Wall Decorations

Over the decades my shack walls have always been bare. The one exception was when I was a new ham (1970s!). At that time I pinned a few treasured QSL cards on a corkboard in the basement shack of my parents' house. None of my many shacks since have had any such adornment. 

I never framed my license, contest achievement awards or anything else. QSLs lie forgotten in boxes, certificates discarded or filed away and plaques stacked on bookshelves. I have never applied for DXCC or any other operating awards so I don't have those either. About a decade after graduating from university I finally framed my science degrees yet never hung them up. Plaques, paper certificates and educational accomplishments never leave their storage boxes. The same was true of family pictures until recently. 

I am not one for public displays, particularly those regarding personal accomplishments. It looks too much like bragging, a behaviour I hate to see in anyone. Plaques on walls don't have to be about bragging but may be. Everyone has their reasons.

In my dotage I have relented to a degree. Family portraits and even an original painting now adorn the walls of my house. There is some comfort in that since I've lost so many family members. Yet until recently the shack walls continued to be bare. That changed earlier this month.

It isn't an impressive array of contest plaques compared to some others. It is just what I have, or at least all that I've found. There may be plaques from contests much early in my contesting career but I honestly can't remember. If they exist they are buried deep. I feel no great urge to dig through dozens of boxes that I haven't opened for many long years.

Since I've never done this before and it isn't intended to be a brag wall, there has to be another reason. It's a simple one really. When I organize multi-op contest efforts and invite younger contesters to participate the plaques might provide inspiration. For seasoned and new contesters alike it is a reminder of why we're here: to do our best and hope to win.

If you were able to see detail in the photo you might have a chuckle. Most of the plaques are for QRP. That isn't the category most contesters care for. Indeed, some have told me outright that they don't consider QRP a sensible cateogory to enter. Obviously I disagree. There are plaques on the wall for two overall wins in CQ WW SSB and another two in ARRL Sweepstakes. 

I've been #2 or #3 several times in past contests but there are no plaques given for that. There can only be one winner. However I do have what could only be called "consolation" awards, such as those for winning Canada in a major contest. Since our contesting community is relatively small that isn't a great achievement. Nevertheless those plaques are now on the wall with all the rest.

That isn't so terrible here in the Great White North since, for example, in CQ WW we are in a poor position to win plaques for the major categories. Propagation isn't favourable, scoring for US and Canada is asymmetric (thus the separate range of US plaques for which we don't qualify) and we lose in competition with the Caribbean for North American plaques. We take what we can get! 

I know many contesters who strive to win plaques. When an overall win isn't possible due to geography, station, competition or other reasons they choose a category they can win. Otherwise unpopular categories may seem enticing. These may be for lower power levels (LP or QRP), single band, assisted vs non-assisted, etc. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you desire. 

I am more interested in having fun and achieving a personal goal. I don't even care if my choice of category isn't officially recognized. Plaques are never on my radar. When one shows up in (or more likely on) my mailbox it is almost always a surprise.

There are also no plaques on my wall for DXCC or other non-contest operating awards. As I've mentioned more than just once on this blog that I don't need formal recognition to celebrate my achievements. I have 315 countries confirmed on LOTW, and over 100 similarly confirmed on all bands from 160 to 6 meters. My DXCC Challenge count has almost reached 2300 despite the award not being an objective. I know what I've done and that's good enough for me.

It was interesting when a friend (Dave VE3KG) recently sent me the adjacent photo. Doug VE3KKB was digging through his boxes and found this plaque from a contest we did together, along with Brian VE3CRG, well over 40 years ago. That was in the time of paper logs, hybrid tube/transistor radios and no spotting networks. His call and mine have since changed yet here we are in 2026 still enthusiastic about the hobby and still contesting.

I vaguely recall that we entered M/M since M/S, which we usually entered, didn't allow a group of keen operators as much time in the chair as we'd like. How we won I'll never know. 

Look at that score. Can you imagine winning WPX in 2026 with a score that low? Single ops nowadays score far higher than we did M/M. Of course we now have assistance, SO2R, more agile technology and, specific to WPX, far more prefix multipliers on offer. 

The special prefix helped. Those were less common back then.

Although times are ever changing it is fun to reminisce a little about how it used to be. We had a lot of fun contesting then and we still do today. I am expecting to have a guest op for WPX SSB later this month. WPX is no longer one of my favourite contests so I'm happy to clear the way my calendar for someone else to aim for a contest plaque. I hope that he achieves his goal.

Puzzling Digital DXing Tactics

DXpeditions to rare entities can bring out the worst in people. The pile ups are unruly, DQRM is rampant and every complaint imaginable is seen on social media and spotting networks. I expected to see all of it during the 3Y0K Bouvet Island operation and I have, regrettably, not been disappointed. A few well known DXers and contesters are among the worst offenders.

