12 VDC Prop Pitch Motor

The aviation electrical power standard has been 24 VDC for a very long time. Since this also holds for US military aircraft, prop pitch motors require a 24 VDC power source even though their design dates all the way back to WW II. It turns out, much to my surprise, that there exist 12 VDC prop pitch motors. I first learned of their existence several years ago when a friend purchased one at a flea market. 

They seem to be quite rare. It is difficult to identify them from the outside. At the very least it is necessary to remove the motor cover and read the print on the motor. You don't even need to do that since the external appearance is quite different. I had occasion recently to become more familiar with these motors when the motor developed a fault and I offered to inspect and hopefully repair my friend's motor. The loss of any rotator is an inconvenience. Luckily he has enough antennas that the temporary loss could be tolerated.

Those of you with an interest in prop pitch motors and, like me, have never seen a 12 volt motor, this tear down and repair should be welcome. I had no information about them and I could not find any. All I had from a friend was confirmation that they exist. He was happy to receive the pictures I sent him since he had none in his files.

Separating the motor and gearbox (reduction drive)

In my workshop I carefully began disassembly. Although I have experience working on prop pitch motors, this one was a novelty. There was minor damage on the outside due to mishandling in the distant past. I filed down metal spurs on the motor body and motor retaining nut. The method for mounting the after-market rotating reed switch magnet was poor and did some damage to the exterior of the top motor bearing. I put that aside while I worked on the motor.

Pulling the motor off the gearbox was more difficult than I expected. It uses the same large threaded nut that is found on many of the small size prop pitch motors. I was surprised that the motor did not come free when the nut was removed. I carefully pried up the motor with a large gear puller to discover the reason for the resistance. 

It turns out that there are no electrical contact pins on the motor and the drive side of the gearbox. The motor wires are directly threaded through holes in the gearbox housing. Once I realized that, I removed the connectors crimped onto the wires and pushed the bare wires through the holes while pulling up on the motor. The motor and gearbox were finally separated. 

It is a good idea to label the wires at this point so that they are correctly placed for reassembly. I had to puzzle it out during reassembly since I forgot to do so. Luckily the wire arrangement is the same as the 24 volt models. This one is a right hand motor.

Note: After K7NV passed, his web site full of prop pitch motor information went offline. I have an archive as do many others, but at the time of writing there are no reliable links to point you to due to copyright and other issues. In any case, he had nothing on the 12 volt motors. I will not publish his wiring diagrams in this article. Hopefully at a later date there will be a permanently accessible archive of his material.

The next surprise was that the drive side of the motor axle was loose. That is, there is only one bearing, and that is located at the top of the motor axle. The motor cannot be spun unless it is attached to the gearbox. I thought that was very odd. On the other hand, I suppose there's some benefit in having one less bearing to deal with!

Unlike the splines on the more common 24 volt motors, the coupling is done with a blade. There is a matching receptacle for the blade on the gearbox shaft. The fit is precise so that the axle doesn't wobble. I have heard that this alternative appears on some 24 volt motors but I have never seen one.

Gearbox

At this point I checked the gearbox for freedom of movement. After leaving it outside during a cold spell (it was too large for my usual freezer test!) there was evidence of a poor grease choice. I didn't open the gearbox but the owner told me that he'd previously opened and lubricated what he could access. Not all parts are accessible without disassembling the planetary gears. 

I didn't open the gearbox since there was no evidence of a problem other than perhaps a poor choice of grease. I set it aside for when the motor was ready to be reassembled. Although I was curious about the design of the gearbox, that wasn't a good enough reason to open it for an inspection. Perhaps another time.

This is a picture of the drive side of the gearbox. Notice the lack of provision for electrical contacts, just the holes through which the wires are threaded. In the usual design the contact receptacles slot into holes and are held there with retaining rings. With this motor, care is needed to avoid tugging the wires and abrading the insulation during assembly and reassembly.

Since the contacts, where they exist, are part of the gearbox housing, I wasn't surprised to see that the part number was different. Other than that the housing looks the same as for the 24 volt design. The motor base is the same, and there is the same key in the gearbox housing to secure the motor position when the motor is mounted. The motor axle has to be rotated during assembly until the blade aligns with the slot on the gearbox axle.

Note the key at the bottom. It has a mating notch on the flange at the base of the motor. Its importance during reassembly will become apparent towards the end of this article.

Inside the motor

With just one bearing, it was easy to knock out the axle and armature assembly. With an appropriately sized tube, the bearing was then knocked out from the inside. This was done carefully to avoid damaging the bearing. I should say, damage the bearing further, since I already suspected that it was damaged. 

The two pictures of the armature show the axle and commutator. I later cleaned the carbon from the commutator and saw that it was in good condition. The bearing seats on the shaft up against the top washer. When disassembling prop pitch motors it is critical to take note of where the washers and shims came from so that they are put back in the same place during reassembly. A mistake can damage the motor when it is run.

In the 12 volt motor the brushes are at the top of the motor; they are at the bottom (drive side) in the 24 volt motors. You can see how the wires are routed to the field coils and brushes. The brushes appeared to be in good condition so I cleaned the interior as well as I could and set it aside. I filed down metal spurs on the exterior that may have been caused by rough handling in the past. That was done mostly for aesthetics and to avoid skin damage during handling. It also made it easier to slip the motor cover on and off.

Motor bearing

My attention next focused on the motor bearing. The symptom when it was on the tower and not turning was excess resistance to manual rotation of the motor axle. An application of modest force freed the axle and the motor worked again. When it happened again my friend brought it to the ground. This is not the first time I've dealt with bearing trouble in a prop pitch motor so I proceeded with the confidence of experience.

Since there was no sign of mechanical scraping or other damage on the armature or field coils the problem had to be in the motor bearing or the gearbox. A bearing or gear failure in the gearbox typically doesn't result in locking the motor axle. The reason is the high reduction ratio. It usually takes several rotations of the gearbox axle to take up play in the many gears before it locks up. Since the gearbox axle turned smoothly, even after the low temperature test mention earlier, the bearing was the primary suspect.

Turning the bearing by hand was smooth. At least it was at first. Eventually I noticed an intermittent roughness. I tossed the bearing in the freezer. When I retrieved it an hour later, he imperfection was pronounced. There was also a small amount of play between the inner and outer sections that indicated worn balls.

I found a compatible modern bearing for the "201" shielded bearing by perusing my catalogues. It is the same as the top bearing for the 24 volt motor. The old 201 has shallow concave races that do not support axial loads; that is, it works best as a thrust bearing. The 6201 double sealed replacement is a deep groove bearing that is suitable for high axial and radial loads at speeds greater than that of the motor. I ordered two so that I can replace the ancient top bearing on one of my 24 volt motors.

