PC Migration in the Shack

Technology changes fast. Call it Moore's Law if you like, it is true that our computers and related technology can do more, and do it faster, as time moves on. This has been going on for decades and isn't likely to end anytime soon.

It is unsurprising that software and equipment in our shacks exploits that power. We have direct-sampling SDR in our transceiver, standalone SDR, loggers with massive databases and search features, online real time data collection, analysis and dissemination to characterize on air activity, and so much more. And it's remarkably inexpensive. With a little learning it isn't difficult to build custom equipment that can greatly aid the enjoyment of our hobby.

But technology doesn't come entirely free. The technology you own has to be replaced, and quite often, to keep up with the resource demands of new applications and services. That costs money. Perhaps worse is the migration: moving our applications and data from one computer to another, and reformatting or transforming data formats. We may also have to adjust our operating practices to make the best of new products and services. As they say, the only constant is change.

I recently purchased a new PC to replace the one that runs most of the station. The old one -- only about 6 years old, can no longer cope with the data processing requirements, especially during contests. It bogs down, and that impacts my effectiveness. It also run Windows 10 which has been forced into obsolescence. 

Aside from the Windows 11, the new PC has a higher speed microprocessor and attendant peripherals, including more and faster RAM, SSD rather than a hard disk, and more wireless options (Wi-Fi, BT, etc.). What have been eliminated are an Ethernet port, CD & DVD drive, and VGA video. Luckily I have an ample supply of cables, monitors, keyboard and so forth that are compatible with the new PC. Many others will have to buy more than just a PC when upgrading.

This article is not a migration guide, whether for ham radio or general computing. There are ample online references to help with that. I won't suggest any since I don't know which guides are best and I picked from several to get a diversity of ideas. I've migrated computers many times in the past but with every technology change the process is different. In two cases it was forced by a hard drive (HDD) failure. I hope that you keep up to date backups.

My sole purpose is to give you an idea of what I had to go through considering the size and complexity of my station. You may find it interesting. Hopefully it won't be as difficult in your station.

Why Windows?

While there are alternative OS's such as Linux and iOS, most of the software I use (as do most hams) only supports Windows. Eliminating Microsoft's OS from my station isn't practical and would make any migration far, far worse. I use Linux at home for other purposes but not for the computers running the station.

Some will nevertheless persist: there are ways to run most Windows applications on Linux and iOS. That's swapping one set of difficulties for another, and it's usually more difficult for a worse result. I have no reason to do so. This is a ham shack, not a religious crusade. Yet there are certain to be readers of the blog that have taken that road and are itching to preach the gospel. Please don't be that person.

Cleaning Windows 11

Removing all the "cruft" from Windows is easy but tedious. I followed several online guides on how to go about it. I uninstalled the Microsoft components I don't need or want, turned off the most annoying features of software that cannot be removed, and adjusted the behaviour of Files Explorer and other components. These are a few of the ones that applied to my ham radio applications:

• Turn on the display of file extensions and hidden files. There are so many applications with unique file locations and file types that I find it helpful to make these details visible.
• Ensure that file types (file extensions) default to the appropriate application. Don't assume that the Windows defaults are useful and sensible. It can be particularly useful to associate Notepad to files like .ini, .mc and similar settings files found in N1MM and other applications to make them easier to inspect and edit.
• Services like OneDrive -- I disable it and rely on manual backups -- are not compatible with N1MM Logger+ and various other applications. You must move databases out of its sight or you'll end up with corrupt data. 

While not "cruft", there are important Windows settings to consider. For example, for digital modes and voice message recording and playback, navigate to the audio settings and turn off all audio processing (mostly on the audio input) -- processing may be enabled by default. You will likely have to adjust the mic and speaker level since the defaults may not reside within the required level setting ranges needed in WSJT-X, N1MM Logger+ and other applications.

Windows increases the amount of security screening for applications with every release. That is reasonable. Enhanced security can prove challenging for the many ham radio applications that are not digitally signed or not distributed by Microsoft and other certified vendors. You'll have to work your way through the various security prompts ("are you sure you want to run this?") for each installed app. I even get splash warnings every time I run some custom applications. It can become very annoying.

Again, this is not a Windows guide so I won't delve deeper into the topic in this article. You may run into Windows security hurdles beyond those I've mentioned so be prepared to spend more time than expected on the migration.

File transfer

This is the easy part of the migration. There are many modern methods that are convenient and fast for moving large quantities of files between computers.

Three are shown in the picture: Wi-Fi, flash memory drive and portable hard drive. I find the last of those the easiest: the transfer is very fast. The USB HDD holds 1 TB, is cheap, and doubles as a backup device for all of my computers.

Although Wi-Fi may seem a good choice, I find that it's difficult to navigate Window's obscure local networking "features" to access the required remote drives and folders. Its terminology and restrictions make an easy wireless connection unfathomably difficult.

Aside from application folders and files, don't forget application installers. Ham radio applications tend to only last as long as the developer cares to do so. Once they abandon it, the application may be difficult to locate other than on predatory sites. I always save a local copy of install executable files. 

Most of those files will never be used since updated versions are supported and available online. But when you need one that has since become obsolete you'll be thankful that you kept it around. Most of those old installers work fine on current Windows versions.

Serial ports

When you plug a new device into a USB port on the computer, a COM port is assigned. With the increasing amount of computerized equipment in our shacks there are many ports. It is your job to know which newly assigned COM port is associated with which device. If you use a USB hub (you have more USB devices than ports on the PC), use it during the connection process for the new PC.

It is helpful to have the Device Manager open when connecting USB devices. Watch for the new COM port to appear and write it down. Better, keep the information in a file on the computer; a text file is all that you need.

The COM will not be assigned until a driver is found. For some devices, such as the Silicon Labs driver for many rigs such as my Icom transceivers, the driver must be installed before the device is connected.

Follow the manufacturer's recommendations on device driver selection and use. Otherwise Windows may choose one that will not work properly or at all. Drivers such as for FTDI and CH340 devices can be loaded by Windows though it is not always easy. You may have to use the Windows update feature to find and load the driver. Once you have the correct driver beware that Windows may choose to update it during its usual update process. That may not be what you want.

Some devices will only work with a COM port lower than 10. Connect those first since they are incrementally assigned. The assignments can be changed later though with some difficulty. I prefer to avoid the necessity.

If you use applications such as com0com or VSP Manager (among many others) that create virtual serial ports and enable connections to and sharing of physical COM ports, you'll have to install those as well before the applications that use them will function. Again, keep detailed notes. I need virtual serial ports for the SO2R Mini.

Microsoft tries hard to put peripherals to sleep. After each serial (USB) peripheral (transceiver, SO2R device, etc.) is connected, assigned a COM port and the driver installed, the Device Manager's power management pane should be opened to disable the sleep feature. Occasionally a Windows upgrade will reverse the action so it can be worthwhile to periodically look for that check mark.