After so long in the hobby none of it surprises me. Technology has changed the ways in which the nonsense is performed, but human behaviour remains the same. I simply work around it and marvel at the human comedy of my fellow DXers. If working rare DX or winning a contest were easy we wouldn't value it as much. Nobody is entitled to a QSO.

I thought I'd seen it all but I was wrong. There is a new kind of bad behaviour. Perhaps I should not have been surprised that digital modes, with the need for different tactics to work the rare DX, breeds new forms of poor DXing behaviour. 

My own operating on digital modes (and by that I primary mean FT8) is limited. I do it on 6 meters where it does wonders, a little on 160, when CW activity is absent, and on other bands only as insurance contacts when I have not yet successfully worked a DXpedition on CW or SSB. It may be that I've been slower to notice these digital antics than some others.

I won't bore you with multiple screenshots of what I've seen even though a lot of it is amusing. Some of these antics include:

• Wrong call sign (e.g. 3Y0J and 3YOK): These were obviously entered manually. This wouldn't happen if they clicked on an actual message from 3Y0K. Presumably they can't copy 3Y0K yet they insist on calling.
• Transmitting on the wrong period: The DXpedition is on the first (even) periods (00/30) and the callers are on the opposite periods (15/45). Callers on 00/30 aren't copying 3Y0K or carelessly override the convenience feature of letting the software choose the correct period.
• Passersby calling the callers: Amazingly a few of the called answer. I guess those pile ups are where the "work everybody" crowd goes to hunt fresh meat.

Now let's look at the one screenshot I did take. I chose it since it captures several kinds of odd behaviour. The frequency is 1836 kHz, which I have been periodically monitoring since 160 meters is the one remaining band where I'd like to work 3Y0K. Call signs of the callers have been obscured.

The first two messages are pretty innocuous. These appear to be stations legitimately calling the DXpedition. However, while there was concurrent evidence that they were being weakly heard in Europe it was very improbable that they were heard in my part of the world (I'm in FN24). I have an extensive system of Beverage receive antennas with which I hear very well and I didn't copy 3Y0K at all. The station in FN31 is one I don't ever recall hearing on top band.

These may both be examples of blind calling. While this may seem pointless it does have one possible benefit. That is, if 3Y0K is not actively CQing but the operators are monitoring 1836 kHz for signs of an opening, successful copy of these transmissions would get their attention. 

The number of stations doing this sharply increases as sunrise in Bouvet approaches later in our evening -- their sunrise is approximately 0525Z. Successful stations have noted that their signal peaks about 10 to 15 minutes before then if it appears at all. I am not aware of a northeast NA station hearing or working 3Y0K early in our evening, 5 hours before their sunrise.

Another surprisingly common sight is stations sending an R-nn message seemingly out of the blue. Did they really copy a signal report from 3Y0K? That northeast NA station is very unlikely to have heard them when I and other well-equipped top band stations have not. I see the tactic done by many stations when 3Y0K is weakly heard (on all bands, not just 160) and few if any are heard by the DXpedition.

What is going on? I have heard opinions that it is a harebrained tactic to illegitimately slip into the log. Pretend that you received their report and hope that they copy one out of the multitude of R-nn messages sent by the station. The hope is that the DXpedition op clicks on it to send the RR73 and thus you magically appear in the 3Y0K log without every copying them. Unbelievable! Yet many persist.

Any DXpedition, and indeed almost every FT8 operator, uses auto-sequence. Therefore the tactic does not work. Even were they not using auto-sequence it would take a particularly dim DXpedition operator to click on that message to send an RR73 and then log the QSO. On 160 this is even less likely to happen since if you're having that much difficulty it is very unlikely that the R-nn message would ever be copied by them.

You may have also noted that this station did not actually copy the DXpedition and typed an incorrect call. That will certainly not work! It takes a especially shallow intellect to believe that DXpedition ops are so incompetent.

The last example from the screenshot is of a station responding to a phantom decode. That isn't uncommon. With stations configured for automatic responses, operators that don't pay attention or lack an understanding of international call sign prefixes and structure, regularly fall into this trap. It is more interesting in this case since that station was not CQing or blindly calling 3Y0K. How did it come about, and on 1836 kHz which is not the designated FT8 waterhole? It's a mystery, but an amusing mystery.