You can see the difference between them in the picture above. The larger surface of the inner section is handy for firmly securing the aluminum arm that contains the magnet for a reed switch. My friend has a Green Heron controller for his other prop pitch motor that supports this arrangement, but for direction indication with this motor he uses a 4O3A compass on the antenna. 

I use 10:1 potentiometers for my chain drive and upside down prop pitch motors. There are many ways to accomplish direction indication for prop pitch motor rotators. There are both commercial and home brew solutions.

Reassembly

Installation of the bearing highlighted a curious aspect of the design. Since it is installed from the top there is no resistance to axial force pushes it upward. Normally this shouldn't be a problem since the bearing should only experience radial loads. 

The method by which the direction indicator bar and magnet (parts visible at the lower right) were mounted on the axle prevented vertical migration of the bearing. In the 24 volt motor, both motor bearings are pressed in from the inside so they cannot move. 

After pressing in the bearing I pushed the axle and the attached armature into it from the open bottom end of the motor housing, taking care to have it seated against the axle washers. There is a flange on the axle that seats the washers and bearing in their correct positions. 

I had difficulty aligning the blade on the motor with the socket on the gearbox. It isn't as easy as one might expect because there are two pairs of items to align: the axle blade and socket, and the key on the gearbox body with the notch in the motor flange. What makes the task particularly difficult is the near press fit of the motor into the gearbox housing and lining up those two mechanisms must be done blind; all are invisible when the motor is pressed into the gearbox housing. Another complication is that the wires have to be inserted through the gearbox holes during this procedure, and they can't be twisted far while pushing on the motor and axle into their respective slots. Needle nose pliers come in handy.

One solution to the alignment problem is to mark the motor and gearbox and lining them up during assembly. That might work if the motor axle is simultaneously oriented correctly. After fussing with it for 10 minutes without success, I tried another method. I removed the armature and axle assembly, seated it on gearbox axle socket and then pushed on the motor housing. I did it with an aluminum tube that fit over the axle and rested on the bearing surface (not the rubber seal!) and tapped it downwith a rubber mallet. When the motor flange struck the key it was easy to slightly rotate the motor until the key fit into the slot since the axle blade and socket were already engaged.

In retrospect, it would be easier to put the bearing aside while the armature and motor housing are installed. That avoids dealing with the press fit of the bearing while simultaneously aligning the axle and key. The bearing can then be pressed in over the axle into the motor housing.

Test

The P and Q wires are to the right in the adjacent top view. One of those is common and other is not used. Which it is depends on whether the motor is right-handed or left-handed. The R and S wires are close together on the left side. One is for CW (clockwise) and the other for CCW (counter-clockwise) rotation. Only the slots for the R and S wires are imprinted on the gearbox housing.

My initial tests with Astron 13.8 VDC linear power supplies failed. The crowbar protection circuits of the 10 A and the 25 A supplies shut down the power due to the high starting current. The protection circuit acts too quickly to permit the motor time to start. I inserted a high power resister of a few ohms in series with one lead but that dropped the voltage too much to operate the motor. It wouldn't turn at all.

I tried the same setup with a 24 VDC power supply and the same thing occurred. I dispensed with the resistor and the motor came to life. I didn't leave it running for long since the higher voltage could stress the motor. DC motors can often run quite well at lower and higher voltages than specified, provided the motor will start (low voltage) and not run too hot and fast (high voltage). Hams in decades past used this "feature" to vary prop pitch motor speed with a 120 VAC auto-transformer (e.g. Variac) on the primary side of the power transformer

My small multi-meter didn't fare well on its 10 A scale during these tests. Something sparked but it still seems to work afterward. They're cheap to replace so I was not too concerned. As you can see on the meter, the clip leads themselves lower the voltage at the motor from the approximately 26 volts measured at the power supply. The wires get quite warm, more than on the 24 volt motors I've tested. That makes sense since P = EI and the power consumption of the 12 and 24 volt motors should be similar.

My friend uses narrow gauge wire up the tower to lower the voltage from his 24 VDC power supply. It also cheaper than larger conductors! I know that he measured the current as 7.5 A, but the voltage at the top of the tower is unknown and probably has never been measured.

Although my friend doesn't need it, I plan to remount the aluminum bar and magnet on the motor axle. I prefer to have it there for two reasons. It can be used as a handy lever to test freedom of motion of the motor and gearbox, which is how my friend used it to discover the intermittent bearing problem. The other reason is for insurance against the bearing working loose. Although the risk is low, it is easy to prevent. I will change the hardware since the lock washers previously used put uneven stress on the bearing. The bearing is strong but that is no reason to take an unnecessary risk.

Conclusion

The motor will likely be reinstalled on my friend's tower later in the spring. I'm hoping that it will now work well for him. He had pretty much given up on the motor before I offered to work on it.

I hope you enjoyed this tour of a rare variety of prop pitch motor. I doubt that I'll ever see another like it. If you come across one, you now have an idea of what to expect.

Eclipse Science & Amateur Radio

What is science?

Science is a process for understanding our natural world, encompassing fields as diverse as particle physics and biology. Science is memorizing or listing facts. Data (empiricism) is critical for developing and testing scientific theories. A robust scientific theory explains the data, makes testable predictions and is falsifiable.

Quite a lot of science will be done during the upcoming April 8 solar eclipse. A portion of what is planned to be done by amateur radio operators is science. There is overlap between the two which is quite interesting. Which is, measuring the change of the virtual height of HF reflections as the ionization density first declines and then recovers during the full 3 hour duration of the eclipse. Rockets will measure the ionization profile over a long vertical path while hams and professionals sound the ionosphere at various frequencies.

Almost everything else hams will be doing is not really science. That may sound unfair so I'll explain my position.

Imagine that, like Galileo, you roll balls down an inclined surface to measure the acceleration of objects due to Earth's gravity. This was fairly innovative at the time and he was able to generate data good enough to generate theories about gravitational action on bodies. The experiments were repeatable, the measurement error bars reasonably good, and the theory was falsifiable. That's science.

If you repeat these experiments today, are you doing science? In my opinion, no. Although that statement may seem to be inconsistent with what I said above, it really isn't. Many centuries have passed since those early experiments. The quantity and accuracy of data gathered from countless experiments over the centuries has generated increasingly excellent theories of gravitation and related field of physics. 

Should you perform Galileo's experiment now, the data gathered will be paltry and of woefully inadequate accuracy. You will discover nothing that is not already known, and any differences will be attributed to experimental error or large error bars.

Operating during the eclipse and observing propagation is very interesting and should be encouraged. However, other than for the very precise sounding experiments there will little of note added to the tome of science. The data collected will tell us very little or nothing that we don't already know. Just like redoing Galileo's experiments with rolling balls down an inclined surface.