Transceivers

Modern rigs typically connect to the PC via USB. As a minimum this is for CAT control and for an increasing number of rigs it also supplies a virtual soundcard for audio (e.g. digital modes and phone contest messages). 

Virtual soundcards are assigned generic names that can be ambiguous when you have several transceivers and audio peripherals. Either document the assigned names or rename them to what you find useful. Virtual soundcards are not limited to transceivers, extending as well to VNA software, SDR, and SO2R devices.

Digital modes

WSJT-X can be annoying to initially set up. If you don't yet have a transceiver connected (CAT and soundcard) it can be futile to jump into the settings. The reason is that it won't let you save most or any of them until there is a functioning radio connection. It's very annoying. WSJT-X is wonderful software expect for the UI (user interface). 

You'll have to transfer (manually or otherwise) the specific parameters of the rig and soundcard selection. Colours, decoding level, spectrogram and other features will require similar setup. If you use the application in conjunction with a logging program such as HRD or N1MM, you'll have to go through that set up as well.

The log files must be copied to the new PC if you want WSJT-X to correctly identify stations worked before, grids and countries needed, etc. I took the most recent log and ADIF files from the old PC and carefully copied them to the new PC. 

• wsjtx.log
• wsjtx_log.adi 

The WSJT-X log file directory is deeply hidden within Windows so rather than find it yourself, open the log window from the Files menu. When copying the files to the new PC, make sure that WSJT-X isn't attempting to log a QSO; preferably do it without yet having used WSJT-X on the new PC, not even to monitor. 

The next time you start WSJT-X it will load the copied files and notify you in a message that is visible for just a few seconds. You should also load the latest country file, and update it from time to time. WSJT-X has a button to take care of that regular task. 

Migrating WSJTX-improved is the same as for the general release. Since I do not use JTDX or other digital modes software I have no migration advice to offer about those.

LOTW

An unexpected gap appeared when I tried to upload a log to LOTW for the first time on the new computer using TQSL. Since the signed digital certificate is tied to the device, a new one must be requested. I haven't done that yet. It's one more inconvenience to deal with.

Update 2025.12.18: I was wrong. The certificate can be transferred by backing up the certificate from the Certificate tab in TQSL, transferring the backup file to the new PC and then loading it. My thanks for those who contacted me to point out my mistake. 

Browser

I use several different browsers. I have one that strictly enforces privacy to protect me when viewing many web sites, especially those that I've never visited before. Another has strong ad blocking to block malware using ad networks as a distribution vector, and when using a variety of internet services that are overbearing with respect to ads. I use another browser to work on the blog since Blogger is incompatible with some security settings I enable. It's confusing but effective for my style of internet usage. If you use just one browser the migration will be easier.

Bookmarks have to be transferred and login credentials must be re-entered, among many other tasks where data on the old computer aren't present on the new one. Luckily there is not a lot that is strictly necessary for the station since most of my browser use is on other computers.

Loggers

At present I only use N1MM Logger+ for all my contest and daily logging needs. That simplifies matters somewhat. Unlike WSJT-X (see above) the directories that contain all of my extensively customized files and settings are easily accessed and copied.

The relevant directories and files encompass: old and current databases for myself and guest operators, function key definitions, and voice messages. In this migration I did not copy over the old .ini settings but I probably should have. It took longer than expected to configure N1MM on the new computer. I thought it would be easier since the hardware settings are not really transferrable due to the different COM ports.

The details that needed attention included: Winkeyer settings (COM6 above), audio interfaces, broadcast UDP addresses, OTRSP connections (COM22 above), window appearance and positions, call history and check partial files, and individual features selected via the menus, among others. It took a while to fully recreate my preferences.

Custom software

My home brew antenna selection software was not trivial to migrate, but I've done it before and I didn't expect it to be a problem. Despite that, there are multiple steps and my documentation is sparse. There is, as yet, no configuration file -- there are hard coded parameters to be changed -- and installation of required software and libraries. These include:

• Python. Since Python is popular it has a rapid development cycle. I had to deal with new versions of the software, libraries and development tools. Most are upward compatible but not always.
• Many libraries are distributed with Python while less popular ones must be installed separately. It isn't difficult except for the details which I don't remember clearly since I don't often do it. The Pywin32 library installation is particularly difficult, requiring a two-step process -- it provides access to the Windows APIs that allow me to control window focus for compatibility with the logger software.
• COM port assignments must be changed in all applications, including my own, that access transceivers and other peripheral equipment.
• Integration testing with the Arduino-based switching software and hardware.
• Even after all was done, Windows 11 security continues to dislike Python apps and complains. I haven't yet figured out how to stop the warnings, but they are transitory notifications and can be ignored. There are certain to be other applications that trigger the same warnings.

There were no changes to the Arduino software since it, of course, doesn't run on Windows. However the Arduino IDE and libraries had to be installed and tested on the new computer. This was also necessary for my other Arduino projects and products that use Arduino boards such as the SO2R Mini.

EMI

A new computer requires EMI protection. Since most of the cables already have chokes installed, the primary concern is the computer power supply and monitor. I installed more chokes even though I didn't observe new problems while operating, either to or from the computer and its peripherals. Something requiring attention is certain to arise eventually. I was running low on ferrite chokes so I ordered a bunch at the same time I purchased the PC.

Going live

The migration as I've described it sounds painful. In reality it wasn't that bad, perhaps a few hours spread over a week. I could resume operating before the migration was complete. About the only thing I've yet to do is to test SO2R and networking for M/2 contests. I don't expect any problems with those. I have a guest operator for the upcoming RAC Winter contest and I'm hoping that the station works as it should!

All that said, I hope I don't have to do this again for several years. Usually that works out since computer resource consumption grows at only a moderate pace and Windows 11 should remain current for at least another 5 years. My older computers with Windows 10 can remain as they are. The security risks are low since they are rarely used outside of contests. 

One of the spare computers will be converted to Linux for non-radio use. Mostly that involves just a browser,Open Office and a few other widely available application for document creation and processing. I count at least 5 computers currently in the shack, and a few more scattered around the house that still work but are too old to be of use. 

Eventually they'll go to electronic recycling after the hard disk drives are destroyed. Any discarded smart device needs to be wiped of all personal information. Physical destruction is a last resort but don't hesitate when the need arises.

Deluge of Electronic QSLs

I have had a frustrating few weeks, peppered with friends dying, the distraction of major contests, failing (and repairing) equipment, de-"crufting" a new Windows 11 PC for the shack, and absolutely awful weather. Winter has arrived with a vengeance. Another 20 cm of the fluffy white stuff is falling from the sky as I type these words. Tomorrow I'll have to spend an hour or two clearing it. Very pretty but annoying as heck.

This is therefore an opportune time to grouse about a topic that has become increasingly annoying to me and to many others of my acquaintance. I have to purge this now before I must put on a happy face for the rapidly approaching holidays.

I make a lot of QSOs. Really a lot. For example, in the recent CQ WW contests I logged 8000 and 4500  contacts during the SSB and CW weekends, respectively. My LOTW (Logbook of the World) account is well into 6-digits of uploaded QSOs. It is no surprise that I get many more QSL cards than most hams. All are unsolicited.