I have to wonder how these hams perceive DXing and the technology. Don't they think they ought to be able to copy the station they're calling? On CW or SSB this can be difficult due to weak signals or DQRM but not on FT8 -- the signal is decoded or it's not. Is getting in the DXpedition's log more important than legitimately working them? If that's all you want, send them a "donation" and thank them for working you on 160 meters at such and such a time. While that won't work with 3Y0K it is unfortunately that a few DX operators will confirm those donations.

As I type these words I have heard 3Y0K only once on 160 meters. First on CW and then FT8, at the anointed pre-sunrise opening. They switched to digital when they had difficulty copying the CW callers. Unfortunately I failed to get their attention on CW and I decoded them just once on FT8 before the brief opening faded. Oh well. I'll have to keep trying. With the switch to daylight time last weekend it has gotten harder since 0525Z is now 1:25 AM local time. I can't (won't) do that every night.

As the DXpedition continues the DQRM has subsided. I guess the perpetrators got bored. From my QTH they have mostly been off the side of the beam (Europe) or inside the skip zone (eastern NA). Frustrated callers continue to vent on the DX spotting networks to little effect since the DXpedition doesn't monitor spots. Better to send an email to the pilot for your region.

With a little luck (and sleep deprivation) I may yet work them on 160. Even if I don't I've done well and have nothing to complain about. I can claim an achievement rarer than a QSO with Bouvet: an email! This came to us from a friend on the DXpedition. It was great to hear from him and it put a smile on my face. I hope that the rest of their stay is without drama and that they all get home safely. Many hams are now one step closer to DXCC Honor Roll.

3-element 20M Yagi (Constrained) Optimization

I am designing several small mono-band yagis to replace the TH6. The venerable tri-band yagi is fixed south at an intermediate height (~25 meters) for working the southeast US, Caribbean and South America. It's deficits are that it is narrow band (high Q), high loss (traps) and not sharable during multi-ops. It's also very very old.

A no-trap tri-band yagi like the Skyhawk fits the bill when combined with a triplexer and set of high power BPF. However that is a very expensive solution at >$4,000 if the equipment is purchased new. They are not often found on the used market. I am fortunate to have purchased a used Skyhawk far below the new price. It is rotatable at about 21 meters height.

A few small (smallish) yagis are not expensive to build since I have ample aluminum in my stock. I also do not anticipate difficulty side mounting these yagis where they can be effective without significantly interacting with the stacks for the high bands. Additional switching hardware will have to be built and fit into the station automation, but that isn't difficult. Low loss transmission lines are mostly already in place.

I decided to abandon my attempt to design a 2-element 20 meter yagi with the attributes I want. Performance of every 2-element variation, including Moxons, have been poor in some respect. These include gain, gain bandwidth, SWR or mechanical robustness. My revised objective is an ordinary 3-element yagi. I have all of the material on hand, although I'd have preferred not to use so much of it. Hopefully I can replenish my stock through more scrounging.

Even for such a simple antenna there are many interdependent parameters. For the design process I have fixed the boom length to 7 meters (23') since I can build a boom that length from available tubes and it is sufficient for good performance. I have further fixed the position of the DE (driven element) at 40 cm (16") behind boom centre: closer to the reflector than the director. It is a position that is conducive to achieving good performance that is used for most yagi designs.

Fixing certain parameters simplifies the design and optimization but can omit some high performance solutions. Based on my experience these choices are acceptable since excellent designs are readily obtainable by fixing these particular parameters. 

Since this is a design exercise rather than a construction plan, all of the elements are constant diameter 25 mm wires. A taper schedule can be added later with negligible change to the yagi's performance. Using EZNEC, I compared NEC2 and NEC5 then decided to stick with NEC5 for the remainder of the design process. Gain is virtually identical between NEC2 and NEC5, with small variations in F/B and feed point impedance.

The modelled feed point matching network is a beta (hairpin) match. The length of the DE is shorter than resonance to provide series capacitive reactance. The length and impedance of the shorted stub determine the shunt inductance. These parameters are easy to adjust in the model and in the field. A beta match requires the DE to be electrically isolated from the boom, unlike the gamma matches I typically use. Mechanical complexity is traded for tuning simplicity, but either is acceptable. A CMC (common mode choke) is advisable for any feed system.

With the selected fixed parameters we have the following degrees of freedom in a 3-element yagi:

• Lengths of the director and reflector
• Ratio of director to reflector lengths 

Really, that's about it. Only a 2-element yagi is simpler. Yagis with 4 or more elements are more difficult to optimize since there are so many more variables. Luckily there are numerous published and optimized yagi designs so that in most cases you can look them up in the ARRL Antenna Book and elsewhere. But beware of unverified designs based on boasting, poor methodology, old myths that refuse to die and opinions not backed up by engineering.