If it isn't science, what is it? It's a combination of science education and perhaps entertainment. Considering the woeful lack of science awareness in our science-dependent civilization, public education has value. How much of that education makes it out of the relatively cloistered amateur radio circle into the public consciousness may be underwhelming. That would be unfortunate but hardly surprising. I can only hope that organizations like HamSci can raise public awareness. 

As for myself, my radios will be turned off. I live in the path of totality and the weather forecast is promising (as I write these words two days before the big day). Where I live the duration of totality will be a little less than 2 minutes. That increases to about 3 minutes directly south on the shore of the St. Lawrence River. I gain about 2 to 3 seconds of totality for every kilometer travelled south from my QTH. Crossing into the US isn't worth the trouble since travel to the shadow's centre only adds another 10 to 15 seconds.

I have friends planning to visit to view the eclipse. Since the zone of totality eclipse ends about 15 kilometers to the north, many people will drive south for the event. If plans change and they don't come over, I'll probably trek south to gain that extra minute. I know several obscure parking areas where I can do that without battling the massive crowds that are expected. The experience is better in a crowd but I don't want to waste the entire day since I'd have to leave early to find a place to park.

This is not my first solar eclipse. When I was a child there was one that passed through northern Manitoba. It was partial where our family lived in Winnipeg. My father smoked bits of broken window glass for us to look through. Yes, that's a terribly dangerous way to view a partial eclipse but what did we know. I just remember how wonderful it was. 

The experience left an indelible impression on me and kindled my lifelong interest in astronomy. I still wonder whether I ought to have made that first love my career. I'll never know. After that first eclipse I pored over astronomy books in the local library. I discovered that Winnipeg would be on the path of totality during an eclipse in 1979. What luck! But when you're 6 or 7 years old that's an incomprehensibly long way off. It was always in the back of mind as I grew into adulthood.

The years ground on and February 26, 1979 finally arrived. It was my final year of university in my home town of Winnipeg (VE4). The Canadian prairie gets a lot of sunny days during winter but it is very cold. The administration opened the roofs of many of the buildings on campus and that's how many of us viewed the eclipse. It was fun but cold: about -20° C with a mild breeze. As the Moon crept across the sun the temperature dropped. We'd duck inside occasionally to warm up.

It was an awesome experience that I've never forgotten during the following 45 years. That eclipse occurred near the peak of the solar cycle, and it was a big one so a lot was going on (on the sun and on 10 and 6 meters). During totality there was one very large prominence and a few smaller ones scattered around the solar disk. Many stars were visible as our eyes adapted to the dark. Totality lasted only a couple of minutes although I don't recall the exact duration where we were. It was long enough for a thoroughly amazing experience.

It is well worth the trouble to travel to view a total solar eclipse if none comes to you. I've found that most people who've never seen one don't appreciate what they're missing. Once you experience it you'll understand how worthwhile it is to make the effort.

I can only hope for clear skies and a prominence or two on April 8. I may update this article after the eclipse. Is viewing an eclipse science? No. It is educational and entertaining, and that's good enough for me. I'll put amateur radio aside for that one day. Hams not in totality's path may enjoy monitoring the bands to discover its effects.

After the Fall - Tailtwister Trauma

You may recall an article in late 2023 about the 110' tower of a silent key that was cut down for scrap. Once it was down we discovered that rotator at the top of the tower was a Hy-Gain Tailtwister rotator. The rotator model and condition were unknown beforehand and deemed not worth the time and trouble of retrieving it before the tower was cut down. 

I took the Tailtwister home despite its visible damage. I wanted to learn how it had fared from the trauma of impacting the ground. If nothing else it might provide a source of parts for repairing other rotators. The investigative work served as a wintertime diversion. I still don't know whether it is worthwhile to complete repairs and put it to use. 

Readers might be interested in my description of the damage it suffered and how I dealt with it. If you are unfamiliar with the insides of these rotators you might benefit from first reading the article where I refurbished an old rusty Tailtwister.

To begin, I'll reiterate that the entire tower and antenna system was derelict for years. I suspect that the rotator was never serviced since it was installed approximately 30 years ago, nor its condition at that time -- it likely was not bought new. The silent key was not a climber and it hadn't been used for years due to damage from a lightning strike and his deteriorating health. Now let's dive in.

I didn't expect the bell housing to survive the impact, yet it did. The cast aluminum alloy cannot withstand a large bending stress. That is why it is important to place the antenna load close to the top of the rotator. Longer masts can be used if two thrust bearings are employed to protect the rotator from bending stress due to wind load of the yagi(s) and the leverage amplification of a long mast. 

There was just one thrust bearing on the tower so there must have been quite an impact shock to the bell housing when the yagi struck the ground and pushed the mast upward. In this case the thrust bearing served as the pivot of a large impact force with the mast as the lever. 

Although the bell housing passed the test, the mounting bolts did not. I don't know the grade of the bolts since they were lost when the impact sheared them off the tower's steel rotator plate. It may be that, by shearing, the mounting bolts saved the bell housing. But it was not without cost. Notice that when the bolts broke off they took a chunk of the rotator's main body with them. In only one case was a portion of a bolt left inside rotator body. 

It is lucky in a way that so little of the rotator body was lost. The mounting bolts must have been quite short. Since the mounting holes are long and threaded deep, there is no impediment to their reuse. The only new requirement is that the spacers placed on the bolts must be wider so that they bear on the undamaged metal of the rotator. Two of the 6 mounting holes were not used and were therefore not damaged. With 5 holes remaining it really isn't necessary to remove the one bolt shank still inside. I'll probably do it anyway since it isn't a difficult task.

There is a surprising amount of rust on the lower half of the rotator. As you can see in the above pictures, the bottom bearing races are rusted or covered with rust deposited from the ball bearings. The lowest ring of balls (⅜") can be replaced and the races cleaned. The brake system is very rusty but works just fine. It should be okay to leave it alone, which is good since cleaning its many components would take a long time.

The other damage you may have noticed is that the terminal strip has broken from its mounting screws. Also, the plated metal is badly rusted. Testing the rotator was difficult due to the resulting poor electrical connections. The terminal strip can be replaced or repaired. The metal can be cleaned if the screws are removed. Suitable stainless screws can be substituted if you keep in mind that the original screws have their tips crimped to make them difficult to fully unscrew, and thus accidentally fall to the ground while attaching wires on the tower.

I have one more observation to make about corrosion, involving stainless steel. It is a myth that stainless steel doesn't corrode. Depending on the alloy and the metal they are in contact with, they can indeed corrode. However the result isn't rust.