My QSL policy is strict and, to be clear, many hams find it objectionable. That is not my concern. I do QSL 100% but only by uploading to LOTW. I make this clear on my QRZ.com detailed profile (sign on to view) and whenever I am explicitly asked on air. 

Cards received via the bureau or direct mail get thrown into a box and promptly forgotten. While I appreciate the sentiment there are too many and I feel no obligation to deal with them individually. I haven't even had printed QSL cards to send for close to 30 years.

Yet the influx has grown worse in 2025. Many QSL senders who have themselves realized what a burden it can be just to send cards (which is certainly easier than processing received cards) have resorted to online services that email electronic QSL. Upload your log files, and with a click you can send hundreds or thousands or electronic QSLs.

Just today I received no fewer than 10 cards from one station that worked me on pretty well every band in every contest I entered this fall. This has descended to the level of spam or telemarketing calls and scams, and the old standby: junk mail.

Many of these QSL services have an opt-out policy to cease these mailings. A few hams have told me that they've tried to opt out and the email deluge continues. They complain, yet the unwanted email continues to fill their inboxes.

I am not so polite. I was never asked to opt in so I feel no obligation to opt out. Every new service or sender that emails electronic QSLs to me is put into a filter: they either go to the spam folder or trash, depending on my mood. If enough recipients flag these messages as spam it soon becomes a broad email policy. That means email from those domains is flagged as spam before it reaches us. I consider that acceptable. 

Perhaps you chase operating awards that accept electronic QSLs. Many will not while many sponsors of lesser known awards use the honour principle: they'll believe you if you tell them you've confirmed working the required stations. And, no, I won't seek out and upload my logs to every QSL matching service and award sponsor on the planet.

If you are a user of one or more of electronic QSL services you may be offended by how I treat their emails. I am not alone. I have a blog in which I can easily publish my views while many hams of my acquaintance do as I do but without any public pronouncements. Most of them are contesters like me who also make thousands or tens of thousands of contacts every year. Their received electronic QSLs are silently discarded or filtered.

I know that this article may come across as a rant from an angry old man. What you can't see is the smile on my face. I am caricaturing my attitude to make a point. In truth I'm more amused than annoyed by the matter. Filtering the deluge of electronic QSLs is easy. It's hardly any trouble at all.

The deluge of electronic QSL emails can distract from my on air activity, which is what really matters. If I were to spend more time on bulk QSLs that arrive daily and that I neither need nor want, I am less active. Time is a limited resource. I make my choices accordingly. Others may choose differently, which is their prerogative.

CQ WW CW 2025

There was some discussion whether to do another multi-op for this contest, whether M/2 or M/S. Certainly it was a challenge when we entered M/2 with just 3 operators in 2023. Could I put together a team of 4 or 5 good operators this year? I wasn't sure, and I wasn't sure whether to make the attempt. There was only lukewarm interest among the few I canvassed.

With several ongoing challenges with my station and the difficulty of getting ready in time I decided to do another single op this year. I could deal more comfortably with station issues since I'm familiar with them. It was also an opportunity to see if I could surpass my 2024 result where I put over 5000 contacts in the log for the first time. Another opportunity might be years away since the solar cycle seems to be firmly descending from its peak.

First up was fixing problems before the contest. Here's a summary:

• My home brew prop pitch rotator controller repeatedly corrupted the display during the SSB weekend and failed completely the next day. I could still turn the motor. Since I didn't want to have to run to a window (with a powerful flashlight at night) to determine antenna directions I set to work. I replaced the LCD and took the opportunity to modernize it with the latest variant that has stable contrast and uses serial (I2C). That didn't fully cure the problem. Replacing the Arduino Uno did fix the problem. It was stable and reliable during the contest.
• I put the Acom 1500 amplifier back together after hopefully resolving the faults it was experiencing. It suffered an arc fault during the contest but otherwise performed well. I'll have to dig into it again.
• The 160 meter gamma match was arcing when the power exceeded about 700 watts. I did a thorough inspection of the components and wires. One plate of the series variable capacitor was slightly out of true. I carefully straightened it and the arc fault disappeared. Hopefully it'll stay fixed for the ARRL 160 meter contest this weekend. The damage may have happened when I added the switch for the 30 meter antenna.
• Wind damage to the northeast-southwest was repaired hours before the contest started. I temporarily pinned the problematic section of twinned wires to a PVC pipe. I'll find a permanent solution later.
• I couldn't figure out the details of N1MM and SO2R-Mini configuration to seamlessly switch between conventional SO2R and 2BSIQ. I can do it with separate function key files but that is difficult to substitute on the fly. DX Log does this better. I ended up with my usual configuration and a promise to myself to sort it out in time for the next contest.

I planned to do even more but winter weather arrived early. The ground is now frozen so there is no convenient way to do concrete work until spring. The rotatable side mount for the lower 15 meter yagi is complete, yet the antenna remains firmly attached to the tower. I had hoped to get it done before the contest for stacking gain to east Asia. It isn't difficult work but I need better weather and a helper on the ground.

I was a little anxious leading up to the start of the contest even though I was as ready as I could be. It might be surprising to hear that I don't really enjoy single-op contesting. I feel isolated and uncertain of my abilities, and worry about the mistakes I will make. It takes time to get into the right frame of mind. Then 0000Z arrives and I become too busy to entertain negative thoughts.

My primary concerns were whether I could do enough 2BSIQ to push my QSO higher than in 2024, and how the poorer conditions would shorten the European runs on 15 and 10 meters. I was less concerned about 20 meters and the low bands. I knew I had a big challenge beating last year's score and surpass 5000 QSOs. I should also note that unlike many serious competitors, I do not practice. That is one reason why I am rarely if ever near the top of contest results.

In the end I fell short. I was disappointed but not surprised. What really stunned me was the score by my friend Vlad VE3JM. Our stations are of a similar size and only 150 km apart. Even so he beat me by more than 50%. That's humbling. Well, I do know how he did it: aggressive and almost full time 2BSIQ. 

The question I keep asking myself is whether I care enough to work at my 2BSIQ skills. No, not really but maybe it would be fun to try. As I said above, I don't practice contesting skills other than the occasional smaller contest -- I made 1000 contacts in the LZ DX contest the previous weekend. Unless my attitude changes my scores will decline along with the sunspots over the coming years. 

Enough about that bit of personal angst. I'll figure it out, one way or the other. Most of the station improvements I'm planning don't hinge on it since they add value to all modes of contesting.