Even for a simple 3-element design like this one there are a several things to keep in mind:

• Maximum gain is largely determined by boom length, not the number of elements. Once a boom length is selected, we choose the number of elements needed to ensure sufficient coupling among them to enable the performance objectives to be attained.
• The length of the DE is irrelevant to performance. It only needs to be close enough to the lengths of the parasitic elements to effectively couple. Modest shortening of the DE to transform the feed point impedance to 50 Ω has negligible performance impact. 
• For a 3-element yagi, gain rises with frequency and is typically maximum beyond the operating bandwidth. For 2-element yagis maximum gain is below the operating bandwidth. Yagis with 4 or more elements are similar to those with 3 elements in this respect but with more variability. 
• Smaller reflector to director length ratios give higher gain and narrower SWR bandwidth. Too small a ratio can result in an antenna gain that cannot be effectively matched and requires large diameter elements (not wire) to avoid ohmic loss in the elements. This is due to the low radiation resistance where gain is maximum. That is expected and not a coincidence.
• High reflector to director length ratios can in extreme cases be fed without a matching network since their feed point impedances can be close to 50 Ω. However, that feature comes at the cost of performance. 

For this design exercise I modelled a 3-element yagi with a parasitic element "spread" of 6%. That is, the reflector is 6% longer than resonance for the operating bandwidth and the director 6% shorter. I then adjusted the DE and beta match for an SWR of 1 at mid-band: 14.175 MHz. That was my baseline. From that baseline I increased and decreased the reflector to director ratio to bracket a reasonable range of performance metrics.

To demonstrate the results I will only present 3 of those spreads: 5%, 7% and 10%. Outside that range the performance metrics are not to my liking. Others could perhaps justify alternative designs for specific applications. My primary objective is as follows:

• Maximum gain for an SWR lower than 1.5 across the 20 meter band: 14.0 to 14.35 MHz. 

I am not concerned with optimizing F/B, since the antenna is primarily for contests in which I am happy to hear and work stations off the main lobe. The low SWR objective is to be compatible with solid state amplifiers that have no ATU. This is an objective to enable maximum operating agility. The TH6, like any loaded or trapped yagi, performs poorly in this respect.

Well, that's a long preamble to set up what will be a brief presentation of my modelling results. So let's have a look.

From this graph it should begin to become clear why I selected the spread values that I did. Above 7% the 1.5 SWR is too narrow, and is indeed little better than the TH6. The SWR bandwidth at a 10% spread seems enticing until we consider performance.

To display F/B and gain on a single chart I expanded it vertically. The colour scheme may be a little confusing but good enough to convey the data.

There is a significant gain difference among the three designs. As already described, gain rises toward the top of the band and narrower spreads have higher gain. The range varies between 1 and 1.5 db. 

Is that a significant difference for on-air performance? Many hams will say no. However, for contest use there is a demonstrable difference. It may not be immediately evident in use since QSB obscures the difference. Even 1 db will get you through the pile ups faster and when running you'll attract more callers.

For me the lower gain for the 10% spread is undesirable. At 7% gain is only 0.5 db below that of the yagi with a 5% spread, and the SWR objective is met, just barely. The parameters of the beta match (not shown) are easily achievable without compromising construction or efficiency.

While F/B is not strongly favoured for my intended purposes, the relatively poor F/B with a 10% spread is concerning. It can be somewhat improved by adjusting yagi parameters that I fixed for this modelling exercise, though not by much. A 10% is too wide. Yet it is interesting that many commercial designs within this range. Perhaps the full-band low SWR is effective marketing. 

F/B for 5% and 7% spreads are different but comparable. Considering full band performance, the 7% yagi is perhaps marginally better. It isn't worth fussing over since the difference will be difficult to notice in practice and even small interactions with the tower, guys and other antennas near and far will alter both performance charts such that it would be hard to prefer one over the other. 

Unlike gain and SWR, the overall pattern is acutely sensitive to interactions. This is because of the exact balance of amplitude and phase to substantially cancel radiation in those many directions.

My hope is that this deliberately constrained analysis of 3-element yagis helps to clarify necessary trade offs in any yagi design. There really isn't anything new in this article. Despite this, the analysis has clarified how to proceed.

My choice is a 7% spread. I have already begun collecting the material and construction will proceed this spring. Replacement of the TH6 with the new yagi may be delayed so that I don't lose 10 and 15 meters until yagis for those bands are ready. I want all three yagis ready for the fall contest season.

I am planning construction features to achieve more than the basic objectives. For example, managing interaction with the nearby 40 meter Moxon. I'll report on those after the yagi has been completed, tuned and tested, along with a detailed description of the antenna. It was brutally cold this morning but the sun is shining and spring is not far off.