The stainless bolts that hold together the upper and lower halves of the bell housing were substituted for the original bolts. That may seem like a good idea but beware! In this case the alloy quality is suspect and the bolts were not coated with a lubricant to prevent galling and galvanic corrosion due to contact with aluminum alloy of the bell housing. The piles of oxide dust used to be metal! 

If you insist on using stainless bolts in this and other antenna system components, at a minimum please use 304 (18.8) hardware. It is also perfectly acceptable to use grease or an anti-seize coating on non-stainless steel bolts. Stick with grade 2 steel rather than grade 5 so that you are not tempted to over-tighten them. The same goes for the 6 mounting bolts. The stainless u-bolts for the mast clamp are especially prone to galling due to repeated tightening and loosening that is typical in a ham station. Coating the threads with a suitable compound is advisable.

Next is a very common problem in Hy-Gain rotators that has nothing to do with the fall. In the adjacent picture notice the small indentations in the bearing race. That is due to fretting. It can happen with similar metals but is more pronounced when metals with different hardness are in contact under load. In this case, steel balls rolling on an aluminum alloy race.

Fretting does the damage when the rotator isn't used for a long time. Continuous wind-induced rocking under vertical load is responsible. 

I encountered a similar fretting of steel headset bearings and races in older generations of bicycles (another passion of mine). The bicycle generally points straight ahead with small deviations left and right while being assaulted by minor jolts due to road imperfections and debris. These impacts are transmitted to the bearings from the high-pressure tire and wheel through the forks and steer tube to the headset bearing. Newer bicycles often avoid fretting by the use of cartridge bearings that can be easily rotated during regular maintenance. A similar maintenance procedure is possible with rotators but is rarely done.

The races must not be filed or sanded to remove the indentations since that will cause unwanted bearing play. Rotators can survive some bearing slop provided that thrust bearings are deployed in a manner that prevents radial (side to side) forces. What I do is lightly polish the races with steel wool and carefully file off the raised rims surrounding the indentations. In most cases the steel bearings do not develop flat spots, so I only replace them if they're rusted. 

When the rotator is re-assembled it is unlikely, by random chance, that the bearings will contact the indentations when the rotator is pointed in the same direction. Better yet, don't leave your rotator pointing the same direction all the time. Turn it occasionally when you're not active.

When the motor broke loose and bounced around inside the bell housin, the motor was damaged and it damaged other components. Of particular concern was the direction potentiometer bolted to the top of the motor.

There are 4 bolts that bind the steel laminations of the motor body. Two of those are extra long and serve as motor mounts. Their long shanks are mechanically connected to the top plate of the gear assembly. Rather than threads and nuts, they narrow and pass through the holes in the plate. They are "crimped" to secure them to the plate. In normal operation that is sufficient. It is not sufficient when the rotator is dropped from 100'.

I removed the long bolts from the motor and inspected the damage. It turned out to be easier to repair the damage than I anticipated. Since the bolts were able to pull out of the holes it is not a surprise that I could push them back through. The small metal lips of the crimps were easily abraded by the impact force, which allowed the bolts to pull out of the plate. They were press fit back in and lightly crimped with a hammer and the hardened tip of a flat-blade screwdriver. You can see one of the re-mounted bolts in the picture of the fretted races.

The motor resisted turning by hand. The formed sheet steel brackets on the top and bottom of the motor were bent. The black common wire of the field coils was also severed. The remaining motor and pot wires were desoldered to free the motor from the rotator. It was then disassembled by pulling the drive gear off the axle and drilling out the two rivets that secured the brackets and that served as two of the 4 bolts that held together the steel laminations. The motor armature was then easily slipped off the bushings that are fit into the brackets. Although bearings are superior, bushings are sufficient for the low torque, low speed motors used in Hy-Gain rotators.

The top bracket was bent back into shape and aligned so that the armature was properly centred within the field coils. When properly aligned the armature should spin freely. It helps that the bushings pivot within rubber shock mounts. While some care is necessary this is not a high-precision device.

A new wire was soldered in to replace the severed common wire. Stainless bolts replace the rivets that hold the brackets and bind the laminations. 

I had some concern about replacing the rivets since ferrous metals can induce circulating magnetic flux that "steals" power from the motor and can cause heating of the bolts. I couldn't discern any problems with motor torque or noticable heating after several minutes of continuous operation. Stainless 304 is not the perfect choice but it seems to work fine in this application. Non-ferrous hardware can be used instead.

The drive gear was pressed on and the motor mounted onto the rotator body. It worked fine during this bench test. There was no damage to the reduction gears. The motor was removed once more to work on the direction pot which was seriously damaged.

The impact damage to the pot is evident in the pictures. The reason there is so much damage is because it is bolted to the heavy motor: it had a lot of momentum while bouncing around inside the bell housing. The plastic body has several stress cracks (not visible in the pictures). It is possible that the cracks can be repaired with glue. The tangs on the wiper can probably be bent back into shape with care. 

There isn't too much damage to the protrusion deep inside the bell housing (centre picture) that engages the wiper tangs. This is ordinary wear for a Hy-Gain rotator. There really ought to be improvements to this weak area of the design. The hard copper alloy of the sharp-edged pot tangs abrades the aluminum alloy of the bell housing. The wear goes on 24×7 as the antenna system rocks back and forth in the wind due to the play within the brake system. Wear does not only occur when the rotator turns. 

I have seen otherwise perfectly good rotators rendered useless due to excess wear of the bell housing protrusion. Alternative aftermarket solutions are easy to imagine. I am unaware whether anyone has done so or marketed a solution. It could be done with thin spring steel covers for the pot tangs or on the bell housing protrusion.

The damaged ring of resistance wire is not as bad as it looks. There is continuity through the worst kinks. It may be possible to bend them back into shape so that the wiper glides over the damaged areas. However, there is a break near one end of the wire due to a crack in the plastic body. That will be more difficult to repair since the metal of resistance wire is often difficult to solder. 

If I do attempt repairs it will only be out of curiosity to see if it could be done. A replacement pot is the more sensible option. MFJ charges an exorbitant amount for a replacement direction pot: about US$80 the last time I checked. A friend mentioned a less expensive local source that I may pursue should I attempt to return this rotator to service.

I hope you enjoyed this look inside a damaged Hy-Gain Tailtwister rotator. I don't know how serious I am about putting it back in service. It served as an interesting and educational diversion during a few cold winter evenings.

Computer Monitors: Too Much Information

Contest results regularly include pictures of hams and their shacks. Pretty well all shacks, not just those of contesters, include computers, and often several. That's a good thing -- our hobby evolves with the state of the art. However, what I often see in these pictures mystifies me. In particular, the number of computer displays.

Okay, that's an exaggeration. But there are an awful lot of monitors perched on so many of our operating desks. Here are a couple of examples that I scraped from the internet (identifying information removed).