What went right during the contest:

• There were only a few minor technical glitches. It could have been worse considering how complex my station has become.
• I punched through most multiplier pile ups with one call. There are advantages to big antennas and high power.
• Many double mults (zone and country) answered my CQs on all bands. Examples include VK6 on 80, TZ, TF, 9J, ZD, 3B8, DU, BY and more. Running is a surprisingly good way to work mults. After all, many of those operators are casual contest ops and avoid the stress of a pile up.
• I had no difficulty operating close to 48 hours. There were many unavoidable short breaks and a short sleep break the second night. I followed the same strategy last year. I probably would have been okay without the brief sleep, however those were the overnight hours when few stations were available to work. Had 20 opened to Europe after their sunrise I would have stayed in the chair.
• Propagation wasn't great but it was good. As almost everyone noted, Saturday's mild geomagnetic disturbance disappeared on Sunday. The low bands also improved the second night.

What went wrong:

• The recently repaired Acom 1500 amp suffered an arc fault in the RF deck while running on 10 meters. As I said in my 3830 report, it made a loud "FOOM!" sound. But I kept running and turned the transmitter to its full 100 watts while I considered what to do. I shrugged then reset and warmed up the amp. The pile up was lessened but still going strong when the amp came back online. There were no more failures during the contest, however I reduced power slightly just in case.
• I regularly abandonned 2BSIQ and even SO2R when the European pile ups were intense (which happened on all bands from 40 to 10 meters) or callers were very weak. The need to concentrate made focussing on the other radio difficult. Others with more skill can do it, but not me, at least not yet.
• I had one longstanding problem with N1MM that, for whatever reason, depends on computer processing speed. It only happened a few times probably because I was unassisted and the high rate of skimmer spots was absent. 

The lists of positives and negatives are quite short. There was no drama for me in this contest, and that's good. Yet I still didn't do terribly well. Sure, I'm not competitive but I would like to do better.  

More automation and better choices with audio routing (which receivers play in one or both ears) will help, and I aim to work on those gaps. But technology can't compensate for poor operator skill. Travel to a remote island could also be helpful my score. But the truth is that I don't really enjoy running even though I do it pretty well, and 2BSIQ more than doubles the amount I don't enjoy it. Yet do it you must, and lots of it, if you are to do well. Having a big signal makes running easier but more intense; running with QRP only works when you are a rare multiplier.

 Band  QSOs  Zones  Countries
------------------------------
  160:  175    10       41
   80:  659    16       66
   40: 1079    29       90
   20:  998    30       82
   15:  881    28       91
   10:  766    23       82
------------------------------
Total: 4558   136      452  Total Score = 7,038,360

The shortness of the high band openings to Europe cost me a lot of contacts. 2BSIQ could have made up the shortfall by maximizing use of the shorter openings. Stations to the south and east, with longer openings, would suffer less from not doing 2BSIQ.

With regard to other statistics, my dupe rate (not included in the totals) remained at about 2%. My multipliers increased, in countries but not zones. That reflects my occasional multiplier sweeps on one radio. It is those extra multipliers that kept me within 500,000 points of last year's score. Of course log checking could change that. 

What about the highly competitive SO AB HP category that I entered? I didn't participate in the live scoreboard because I am too low to be of interest and I don't really care how others are doing. For now all I have is what was reported to 3830. It doesn't include all participants since a few won't post or delay their post. Read the detailed reports of the top scorers for insight into their strategies and preparations. If you prefer video you should check out the Q5 channel on YouTube for extensive interviews with the main players.

Here's a 3830 screenshot taken while writing this article, with one or two top scorers yet to report:

My raw placement is about the same as last year. It should be obvious from the clustering of scores that a little 2BSIQ could have raised my rank by 4 or 5 positions. What I have to decide for the future is whether I care to try or focus on organizing multi-ops for this contest. Nearby good CW contest ops are difficult to find, either being uninterested or preferring to enter as a single op from their own stations.

An important point to note about these incredible scores is that the operators value running over hunting; that is, it is better to accumulate QSO points rather than multipliers. 2BSIQ for nearly 48 hours is very difficult so there has to be a reason. The thing is that many of the multipliers you need will call you. Those mults are single ops and multi-ops that mix running and hunting; they don't just run.

I worked few of the top SOAB HP (unassisted) on more than two or three bands, since we're all mostly running. Yet I worked many of the assisted single ops and multi ops in semi-rare locations on all 6 bands. When they hunt they call you. You won't work the perpetual runners (whether one radio or two, rare mult or not) yet it works out in the end. 

Even with his intense 2BSIQ operation, Vlad VE3JM is unlikely to retain his top-10 rank. He surpassed his own objective but without sporting a country prefix more attractive than VE there is little hope for improvement. I'm okay with that but others travel to do better. And if you have the skill then why not? It's fun, and instructive, to see how far upward they can push scores.

There are many more stories I can tell about the contest, but I don't want to bore readers. However, one that I would like to end with is about someone else. That is my friend Chris VO2AC in the photo. Although he and his family live in eastern Ontario (where he's VE3FU), he is from Labrador and that is where he built a remote station. It's a relatively rare multiplier in many contests, including CQ WW (zone 2).

He makes a point of watching cluster spots and working his friends on as many bands as possible. I worked him on 5 bands but refused an offered move to 160 since I'd already worked Yuri VE2IM (VE3DZ) there. Chris travelled to Goose Bay for a family function and CQ WW CW occurred during his travel back to Ontario. He operated his remote from VO2, VE1 and VE3. In the picture he's operating the contest from the Halifax airport.

After the contest I watched the reports coming in to 3830. I was particularly interested in my category despite my modest score. Compare yourself to the best if you want to learn how to improve. I've spoken to Vlad VE3JM about how he does it. I've learned a few things from him and I've implemented some of it. I don't know how far I'm willing to stretch myself in pursuit of higher contest scores.

Now that the contest if over the bands are far quieter than during the weekend and even the days before the contest. This is typical. Although anti-contesters (not the non-contesters) like to complain about how we fill the bands on many weekends, when we're not there the spectrum is severely underutilized. Even the contest focussed DXpeditions have vanished. 

Contesters are among the most active hams, not just on contest weekends. We rag chew, DX, experiment with digital modes and generally make frequent use of our privileges. I hear the same contester call signs on FT8, the DXpedition pile-ups, the DX themselves, on VHF, top band and more. When we rest following a major contest, the bands become eerily quiet. 

Postscript

While I don't wish to end on a sad note, I received bad news today. My friend and fellow contester Cary VE4EA passed away. Since losing his tower in a storm several years ago he was very active as a remote contest operator, utilizing stations in Canada and the US. Mostly he used the station belonging to Gary VE4YH, who is himself not a contester.

We teamed up for a remote M/S entry in the recent ARRL Sweepstakes CW contest from VA1EET, the station being built in Nova Scotia by Kevin N5DX. SS is slow enough that we had plenty of time to chat and joke between QSOs. I also spent a lot of time with him when I visited Winnipeg this summer. He'll be missed.

20 Meter 2-element Yagi With Bent Reflector: First Models

More than a few times I've mentioned that I am not happy with the TH6. Since I have it I use it but now only as a "multiplier antenna" pointing south. Yet it still has and causes problems. These include: narrow bandwidth and loss due to the traps; interaction with the 40 meter yagi beneath it; high SWR when wet; and, high coupling to the Europe pointing 15 and 20 meter stacks. And, it's very old, leading to questions about its future durability. But after 40 years I've certainly gotten my money's worth!

