tuned 11m vertical end-fed. YMMV on noise ingress, as the coaxial feedline is no longer acting as shielded coax.
Antenna aside, does the 718 attenuate the MW BCB band? Some HF rigs do, thus potentially needing a mod and/or additional pre-amplification.
I am not really into MW BCB listening, but even my lowly 9' ground-mounted vertical in the backyard can receive lots of stations when used with a ~20dB preamp. It has a mere four 9' ground radials and fed with RG-6QS. Feedline loss can be rather trivial for reception at MW, so the preamp is inside. Techically, I am not going go call it an active e-field/voltage probe antenna, but some perhaps would at such low frequencies when using a preamp. Anyway....
Actual technical aspects aside, you now have a 18' vertical "longwire" instead of a tuned 11m vertical end-fed. YMMV on noise ingress, as the coaxial feedline is no longer acting as shielded coax.
Antenna aside, does the 718 attenuate the MW BCB band? Some HF rigs do, thus potentially needing a mod and/or additional pre-amplification.
I am not really into MW BCB listening, but even my lowly 9' ground-mounted vertical in the backyard can receive lots of stations when used with a ~20dB preamp. It has a mere four 9' ground radials and fed with RG-6QS. Feedline loss can be rather trivial for reception at MW, so the preamp is inside. Techically, I am not going go call it an active e-field/voltage probe antenna, but some perhaps would at such low frequencies when using a preamp. Anyway....
1617
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: Old Time Radio 6770 AM at 0016 UTC, 4/6/15
« on: December 28, 2015, 0904 UTC »
Been awhile since I have checked for Old Time Radio, but anyway, it is propagating to here tonight.
Around S5 with occasional deep fades and a little static crashing. Good enough for a casual copy.
Around S5 with occasional deep fades and a little static crashing. Good enough for a casual copy.
1618
Equipment / Re: Cyclone fence (sort of - loop) antenna?
« on: November 04, 2015, 1801 UTC »
Curious, are you not experiencing static issue when the metal links slide across one another, likely when windy enough to slightly move the fencing? It can be a common problem with chain-link fences used as antennas.
Likewise, rusted fencing components can act as diodes, thus potentially increasing noise. If it is an older fence, a quick cleanup of any rusted spots and hardware with sandpaper and dielectric protectant might further mitigate noise or at least prolong the viability of the fence as an antenna.
Likewise, rusted fencing components can act as diodes, thus potentially increasing noise. If it is an older fence, a quick cleanup of any rusted spots and hardware with sandpaper and dielectric protectant might further mitigate noise or at least prolong the viability of the fence as an antenna.
1619
Equipment / Re: Magnetic baluns ... less noise?
« on: November 04, 2015, 1750 UTC »
I suspect your "magnetic" balun is likely rated for a 9:1 impedance transformation, correct? Given a longwire antenna can present a wide variance of impedance, including impedance ratings from hundreds to likely well into the thousands of ohms, the 9:1 transformer is improving the match to your comparatively low-impedance coaxial feedline and receiver at many frequencies. The other typical benefit is increased common mode isolation between the antenna and feedline.
The end result? Probably better signal transfer and hopefully less noise between your high-impedance longwire antenna and low-impedance receiver.
As for an "useless" situation, there can be scenarios where a 9:1 balun could be undesired or even detrimental, such as using one at the feed point of an already rather low-impedance antenna where a 1:1 current balun (or even direct feed) might be preferred.
Also in regards to an "useless" situation, the actual signal-to-noise might change very little with a balun if for example common mode noise is not an issue, even if the the signal is measured "stronger" at the receiver with the balun installed. S/N is a ratio, and assuming enough S already is available for reception, further increasing S can mean little if N is being increased by the same number as well - the ratio remains the same, so the result is little more than a change in the receiver volume setting for the listener.
On a personal note, awhile back I removed the 1:1 current balun at the feed point of my ground-level 148' coaxial "shielded" loop with no casually discernible S/N change. The antenna being a loop is already is decently balanced, and I have muliple snap-on ferrites along the coax feedline for some common mode isolation, plus a 1:1 common-code choke inside near the attached receiver. If it was being used as a monoband antenna, I might work out the model for a balun to better match the antenna to the feedline, but the impedance readings are "all over the place" anyway as I routinely use the antenna for general reception of longwave, mediumwave, and HF through ~15MHz.
The end result? Probably better signal transfer and hopefully less noise between your high-impedance longwire antenna and low-impedance receiver.
As for an "useless" situation, there can be scenarios where a 9:1 balun could be undesired or even detrimental, such as using one at the feed point of an already rather low-impedance antenna where a 1:1 current balun (or even direct feed) might be preferred.
Also in regards to an "useless" situation, the actual signal-to-noise might change very little with a balun if for example common mode noise is not an issue, even if the the signal is measured "stronger" at the receiver with the balun installed. S/N is a ratio, and assuming enough S already is available for reception, further increasing S can mean little if N is being increased by the same number as well - the ratio remains the same, so the result is little more than a change in the receiver volume setting for the listener.
On a personal note, awhile back I removed the 1:1 current balun at the feed point of my ground-level 148' coaxial "shielded" loop with no casually discernible S/N change. The antenna being a loop is already is decently balanced, and I have muliple snap-on ferrites along the coax feedline for some common mode isolation, plus a 1:1 common-code choke inside near the attached receiver. If it was being used as a monoband antenna, I might work out the model for a balun to better match the antenna to the feedline, but the impedance readings are "all over the place" anyway as I routinely use the antenna for general reception of longwave, mediumwave, and HF through ~15MHz.
1620
North American Shortwave Pirate / Re: unID 6930 AM 0150z 11/4/15
« on: November 04, 2015, 0210 UTC »
Intermittenly peaking S7, though with deep fades to the noise floor and plenty of static crashing.