Most modern computers support more than one monitor. Indeed, it is possible to have more monitors than there are connectors. Since it's possible, many take the plunge. That much screen real estate makes quite an impression. The possible applications are endless. The question I like to ask is: why?

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should; there should be demonstrable value to the practice. For many that does not matter -- entertaining yourself (and visitors) is perceived as a valid use case. 

I have a different perspective due to my interest in contesting. Too much information on the monitor(s) is either a distraction or ignored. I am interested in essential information on the monitor and nothing more. Essential information is that which measurably improves my results: higher scores and fewer errors.

To avoid fatigue it is critical that my eyes and neck need to swivel the minimum amount. The critical information needed to find and work stations should be directly in front of me. That's simply good ergonomics. Everything I need should be on one screen dead ahead. Rarely consulted information can be on another screen, on a background window or pulled up with a mouse when needed. For the same reason I place the rigs off to the side since I don't often touch the controls. I can use the important ones (e.g. the VFO knob) without taking my eyes off the monitor.

I won't say more about what I have on my screen since that depends greatly on the software that I use and my operating objectives. Your station may be quite different. I will say that, despite my strict attention to the essentials, it is difficult to fit all that I want onto one reasonably sized monitor. 

The challenge is greater when operating SO2R since there are applications and windows for two rigs and two bands. Further economizing is desirable and guides my plan for future improvements.

• The window for my station automation software will eventually migrate to a small touchscreen, either connected to the same or a different computer. That will make it easier to use, while also moving at least one window off the main monitor.
• Spectrum displays are increasingly being used and might not be easily fit on the monitor. One solution is to substitute the spectrum display for the band map, which is a feature of N1MM+, my usual logging software. Alternatively, rigs like my recently purchased Icom 7610 has a screen and a waterfall display. Unlike the spectrum display and band map, it is not labelled with call signs but I still find it very handy for locating stations and finding clear frequencies to run. By using the 7610 waterfall, I do fine with the legacy band map that plots call signs by frequency.

Computer technology is cheap, very cheap. When I enhanced my station for multi-op contesting last year, I could build a very capable shack computer for around $250 (CDN): $100 refurb PC (Win10, 8GB, SSD, WiFi), $110 24" monitor and $40 wireless keyboard/mouse combo. That's remarkable! No wonder so many of our shacks are sprouting multiple monitors and software applications. Consider a few of the many potential uses:

• Gray line world maps
• SDR
• Digital modes
• Software control of transceivers, amps, rotators, antenna switches, SO2R and more
  

The possible applications will only increase as the typical ham operating desk continues its transition from hardware boxes to software.

As I said earlier, if you want to see it all at once, well, you can! It's really just entertainment or eye-candy since you really can't pay attention to all of that information. You can achieve the same outcomes with less monitor area by pulling up what you need only when you need it. 

In a contest, you need less information, not more, but it has to be the essential information. Too much information is a distraction that will lower your score and accuracy. As an experiment, challenge yourself to fit everything you want onto one monitor. Since it won't all fit, you'll have to prioritize. That can be an educational exercise. Focus on what you need, not what you want.

Remove or hide windows that don't need to be constantly visible. Know how to bring them forward if and when you do need them. If you insist on their constant visibility, put those windows and applications onto a second monitor that is placed off to the side where it won't distract you. It should be out of the line of sight while you are focused on scoring points and multipliers.

Choose wisely and focus on the essentials. Don't be seduced by the allure of too much information. You''ll soon discover that you can accomplish more with less.

Interlude

As happens to all of us from time to time, I am currently dealing with a serious family matter. My usual pace of blogging will have to be reduced for the rest of March. What articles I write may be "lightweight" since my operating and station building activities are at a standstill. The previous article only got published because it was 95% complete and the final 5% served as a welcome distraction. 

I had to cancel my plan for the ARRL DX SSB contest. Upcoming contests will also be sidelined until at least CQ WPX SSB in late March.

On the positive side, this unfortunate event has given me an opportunity to peruse old photo albums that were kept by a deceased family member. It goes back more than 100 years, following my family from its roots in Romania, to my parents' move to the Canadian prairie, and eventually to my arrival into the world. I knew that somewhere among those dusty albums was a picture I had long since lost track of. It brings back pleasant memories and may be of interest to readers. The picture was taken by my father.

The year was 1972. I was newly licensed (VE4OY) and 15 years old. In the months after I earned my license I was thrilled to work anyone who could copy my weak signal. DX was difficult. It would be two more years before I seriously caught the contesting bug and then another year until I put up my first tower.

Those of you familiar with old equipment will recognize that the receiver was a Hammarlund HQ129X. I bought it from an older ham who no longer needed it. It was by far the most expensive component of the station. It was general coverage with band spread for the ham bands. Even with a new tube and replacement of select capacitors the local oscillator barely functioned on 15 meters and rarely on 10. Tuning on those bands was so touchy that it was difficult to receive CW and SSB. We were slipping into a solar minimum so it hardly mattered.

By the front panel design and colours, the transmitter is clearly a Johnson. I purchased it at a local flea market for very little. Originally a mobile AM crystal-controlled transmitter, a previous owner built an AC supply and added a Johnson VFO. Resolution of the VFO dial was so poor that the only way to get on frequency was to swish the VFO back and forth until it was heard in the receiver. The tubes on top of the VFO are merely for show.

I never did figure out a good way to remove the modulator tubes so all three of the 807's had to be lit. I stuck a flea market open frame 117 VAC relay on top of the power supply for T/R switching of the coax with the knob provided on the receiver. A short length of RG58 through the window frame connected to a 40 meter dipole up ~15' (4.5 m) that was used on all bands. I later added 20 meters to make it a fan dipole.

Without any metering (the one you see was not functional) I burned through a succession of 807 tubes due to high SWR and poor tuning. Used ones were cheap at local flea markets. The soft ones were plugged into the modulator tube sockets to keep the filaments of the others lit.

I used that equipment for a year. In 1973 we moved to a new house and with money from a summer job I upgraded to an HQ170 and HT32B. In 1975 I purchased a brand new FT101B and put up a tower with a TH3jr and 40 meter inverted vee. 

That kept me going until 1979 when I earned my M.Sc. and moved from Winnipeg to Ottawa. But that's enough woolgathering. If you want more, tune in to my 2023 interview on QSO Today.

Reversible 40 Meter Moxon: Initial Model

I would like to retire the XM240 this year. It is not just because of its low efficiency due to the loading coils. When I side mounted it last fall, I did it with the full knowledge that I was impairing my flexibility on 40 meters since it can only be rotated through about 130°. It works well for working most of North America, and DX further afield to the south and west. But I miss having two antennas with full rotation.