Its replacement doesn't need to be a tri-band yagi, nor does it need to have high gain. A group of several small yagis for each of 10, 15 and 20 meters could suffice, and might offer more flexibility than one tri-band yagi that either can't be shared, or can be shared at high expense (high power triplexer and filters). I see no need to spend a lot for what is really just a multiplier antenna. It only has to perform well enough to punch through the pile ups.

I've temporarily set aside 10 and 15 meters since, being smaller, those are easier yagis to design and build. A 20 meter yagi can be quite large, with 3 elements typically placed on an 8 or 9 meter boom. While that will easily give me more than 8 dbi across the band, considering its size I decided to look at smaller antennas. I can live with 7 dbi and perhaps even 6 dbi if it has other positive attributes.

These are the criteria I came up with:

• Lightweight: I'd like it to be reasonably small and light. Since it won't be rotated, I want to see how little aluminum I can do this with.
• Simple: The design and construction should be straight forward.
• Performance: Low SWR across the band (better for solid state amps); good but not great F/B and F/S; and (per above) within 1 to 2 db of a full-size 3-element yagi.
• Isolated element: By insulating the elements from the boom the interaction with the nearby 40 meter yagi can be eliminated. 

My first attempts focussed on 2-element yagis. This category includes Moxon rectangles, hex beams, and other element configurations. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. The following are the configurations considered in this study:

From the right are a conventional yagi, Moxon rectangle, "spider" beam style yagi and a yagi with a half-bent reflector. All of these yagis are unidirectional to the right. The latter two use wire for the bent bits, and indeed the reflector for the vee-shaped reflector is all wire.

A conventional 2-element yagi has poor F/B, good F/S, reasonable gain and SWR with a matching network. The bandwidth over which these metrics are best is narrow, perhaps 100 kHz on 40 meter. Outside of that it quickly gets worse. This is not a popular style of yagi for the low bands.

When we double the frequency to 20 meters that's still barely half the 350 kHz band. If you operate CW or SSB, but not both, perhaps that's sufficient. But not for me. We can do better with one of the other designs, so I'll say nothing more about the conventional 2-element yagi in this study except as a baseline for comparison.

The Moxon rectangle has excellent SWR and F/B across 20 meters, and even on 40 meters where it has to stretch farther due to the much larger bandwidth (by percent). I put this to good effect on my 40 meter reversible Moxon. However a Moxon's peak gain is worse than a conventional yagi due to a portion of the elements turned inward. 

As with all four of these 2-element designs, peak gain occurs at or below the band of interest. That's simply the nature of 2-element yagis due to the phase relationship between the elements. With more adjustable yagis of 3 or more elements there is more latitude on where to place peak gain and F/B. Not infinite latitude since, due to the nature of passive, close-spaced parasitic elements, there are constraints on the phase and amplitude relationships.

The Moxon rectangle, while not overly large on 20 meters, requires tubing for all element components. The designs on the left use less aluminum by using wire for the element tips. Cost, weight and wind/ice load are reduced. On the other side of the equation, tuning these designs for optimum performance requires precision in the tip spacing and interior angle. NEC2 does poorly at this so I used NEC5 for my models. 

I chose wire tip angles that allow a cord or rigid insulation to fasten the wire to the more rigid tip of the driven element. That required multiple iterations to optimize performance and mechanical layout. While I can't claim that I achieved the best possible performance, I believe I've come close. Close enough, that is, to evaluate and compare these designs.

The 3 designs are primarily evaluated for SWR (direct feed, no matching network) and gain. F/B and F/S are not major objectives considering its intended use as a fixed direction multiplier antenna -- work the mult and move on, no running or rag chewing.

Before diving into the modelling results, here are my motivations for looking at these particular 2-element yagi designs:

• Conventional yagi: Simple and well understood, with the maximum gain but relatively poor F/B and SWR bandwidth. It also uses the most aluminum.
• Moxon rectangle: Again, a well understood yagi design with relatively good F/B and excellent SWR bandwidth. But it's an awkward antenna to build and raise. Recall what I went through with raising the 40 meter reversible Moxon. 
• Vee-shaped reflector: It is, in a way, half of a Spiderbeam 3-element yagi. It is lightweight, but at the cost of gain and F/S, with SWR not as good as a Moxon rectangle.
• Reflector with bent tips: It is intermediate between the conventional yagi and the one with a vee-shaped reflector with respect to weight and cost. It is also intermediate with respect to gain and F/B, with still good F/S and excellent SWR bandwidth.

Although I knew all of this before the modelling study, there is value in confirmation and spending time to optimize performance; there is no need for hasty reasoning. After presenting the results of the modelling I'll come back to explaining why they perform as they do.

First, the free space azimuth patterns in 100 kHz steps from 14.0 to 14.3 MHz. I skipped the upper 50 kHz since I rarely operate there and performance is little different from that at 14.3 MHz. Rather than tables (as I've often done in the past), I'll present the data as overlaid traces. Pay attention to the outer ring gain on each chart since those differ for each antenna.

It is no surprise that the conventional yagi has the most gain. The greater the parallel portion at the centre of the elements the greater the sum of the currents. However, inter-element coupling is poor in a conventional yagi so that the gain bandwidth is not great. That said, the gain bandwidth isn't all that different for the others, except for the relatively poor gain performance of the yagi with a vee-shaped reflector. Gain is pretty good across 20 meters for 3 of the 4 designs.

F/B is not very good for the conventional yagi and for the vee-shaped reflector. Surprisingly, the Moxon rectangle is not as good as the yagi with the bent wire tips reflector. At least it was a surprise to me. 

F/S is relatively poor for the yagis with full or partial wire reflectors. This is expected. You can gain an insight by imagining yourself in space some distance directly off the side of each yagi. When you look at the conventional yagi you see almost nothing since the elements are pointing at you; an ideal dipole has no collinear radiation. For the other antennas, the amount of reflector that you can see is non-zero, with the least for the Moxon rectangle and the most for the vee-shaped reflector. Hence the relatively poor F/S.

Again, these are not fully optimized designs. It is likely possible to squeeze out a little more performance, in particular the yagis with a vee-shaped or bent wire tips reflector. The distance to and angle with the driven element are critical since small differences cause large performance changes. Critical coupling is called critical for a reason!

Next, let's look at the SWR across the 20 meter band. The conventional yagi uses a beta (or hairpin) match and the others are directly fed at the centre of the driven element.

The Moxon SWR could be improved with more fussing. I didn't bother since small changes will have little effect on the pattern. The same is likely true for the vee-shaped reflector. That said, the SWR at the band edges will be almost the same when the SWR is optimized to dip 1 at one mid-band frequency. 

All designs other than the conventional yagi do very well. Few transmitters would complain. Keep in mind that environmental factors (interactions with the tower, guys and other antennas) will in most cases cause deviations from perfection more than what you see on these plots.

At this point it was time to stop. I have time over winter to mull over the possibilities. At the moment the reflector with bent wire tips looks attractive: <1 db gain below that of a conventional 2-element yagi with good F/B, F/S and SWR bandwidth. Other than the conventional yagi these antennas are a little complicated to raise onto a tower, just as it was for the 40 meter reversible Moxon.

A 3-element design would be better, especially mechanically since the driven element will be pulled equally from both sides; the wire tips and cords of the parasitic elements "guy" the DE. But the antenna is larger, more complex and with only modest performance improvement. But only about 1 to 1.5 db gain improvement can be expected.

Due to interactions that I am likely to encounter in my station I did not attempt to make this a multi-band antenna. It is likely that I'll have a 20 meter mono-band yagi and a separate 10 & 15 meter yagi to replace the TH6. The latter may very well be a multi-element two-band conventional yagi with interlaced elements. Again, these are early thoughts not a definite plan. I'll develop models when the time comes.

Note: Dimensions are not shown for any of the modelled antennas since I used constant diameter tubing and bare wires rather than tapered tubing and insulated wires. These can be adjusted when and if it comes time to build the antenna that I settle on. Dimensions were selected to be approximately average element diameters. Booms are between 3 and 3.2 meters (~0.15λ), with variations made to make the wires fit the space while being connected to the DE tips.

Acom 1500: Intermittent Faults & Other Problems

Intermittent faults are the worst problems to find and repair. Unless there is a clear set of steps to reproduce the problem it can remain elusive. It is equally true of hardware and software. There is a lot of both in a modern ham shack.

Several months ago my 4-year old Acom 1500 amplifier began to periodically trip the protection circuits. There was no unique cause or consistent pattern in the protection code data. In a few case there was the soft "pop" sound near the front of the amplifier cabinet. A reset and all was well again. Then the faults became more frequent, whether transmitting or not, and whether online or in standby. It was perplexing.

A cursory inspection inside showed nothing obvious, no carbon tracks or other physical signs of distress. With close to 3000 volts in the B+ supply there are many potential paths to failure, whether a weak capacitor, dust or loose connection. Typical suspects such as the tube (4CX1000) and vacuum relay did not appear to be to blame.

Since I have a spare amplifier (3 in total) I set the 1500 aside until I could decide how to proceed. There are no factory authorized Acom service centres in Canada and it is inconvenient, to say the least, to ship heavy and fragile equipment to the US or overseas. Inquiries among friends generated no useful insights. It was a puzzle and concerning but there was also no urgency. I fretted having an expensive piece of equipment forcibly idled.

When I returned to the amp some time later I got my first clue to what might be happening. At times during normal operation the plate current (Ip) would read 0 ma. That's a very odd reading when there's a kilowatt of RF being transmitted. The same would happen when idling or transmitting without input. But again, only sporadically. There was no pattern, and a fault still occurred from time to time. I had no good ideas on how to proceed so I set it aside again until about two weeks ago.

This is a recent picture taken after I appeared to have resolved the problem. Once I narrowed the cause to measurement and protection, specifically Ip, (or one of the causes) and did my best to deal with it, I installed a physical meter in the Ip measurement circuit. Since the digital display on the amp cannot show instantaneous deviations of Ip, I hoped to spy any instantaneous anomalies by putting the meter where I could see it while operating. The microammeter only lightly loads the circuit and was calibrated with a series trimmer pot.

Unfortunately this circuit assumes that the current pickup in the B+ is working. There is no good or really safe way to splice in my own. Ip is indirectly measured by detecting the voltage across a precision low value resistor that is in series with the B+ line. The resistor is indicated by the arrow in the picture of the mains PCB and rectifier/filter assembly; The resistor is on the latter. Only low voltage DC is presented to the Mains PCB.

There are two stages of processing of the detected voltage. There is one op amp on the Mains PCB and another on the Control PCB. A 3-pin cable runs from the detector to the Mains PCB and a 5-pin cable runs from there to the Control PCB. All are circled. The physical meter taps into the Ip pin on the 5-pin cable, which is between the Mains and Control PCBs.

One immediate suspect was the connectors. It is not uncommon for oxidation or other flaws to creep in that degrade continuity. That can result in a 0 reading or a spike when it makes and breaks connection. I pulled and cleaned every connector of this type throughout the amplifier, and there are a lot of them. It has to be done carefully since moderate and evenly applied force across the connector is needed. It is easy to cause unintended damage on those with many pins. The pins are approximately the same dimensions as Dupont connectors, both in pin size and 0.1" spacing.

There is no good way to know whether the connector work made a difference. All one can do is run the amp and see if the intermittent fault returns. I did that but I then also took another step. 

I opened, inspected and vacuumed dust of all compartments in the amplifier. I then blew high pressure air through the inaccessible areas to remove more dust. It's a useful step though not without risks. These include contact damage, air pressure damage and static discharge. The latter is a greater risk this time of year when the relative humidity is low.

Nothing was damaged by the cleaning. That was a relief despite my confidence in proceeding. I was as careful as I could be, especially around microprocessor circuits. I also disassembled the front of the amp and exposed the Control PCB. With care, and magnifying glasses, I inspected the measurement components and connectors. No flaws were found. All the PCBs are now very clean.

I went through the RF deck with lights and mirrors to see under and behind components. I did the same for the tube compartment, top and bottom. There was dust inside the chimney so I cleaned it and the air filter. The antenna selector board was also inspected and subjected to air pressure to blow out any hidden dust.

When all was done and the amplifier reassembled, it worked. That is, there have been no faults since, other than a power on fault that detected a connector I had forgotten to push back on. Oops. Since then I've worked many stations, SSB and CW. CW can be a better test due to the repeated on-off "spikes" of a high power carrier. This weekend I used it and the Acom 1200S to make over 1000 QSOs during the LZ DX contest. So far so good. 

Is it truly fixed? Of course I can't know that without identifying the ultimate cause. Perhaps after 4 years it was simply time to clean the inside of the amp, any amp. All that I'd done until now was to periodically clean the air filter.

Repair work came to many hours. I doubt it would have been more economical to ship it to another country since an intermittent problem takes time to find, and they of course charge by the hour. If they recommend board or component replacement, assuming they also fail at finding the fault, it would be even more expensive. Since working around the high voltages inside a tube amplifier requires care and skill, it is not recommended for the inexperienced. Every ham has to make the judgment call for themselves. 

Solid state amps only appear to be safer since there are no high voltages beyond the mains supply. However the power supply and circuits deal with the same power level. No kilowatt-class amplifier is a safe space. Be careful if you choose to do as I have done. I'm no expert but I do have experience working on amplifiers.

I hope that if nothing else you enjoyed pictures of the inside of the amplifier. As I understand it, the Acom 1500 is no longer being manufactured. The industry migration to solid state continues. A well designed and maintained tube amplifier can last a lifetime. With few new ones on the market, they have to. 