I prefer to keep the limited-rotation side mount rather than replace it with a swing gate. The latter would allow 300° rotation, which is more than adequate for my needs. There is a 60° arc between 100° and 160° bearing that I can omit without serious loss of station effectiveness. When that direction is needed for long path contacts (e.g. Asia) and southern Africa, the high 3-element yagi is a superior choice, and it is fully rotatable. The offset mount of a swing gate requires robust construction and a strong rotator for the mechanical load of a 40 meter yagi.

After consideration of alternatives, I returned to an antenna design that I chose against several years ago: the W6NL 2-element Moxon. It's relatively small, has good F/B and broad SWR bandwidth, at the expense of modest gain and the narrow gain bandwidth inherent to every 2-element yagi, Moxon or not. However, it does not suit my application without one major modification: making it reversible. 

Reversibility on the side mount would permit 260° coverage and instant switching between, say, Europe and the US. The gaps are between 95°-145° and 275°-325°. There are few stations to work in those directions and, as already mentioned, there is the big 3-element yagi for those directions. The Moxon is small enough that my ancient (and multiply refurbished) Ham-M rotator can handle it.

The actual W6NL design works pretty well but it has a few unusual characteristics. The modelled SWR bandwidth appears to be narrower than a traditional Moxon rectangle, gain is slightly less and I worry about the capacitance hats striking each other when it's windy and their inconstant separation. The latter is a critical parameter of the Moxon design.

For these reasons I decided to explore and compare alternative approaches. I hoped to gain insights into their relative performance, both electrical and mechanical. Any 40 meter rotatable yagi is a large antenna and there may be good reasons to compromise electrical performance in favour of mechanical robustness.

The baseline model I developed is a symmetrical Moxon rectangle. It is not novel since others have made similar antennas, but I didn't have a model in hand that I was comfortable with. 

I proceeded by keeping the symmetric rectangle dimensions close to those of the traditional (asymmetric element) Moxon rectangle and placing a coil at the centre of the reflector. The coil lowers element resonance so that it has the proper reactance (phase shift) to be a reflector at the operating frequency.

In a real antenna the coil and feed point are switched to reverse the yagi but this is not necessary in a model since the switching system does not affect the antenna when properly implemented.  The switching system can introduce coupling and stray reactance that are not part of the model but must be dealt with during construction and testing of the antenna.

To meet my criteria the antenna must have these features:

• Symmetrical: two identical elements
• Critical coupling: element tips are placed near each other
  
• Switchable: driven element and reflector; the reflector has a coil at the centre
• Switching system: method for selecting which element is driven and which is the reflector
  

Exploration is a multi-step process. The first model uses constant diameter elements -- 25 mm in this instance -- with each element tuned to 7.0 MHz. That allows NEC2 to handle the antenna reasonably well since SDC (stepped diameter correction) is avoided, and EZNEC's SDC does not support bent elements well. Element dimensions and coil value were varied until the performance was approximately equal to that of a traditional (asymmetric) Moxon rectangle. 

When this reversible Moxon rectangle is optimized to this very good SWR, it looks as follows:

• 5.6 meter boom
• 14.5 meter elements and 2.65 meter inward legs
  
• 30 cm (12") gap between element tips
• 1.5 μH reflector loading coil
• Peak gain of 6.6 dbi at 6.955 MHz; Peak F/B of 23 db at 7.1 MHz
  

There may be slightly better solutions, but this is pretty typical for a Moxon rectangle. Every 2-element yagi with a reflector as the parasite, Moxon or not, has the maximum gain placed below the band edge so that the F/B and SWR are good across the band. This symmetric Moxon has the same attributes, which will be shown further below. This was a promising beginning.

There are commercial antennas similar to this, but they're rare due to their size. For example the one from Optibeam is electrically shortened. The performance penalty is modest, but there is one. It is rotatable but not reversible. 

Take note of the mechanical connection between the element tips. Sagging over the span of the boom length can be significant. Wind and ice demand a robust design for these large elements. I'll return to this later since it's an important structural consideration.

The W6NL design eliminates the sag problem by making each element horizontally balanced. The inner legs, that make it a type of Moxon, are one half of each capacitance hat. The element tips are extended which moves the hats inward. There is less stress at the ends of the elements. It is possible to design this style of yagi without element trusses if the elements are made sufficiently strong (and heavy).

However, the W6NL Moxon (whether built from scratch or as a modified XM240) is not symmetrical and it is therefore not reversible. For this modelling exercised I instead explored modifications of the basic design that are symmetric.

The diagram comes from Cebik's article that does a deep dive into the Moxon rectangle. The critical parameters are shown. There is the ratio of the length to the width and the gap between element tips. There is a dependence of k (ratio of wire diameter to wavelength) which I will skip over in this article since it isn't particularly relevant. Also, I use symmetric elements with loading rather than element length to tune them.

Element topology contributes to gain. The greater the length of the parallel element sections, the greater the gain; the tip radiation cancels in the far field due to their symmetry. The gap, C, determines the coupling, for which we need the best value to achieve the Moxon's particular advantages with respect to impedance, SWR bandwidth and F/B.

I explored these three variants. The one on the right is the most similar to the Moxon rectangle. On the left is the one most similar to the W6NL design; the element tips are short since I did a screen capture while I was playing with the model. In the centre is a hybrid where the capacitance hats are at the ends of the elements; it looks like a Moxon rectangle with outward arms at the 4 corners.

I found that the critical gap between element tips was around 30 cm (12") for all of these 40 meter variants. Moving away from that value in either direction had a large effect on the 50 Ω match, and a more gradual effect on the F/B bandwidth. In all cases the wire diameters are 25 mm (1") along their entire lengths. The choice is justified since this is a design exploration, not a construction article.

The symmetric Moxon on the right has a few interesting features. It works best when the boom length (width) is 5.6 meters (18'-4"), with respect to gain and F/B. After many trials, the same was found for the other two designs. The surprised me since the W6NL Moxon has a longer boom. Shortening the boom had the effect of making the elements longer and the capacitance hats shorter to compensate. When the booms are 5.6 meters, the capacitance arms are identical for all three: 2.65 meters. The outer arms for the two with T-hats are also 2.65 meters for mechanical balance.

Notice that the length to width ratios for the two on the left are lower than that on the right. The maximum gains are a little lower due to the shorter elements. That is due to loading by the hats. 

The element tips on the symmetric version of the W6NL Moxon proved to be a problem. The longer they were the worse the gain and match (I didn't closely monitor the F/B during the process). The problems mostly vanished when the tips were reduced to zero length, which is the T-hat version in the middle diagram. I can't give a definitive reason based on a cursory inspection of the models other than to say that the coupling between elements is less than critical due to the greater distribution of high-impedance points where capacitive coupling is under-utilized. 

I therefore discarded the design on the left and focussed on the remaining two. After coarse optimization I compared their performance.

Gain and F/B are sufficiently similar that we can declare them to be effectively equal. The gain of both is a little less than that of a traditional 2-element yagi with a reflector element and slightly longer boom. Both plots are continued below the band edge to demonstrate that gain increases, which is typical of all 2-element reflector yagis, Moxon or not.

The impedance matches are also very similar and quite good right across the band. The Moxon rectangle is on the top and the T-hat on the bottom.

Since their electrical performance is about the same we turn to the mechanical parameters. These can be as critical as performance considering the large size of 40 meter yagis. Regarding the electrical and mechanical performance of the W6NL Moxon, I suggest reading this paper by W8WWV.

There are several parameters to consider:

• Element length
• Element balance
• Weight
• Wind & ice load
  
• Maintaining the distance between element tips

First, let's compare the total linear lengths. For the symmetric rectangle, each half element is 7.25 meters and the inward sides are each 2.65 meters, for a total length of 19.8 meters. For the T-hat version, each half element is 5.9 meters and each T-hat arm is 2.65 meters, for a total length of 22.4 meters. The elements of the latter are shorter but the arms at the ends of the elements, where they are weakest are double that of the rectangle.

The T-hats are balanced on the element ends while the inward arms of the rectangle are not. The torque on the end of the element is a concern with the rectangle. It can be partially mitigated by a fibreglass rod to fix the gap distance and mechanically couple the arms of the opposing elements. However, the long span of 5.6 meters of, hopefully, lightweight tubing requires more mechanical strength than for the similarly coupled arms of the balanced T-hats.

The arms of the rectangle design require a stronger design than for the T-hats, and that may be a greater threat than the nominally lighter rectangle. Element trusses do not solve the problem. The T-hat design might not even need element trusses if the elements are made sufficiently strong. Since the T-hats are weight and load balanced, the 5.6 meter inner span between the elements might only need attention with respect to stress caused when the elements experience unequal loading in a strong wind.

It's a dilemma and I have no good answer at the moment. You could say the electrical performance is the easy part of the antenna design. Although I have enough aluminum in my stockpile to increase the strength of the elements, there is a greater risk of breakage at the centre since both elements must be split for feeding and for switching in a series coil. The elements must also be electrically isolated from the boom. The mechanical design is challenging.

That will be my next step. Until I have a robust mechanical design I will not make a final determination on whether to proceed with a rectangle or T-hat design. The basic mechanical design is common to both. 

There are alternatives like the NW3Z 3-element yagi and yagis with two V-shaped elements that do away with the high load at the ends of the elements, but those come with an additional performance penalty: they are not true Moxons and gain is reduced by the smaller effective element spacing.

I'll end with an additional concern for both designs: potential for interactions. The XM240 is not resonant on the third harmonic which would otherwise fall within the 15 meter band. I included capacitance hats on the 3-element yagi to accomplish the same. It was therefore important to know how the reversible T-hat and rectangle designs fare in that respect.

The SWR sweep of the rectangle is at the top and the T-hat is on the bottom. Both meet my objective of avoiding resonance on any contest band, and especially 15 meters. I was not really concerned since loaded elements (which includes the non-linear element profile of the Moxon rectangle elements) shift the third harmonic away from its simple arithmetic value.

ARRL DX CW - M/2 @VE3JM

When I was young and without a station or just a small one, the only way to do an effective multi-op contest operation was from others' stations. I don't do it very much these days. When my friend Vlad VE3JM asked me to join his team for ARRL DX CW, I welcomed the opportunity. I operated there several years ago for CQ WW SSB. His station has changed a lot since then.

As readers likely know, I have a "big gun" station of my own now, and that I've hosted multi-op teams for two contests so far: CQ WW SSB and CW. There are good reasons for operating from another station for a major contest despite having my own big station:

• Opportunity to team up with contesters I haven't operated with before
• See how other big guns design their stations
  
• Learn new strategies and operating styles
• Learn to use and assess other software packages, equipment and switching systems
• Less worry about problems arising and the stress of being the one to fix them
• Have fun!
  

There was one more reason: my station is experiencing several technical problems that would have seriously impacted a contest operation. None are major but it was impossible to deal with them in time for the contest. With luck and good weather I hope to be ready to try another multi-op for the ARRL DX Phone contest in March. If problems persist I may enter single-band single-op.

All of us were relaxed enough not to cause conflicts. Rather than five keyed up contesters fighting for the two operating seats, we were all happy to cede the seat when another wanted operating time. When an operator needed a break there was always another ready to step in. When problems arose we calmly worked around them. We were tolerant of our differing tactics for mixing running with hunting. All in all, we worked well as a team.

Antennas

There were several antenna problems. Since Vlad works and has limited time to attend to the station they could not be resolved before the contest. Even so we did well. Put enough aluminum up high and magic happens despite not always being able to turn the antennas or use all the yagis in a stack.

We had stacks on 20 and 15 meters, two tri-banders, a 10 meter yagi, two yagis on 40, an 80 meter 4-square and one of the big towers served as a vertical on 160 meters. There was one receive antenna.

More antennas would have been nice but, again, that has to wait until he has time. The picture shows his newest tower with only an XM240 at 140'. There is ample room for more antennas. With time they are certain to appear.

Equipment

Both stations had venerable Elecraft K3 transceivers and pan adaptors. I've only ever used the K3 during contests at other stations so there is a brief learning curve every time. The pan adaptor controls took getting used to since I had never used that K3 accessory. There were occasional receiving artifacts that may have been due to IMD or overload. 

The third station consisted of a Flex transceiver and a multi-band vertical that was hastily erected. This station was just for listening. It could have been used to work a few multipliers except that there was no interlock with the other two stations. Despite that constraint, it served very well for checking out multipliers and band conditions by one of the three otherwise idle operators.

In the picture (credit VE3JM) you can see me on the far right at the third station while Nick VE3EY (foreground) and Dave VE3KG operate the main stations.

Amplifiers were a manually tuned AL1200 and an auto-tune Flex PGXL. Despite the automatic band switching and tuning, the PGXL cannot be ignored entirely. It reacted to antenna matching difficulties such as one yagi that became intermittent, and again when we were hit by a snowstorm that altered impedances of the antennas. Although the AL1200 had to be manually tuned, it was easy to compensate for impedance changes and the grounded grid design was tolerant of imperfect tuning. 

High power BPF and tri-plexers are by Pavel VA6AM. They work extremely well. I have his prototype 6-band low power BPF in my station, which also work very well.