DXing in 2025

There was a time in this blog when DXing featured more often. Other than in the context of 6 meters I've said little about it the past few years. The change was not intentional, it just happened. On reflection I realize the reasons why. I've changed. That is worth a short article.

DXCC is easy to achieve, far easier than ever before. Here is a partial list of why that is:

• DXpeditions are announced well in advance, with schedules and operating plan.
• Human and skimmer spots are rapid and have alerting services, so you are always one click away from working them.
• Remote shacks mean you can work them from anywhere, anytime.
• DXpeditions have multiple stations which divides the pile ups, making them easier to penetrate for even the smaller stations.
• FT4/8 levels the playing field. It really doesn't matter where you transmit and how strong you are as long as the DX station decodes you. Hunting and timing (skill) mean very little.

In days of yore, DXing was not so easy. Here are some of the reasons why:

• Discovering that there exists a ham in a distant, rare country was difficult. Often we would only learn of activity after the fact. A lot of listening and luck (and personal networking) were required to learn of their existence. 
• Time is precious. Yet a lot of it was needed to regularly scan the bands.
• Travel was far more difficult that it is today so DXpeditions were not routine. Not all were announced in advance. Many were "surprises" due to work assignments, scientific expeditions, or simply hams enjoying the surprises they created.
• Split operation was less common since equipment often didn't support it, especially the ability to listen to two frequencies at the same time to quickly find where the DX is listening.
• With no spotting networks or just a small circle of DXing friends (if any) to alert us of an activity, rare DX was easy to miss.

Those are examples that quickly came to mind. There are certainly others. However, that isn't my point; rather it's that it is much easier than it once was. Nowadays you would have to be living under a rock to miss the activation of a rare DX entity.

Therein lies the problem, if it can be regarded as a problem: DXCC is easy with a small station and routine for the rest of us. In this fall's CQ WW SSB we logged more than 100 countries on 4 bands. It wasn't so very long ago that an achievement like that was uncommon. Now it's routine.

This has bred entitlement -- believing that we deserve to log the rare DX -- and impatience with reaching key DX award milestones. But if it was easy, what has actually been accomplished?

In my case the modern ease of DXing has resulted in mild lethargy and disinterest. I don't react quickly when the DX is spotted, unless it's truly rare or on a band where they are difficult to work, such as 160 meters. Filling up band slots to reach new DXCC Challenge plateaus is becoming less interesting. No matter, the numbers keep climbing on my LOTW account (Logbook of the World).

Some of this is due to the size of my station. I'm a big gun now. Quite often I crack deep pile ups with one call. Where's the fun in that? To compensate, many times I'll use lower power and a non-optimum antenna to practice my pile up skills and to make the chase more interesting. Skill development and practice was a major preoccupation of mine when I ran QRP with small antennas. Now I have to artificially recreate those conditions.

Despite the many changes making DXCC and even Honor Roll so much easier, these awards remain coveted by new and long time hams alike. I track my progress even though I have never applied for any DX award and I probably never will, no matter how stratospheric the achievement level.

That said, during a DX contest I take great pleasure in running up the country count as high as I can in the 24 or 48 hours of the event. It is a worthy accomplishment to do so while also making as many QSOs as possible. The challenge is one of deciding when and where to run while concurrently hunting for countries, whether assisted or unassisted. 

I am easily motivated to work DX in contests but the rest of the time, except for rare countries, 6 and 160 meters, and occasionally under difficult conditions, it doesn't mean all that much to me anymore. Times change and so have I. I use the available technology regardless, and I enjoy doing so. It's just that the accomplishment means little to me most of the time.

But putting rare DX in the log is far easier than it once was! There is no pride in drudgery, and to be honest that's what it once was. DXing was a game won by the well-connected, the wealthy (with their big stations) and retirees with lots of time to scour the bands. Technology levels the playing field. As much as we gripe about the price of equipment, it is not expensive hobby to build a station that allows one to work lots of rare DX.

Time is also not the impediment it once was. We can receive alerts, operate our stations remotely with widely available applications and product, or we may work from home just a few steps from the shack. These also level the field.

The main differentiators now are the willingness to pay attention (accept interruptions), following DXpedition schedules, perhaps "donations" to facilitate confirmations, and of course skill. The latter is still of significant value -- listen to most pile ups and you'll understand. Witness how many chasers are their own worst enemies.

Despite the negative tone of this article I still chase DX and I am certain to keep doing so. The allure of communicating across the globe with someone sitting on the beach of a remote island never pales, no matter the relative ease compared to years long past. It's enjoyable if not quite so exciting. Hams new to DXing are excited to work the rare ones and that is vicarious pleasure to enjoy as well. It's good to see enthusiasm in the newcomers to our great hobby. 

Will DXing eventually fade as one of the attractions of amateur radio? Perhaps. It is not easy to predict the future. By what I hear in the pile ups, that day won't arrive for many years.

To Rotate or Not To Rotate

In the lead up to CQ WW SSB, one of my challenges was rotators. I hate them. So do many hams.

These mechanical devices suffer from all manner of ills that seem to manifest just when they're needed most. I am perfectly capable of working on these beasts -- from the smallest TV rotators through to prop pitch motors -- though I'd rather not. They're finicky, full of messy grease and tend to reside at the top of towers under a large load bearing down on them where they're difficult to service. Getting them down from the tower, temporarily supporting the load and then putting them back after repair can be difficult and dangerous.

I am not the only one muttering about these pesky devices. One of the all time most popular articles on this blog is the one about refurbishing a Hy-Gain Tailtwister rotator. I doubt that readers of articles like that have affection for their rotators. Despite the availability of alternatives, which we'll come to, often the cure is worse than the disease; there are pros and cons for any approach to direction selection.

Many contesters won't put it with rotators at all, deeming them not worth the effort, or the risk of failures during major competitions. Instead they deploy a variety of fixed yagis and electrically switched directional arrays. Just click and you're pointing where you want. Sounds nice but it is rarely as simple as that.

The subject for this article occurred to me as I was preparing the station for CQ WW SSB. One of my many projects this year is to make the lower yagi of the 15 meter stack rotatable. It's always more complicated than anticipated. First, the rotator I had in mind had a broken direction pot. The pot I scavenged from an old rotator also turned out to be broken. So I bought a Ham-IV at a flea market.  Although the controller has a minor glitch that needs repair, the rotator itself seems fine, inside and out. I have spare controllers to pair it with.

Next, there are control cables to be run from the shack to the rotator shelf. Luckily I buried enough heavy and light gauge cable in the last trench that I dug. But it took time to run cable up the tower, do the connections and splices and then route a cable into the shack for the controller. I got that mostly done. 

Third, while up the tower completing the side mount bracket and wiring, I discovered a serious problem with the mast. So I set aside the project to fix that before the contest. Then the rain began to fall. (Sigh.) In the end the antenna remained fixed on Europe. I'll try to have it done for CQ WW CW.