DXLog

I've never used DXLog before, but I've wanted to give it a trial run for some time. It was a necessity for this contest since the antenna control and automation are integrated with DXLog. VE3JM uses the same basic system developed by K3JO for the K1LZ super-station. Perhaps it was my bias due to my long experience with N1MM that I didn't really like it. That said, it did some things very well and has features that I have not (yet) considered for my home brew station automation.

The screenshot is that of the third station. The screen includes the Flex system and a browser window monitoring the contest scoreboard. The log entry window is at the bottom left. This is far busier than the two main stations that each has two displays. The lack of screen real estate wasn't a problem since the stations wasn't used for making contacts. The information display was all we needed to monitor our contest operations and to assist with the choice of operating tactics.

One of things I didn't like was the default colour schemes and fonts used in several windows that are not easy to read with older eyes. We made a few changes to increase the colour contrast. Most of the time it didn't matter since the operators were focussed on only a few windows. The window for available multipliers and contacts was easy to read and used to rapidly pounce on stations. I could run through the list and often work them faster than when running. One call was all it took in most cases.

The station automation and antenna selection is integrated into DXLog using APIs. I prefer to have the choice of whether to use DXLog or N1MM. For that reason I use RadioInfo UDP broadcasts for my station automation system. I eventually plan to enhance my software to accept RadioInfo messages sent by DXLog. They appear to be similar and rich enough to support the same functionality I have with N1MM. I don't want to be locked into either contest logger.

Contest scoreboard

This was the first time I've used the contest scoreboard. It never struck me before as useful or interesting. Vlad set it up for us to track our score against the other major M/2 competitor in Canada: VA2WA. I won't say that I'm hooked but I was impressed and it did indeed keep us motivated.

When our score was close to them or other M/2 you could feel the tension and motivation in the shack. I don't know if the rate increased because of it but we became more aware of available multipliers and chased them. We started slow on Friday due to technical issues so it took many hours to catch up to the competition. In the end we did and finally overtook them. Although that was our primary objective, we also watched how we did relative to our closest American competitors N2NL and K9RX. We had little hope of catching K9CT and W3LPL, the former with superior antennas and the latter also having a superior location. Nevertheless it was fun to watch.

Racking up the QSOs and multipliers takes time so it doesn't help to pay too close attention. We were always curious about which bands they appeared to be running or chasing mults. That made us rethink our tactics: were they the best or should we try something different. Most competitors reported band break downs which were very useful to understanding what they were doing in near real time. I enjoyed that aspect of the competition so much that I let others operate more so that I could spend time considering strategy. When advisable I would make suggestions to the operators. 

I can't say that the contest scoreboard helped us do as well as we did but it certainly made us pursue tactics that would boost our score. It is unlikely that I'll use the scoreboard often other than for multi-ops. I am less curious about the activity of others when I operate by myself.

Operating styles and tactics

The fundamental strategy for an M/2 entry can be summarized by one word: run. The only reasons not to run are to chase multipliers or to call other runners. The S & P sessions are brief and intense, and are usually interspersed with CQs. That is, when there is no response to a CQ you click on a spot, call and hopefully work them. 

Whether or not you work them, you immediately return to the run frequency and CQ again. Speed is of the essence. If you fail to work them, repeat the cycle.

S & P sessions last longer only when runs are particularly dry. A band change is often the more productive option. Band changes are otherwise only justified to run faster or to chase multipliers. Counting band changes is critical since each station is permitted 6 per clock hour (e.g. 1300Z to 1459Z); 8 are allowed in CQ WW.  Changing bands and back again counts as two band changes so you have to pay close attention to the countdown window (DXLog and N1MM both have this feature). We would use unused band changes late in the hour to chase multipliers just before they reset to 6.

The third operator, when there was one, monitors activity levels and available multipliers and makes suggestions to the operators on desirable bands and openings, and spotted multipliers. Runs from a big gun station can be intense so the operator might not immediately notice the spots. In all cases it was the operator that made the choice of what to do and when.

Other tactics were minor in comparison to the ones mentioned above. For example, which antennas to use, individually or in a stack, 

Those who were not operating did errands for the operators. This included delivering food, drinks and snacks. There was almost always someone on deck, ready to jump in when an operator needs a break. With 5 operators there was plenty of time to chat and sleep. Since I'm a nighthawk, I left most of the high band running to the others during the day so that I could operate overnight. My time to quit was after the gray line openings on the low bands were done soon after dawn.

Late in the contest we celebrated every multiplier and eagerly watched the scoreboard to see how it would change our position. The scores were often very close and every multiplier or brief run had a large impact. It was tremendous fun.

Conditions

This was one of those rare contests when propagation conditions were exceptionally good. What was particularly unusual was that all 6 bands were hot. 10 meters opened at sunrise and didn't close until hours after sunset. 160 meters delivered openings in all directions and the multiplier counts show it. We worked at least one QRP station in Europe. Even 20 meters performed well throughout the day. It is often suppressed midday by D-layer absorption that increases during a solar maximum.

The solar flux was high but not very high. Days of quiet geomagnetic conditions leading up to the contest appeared to be a major contributing factor.

A good example of the low absorption was the propagation on 40 and 80 meters. Our run rate to Europe continued for hours after their sunrise. We were astonished to be called by Europeans on 40 meters as far south as Italy a full 3 hours after their sunrise. The daylight openings were shorter on 80 meters but still exceptional. I haven't seen such quiet conditions in a major contest since the solar cycle minimum. 

Quiet geomagnetic conditions that last for days are unusual at a solar maximum. Sunspots are constantly erupting and sending radiation and particle streams our way. Nor were there any flares to cause radio blackouts during the daytime. 

Yet geography still matters. Stations south of us were able to reach a little further for a little longer. That raised their QSO totals relative to those of us further north. With the bulk of contest QSOs between North America and Europe (80% or higher), geomagnetic latitude matters. Multiplier potential was more equitable since those come from all directions. We were not disadvantaged in that respect.

Going home

After sharing a post-contest meal we went our separate ways. Leaving was not easy. Not because of the camaraderie but because of the awful weather and road conditions. We were beset by heavy snow squalls and high winds that made driving treacherous. Although the plows were doing their best on a Sunday evening, speeds were slow and the accident potential high. 

When near zero visibility whiteouts greeted us on the major highways, the semis took control and kept me safely on the roadway. Luckily we all got home without incident. It was not the best way to end the weekend. The photo at right gives you an idea what it was like, except that the highway was wider, the traffic heavier and it was dark with headlights only serving to blind drivers from the bright reflection off the heavy snowflakes.

Despite the commute challenge, the contest was well worth the trouble. As many have noted, conditions were outstanding on all bands and the activity high. Many records fell that weekend. If our score holds up we will have set a new Canadian M/2 record. That would be a nice accomplishment for a fun weekend with good friends.only show totals