It may seem intelligent and forward-looking to decide to forgo rotators entirely. Put up a few more antennas and problem solved! As you can probably guess, it isn't so simple. First, consider how many directions of coverage you need, whether for general operating, DXing or contesting.

The global bearing map centred on my QTH gives some scope of the challenge. There are 6 critical directions: Europe, Africa, South America, US south, US west and midwest and east Asia. It is coincidental and convenient that the long path for each DX path is approximately along one of those directions. Others regions of the world can't count on that.

It should be unsurprising that I have Beverage receive antennas for those 6 directions. I originally planned for two more but the returns would be minimal. I don't miss them. My 80 meter vertical yagi has 4 of those directions. The main lobe is wide enough that east and west have some gain and there is its omnidirectional mode, plus a high inverted vee for broader coverage.

The high bands are another matter. The competition is more fierce so that more gain is highly desirable. But more gain is at the expense of coverage: a narrower main lobe. I often point the yagis of my high band stacks in different directions (spray) to take advantage of multiple paths open at the same time.

Perhaps it is not as bad as that. Consider the azimuth pattern comparison (right plot) of 2, 4 and 6 element yagis. The narrowing of the main lobe is necessarily accompanied by a narrower beam width. But that a relative comparison. On an absolute basis those long boom yagis do pretty well at the edges of the main lobe, and often have a wider SWR bandwidth. Therefore fixed (non-rotated) high-gain yagis don't impair coverage by much. 

Of course you don't get something for nothing. All that energy in the main lobe comes at the expense of elevation pattern beam width (left plot). Stacked yagis can solve that restriction by enabling a variety of elevation angles lobes and nulls which the operator can choose from.

Well then, if reducing or eliminating rotators isn't as dire as it might at first appear, what must be done to achieve similar coverage? There are many possibilities for station builders to consider. Here are what may be the most common:

• Rotating tower (K0XG system, left panel): All yagis rotate together, usually pointing in the same direction, but not always. Contesters require more flexibility than this system allows. This is an expensive solution with few remaining in the business. Or you can build your own, if you dare.
• Stacked yagis on a rotating top mast: Commonly called a Christmas tree due to the usual practice of putting the largest yagi at the bottom and the smallest at the top to minimize bending stress.
• Ring rotator (TIC, right panel), swing gate (centre panel) or 120° ordinary side mount: Allows all or partial rotation. The mechanisms can be complex and expensive, and a swing gate can place significant torque and bending moment on the rotator and tower.
• Side mounted fixed direction yagis: Usually complementary to a top rotator, either as part of stacks or independent. I have several of these in my station.
• Reversible yagis, fixed or rotatable, wire or aluminum: Some of the solutions are the least expensive and simplest, such as reversible wire yagis. For example, my recently built reversible 40 meter Moxon with 260° coverage.
• Multi-direction, electrically switched arrays: These include 4-squares, vertical yagis and BSEF arrays, with the latter more often built for low band reception. They are more commonly found on the low bands where rotatable horizontal yagis are difficult and expensive.

Whether the yagis are rotatable, fixed or reversible, there are many considerations that you must be addressed for optimum performance. It would be shame to go to all that expense and work for naught:

• Interactions: Between yagis stacked on one tower, whether or not on the same bands, guy wires, antennas on other towers, interaction in some orientations and not others.
• Optimum height and direction combinations may be attainable with careful system design and layout.

If you insist on rotators, you may escape some of the above downsides at the expense of others:

• Mechanical failures and repair: If you've read my blog for a while you'll know that this is a regular feature. Indeed, one of the most popular articles is about refurbishing a Hy-Gain Tailtwister rotator. Clearly I'm not alone. Prop pitch motors, despite their many positive attributes for large antennas and turning towers (see above), are not easily serviced. I have seen similar troubles with Prosistel, Yaesu and other models. Rotators deal with a lot in a hostile environment. Maintenance and service are inescapable.
• Availability of parts and service: With the demise of MFJ and the product lines they bought from defunct companies, Hy-Gain rotators -- perhaps the most popular in North America -- will become increasingly difficult to service. Spare parts are being hoarded by non-MFJ rotator repair shops. When the part supply runs out they may become irreparable.
• Rotatable side mounts: These are mechanically challenging, especially on self-supporting towers, and in most cases entail custom builds. You are on your own. They also create their own unique kinds of interactions from and to other antennas and guys. I have one with partial rotation and another is under construction.
• 
  Cables and controllers: Copper is expensive! The taller your towers and the further they are from the shack, the greater the expense of wiring them. They are also prone to environmental woes ranging from animals to weather. Controllers also fail, and some brands are more fragile than others. Parts and service (see above) are becoming more difficult.

This trail of woes turns many hams away from rotators. There are also the many controllers required. Where do you put them and how do you manage them in a multi-op contest station? My station is small enough that I can stack them up between the operators but this does not work well in bigger stations. 

In those cases it is better to use software applications at each operating position. Of course it is to be expected that occasionally another operator will turn a yagi you're using either because it's shared (see below) or on the same rotator as the yagi they're using. Point and click can be a deceptively convenient alternative. Of course the software and network interface adds complexity and therefore another point of potential failure.

But to effectively exclude rotators is difficult. Those with small stations may not worry about it, accepting that in some directions their antennas will have deficits. However, if you are building a "big gun" station for contesting, there is much to consider when rotators are excluded:

• 
  Interactions: The more antennas, the greater the potential interactions. These can be largely avoided with careful planning, but cannot be eliminated. It is a judgment call as to whether an interaction is serious enough to matter. A popular alternative is bliss through ignorance.
• Sharing: Use of multi-band directional antennas such as tri-banders can reduce the number of antennas, if you purchase quite expensive BPF and triplexers. These will have to use non-trapped or loaded elements since two high power transmitters will very likely destroy those components.
• Towers: Fixed yagis in multiple directions, optimized for stacking and interactions, requires more towers than in big stations that utilize rotators. For scroungers, used towers are available at reasonable prices, however you need to transport them, plant and raise them and then maintain them. With big towers failure is not an option: when one comes down it can take down one or more others unless they are far apart (see next bullet).
• Land: Lots of towers and optimum placement takes land. A typical guyed tower requires ~1 acre of land, and you the space to arrange their placement to minimize interactions while also permitting installation of wire antennas and room for heavy equipment and tramming. There is inexpensive land available in this part of the world, if you can deal with the isolation and lack of civilized comforts. Otherwise prepare to pay a lot.
• Service: Working on towers with many yagis is more difficult than on those with fewer. You have to climb on and around them, avoid tangles when raising and lowering them, inspecting and replacing hardware, dealing with asymmetric load stress and many, many runs of transmission lines and control cables. The nature of maintenance changes but not the magnitude and the risk.

My final message? A big contest station entails lots of work and expense, and ongoing maintenance. That's the case whether you choose more towers and antennas or fewer of them plus rotators. The differences can be found in switching and control systems, and operating procedure. Choose your poison. Either path can lead you to success, however you define it.