Joining Pipes & Tubes: 40 Meters

In the midst of the many antenna and other projects going on in parallel I have taken the first steps towards building a 3-element yagi for 40 meters. This is a very large antenna with many challenges. After reviewing the many different techniques I used to join the pipes and tubes I realized it was an almost complete catalogue of the common (and some uncommon) techniques that may be of interest to others.

I built a single dipole-fed element to prototype the mechanical and electrical design of a yagi element. The split feed allows connection of an antenna analyzer. The final antenna will use a continuous conductor on all elements for mechanical robustness and the driven element will use a gamma match. Since a continuous element cannot be precisely tuned with an analyzer this is how I will determine dimensions of the 3 elements.

Precise tuning is critical for a yagi. NEC2 supplemented with SDC (stepped diameter correction) is accurate but is only reliable for unloaded elements. My prototype element is ~90% full size with a modest size capacitance hat.

Although the loading reduces weight a small amount the primary reason is to eliminate the third harmonic resonance on 15 meters. That resonance, if allowed, can have a deleterious impact on my 15 meter stacked yagis. Modelling indicates that a small hat will move the harmonic resonance far enough above 21.5 MHz to maintain the excellent pattern of the 15 meter yagis when pointed towards Europe. The planned 40 meter yagi is in the same direction.

That is all I will say at the moment about the electrical design. It is enough background for readers to understand what I am trying to accomplish. There is much yet to do on that front before I am ready to build the full yagi and lift it to the top of the 150' tower. You don't want to do that job more than once so it pays to get it right!

Taper schedule

For the following discussion you can refer back to the following list of pipes and tubes. All pipes are structural aluminum alloy 6061-T6 or 6061-T6511, or aerospace alloy 6063-T832. Tensile strengths of the alloys are comparable. English units are used since that is how our pipes and tubes are sized.

• 2.375" OD and 2.067" ID schedule 40 pipe
  
• 1.9" OD and 1.61" ID schedule 40 pipe
• 1.315" OD and 1.049" ID schedule 40 pipe
• 1" OD and 0.120" wall tube
  
• ⅝" OD and 0.058" wall tube
• ½" OD and 0.065" wall tube
• ⅜" OD and 0.058" wall tube

The largest pipe's ID leaves a wide gap for the 1.9" pipe. The final element will use schedule 80 pipe which is a close fit to the 1.9" pipe. I am using short scraps for the prototype to permit a centre gap and dipole feed point and those happen to be schedule 40.

The capacitance hats are made from the two smallest tube sizes and attached to the outer end of the 1" OD tube.

Ordinary joints

There are two methods of joining tubes that are common enough that I will not discuss them in detail. The latter of the following two methods was previously described for my 15 and 20 meter yagis.

• Tube slit at one end with the smaller tube slipped inside and held with a gear clamp (commonly called a hose clamp). Length of the smaller tube (portion that protrudes from the larger one) may be adjustable.
  
• Tubes drilled through at the overlap and secured with fasteners. Length adjustment isn't possible.

Both methods require that the two tubes are a close fit but not so tight that it is a press fit. This is where 0.058" aerospace tubing in ⅛" diameter increments comes in handy. They telescope perfectly for making stepped diameter yagi elements. The only tubes of this type in the element are ⅜" and ⅝" OD.

The ⅜" tube can be slit to take a ¼" rod to extend the tip, but I have not done so. It will depend on the results of field testing and the amount of adjustment room I've designed in.

Centre

The dipole feed has the following requirements. 

• Interior non-conducting rigid material to mechanically couple the two halves of the element.
• Backing plate to support the element halves and for attachment to the tower.
• Element insulated from the backing plate.
  

It must be sufficiently robust to survive numerous tram trips up and down the tower for repeated measurements and adjustments. Since it's temporary I didn't want to overdo it or spend any money building it. So I looked through my junk pile and then took a drive to look through someone else's junk pile.

The backing plate is 6" × 27" ¼" steel plate. I cut and drilled it after grinding off the surface rust. It will not be painted and is it already forming a new layer of rust. That's okay since it doesn't need to conduct and it's temporary.

Ordinary muffler clamps attach the element halves to the plate. Each clamp is wrapped with a thin, flexible material that I thought was rubber but turned out to be some kind of plastic. I inserted strips of galvanized sheet on bottom and top to prevent the tightened clamps from splitting the stuff.

An old piece of 2×2 seasoned maple joins the element halves. It can support the full element weight but it is not a perfect fit so there is droop. The droop is partially remedied by the backing plate, as we'll see later. I will tape the gap so that rainwater doesn't reduce its insulating properties.

The pipes are tapped for #8 stainless screws to connect the element to the analyzer or coax. The nuts under the heads are needed to prevent the screws from striking the wood since I didn't have shorter screws at hand.

Screw pressure clamp

The 1.9" OD pipe fits very loosely in the larger pipe with its 2.067" ID. Since this is a temporary joint to be replaced with a pipe with thicker walls I opted for a pressure clamp using screw. It's simple and robust enough for the prototype.

There are four ¼" stainless hex head bolts in tapped holes on the 2.375" pipe. Screwing them down presses the smaller pipe against the opposite wall of the larger pipe. The bolts double as set screws to prevent slippage. Nuts can be added under the bolt heads and tightened onto the pipe to avoid accidental loosening.

This method is not recommended for a permanent installation yet it seems to be reliable. The pipe overlap is 12", the maple insert is 24" long and each 2.375" pipe is 24" long. Thus the smaller pipe and maple insert just about touch. This was done to maximize the overlap and strength of the joints.

Slit tube reducer

Element taper does not require using every available step size. For an optimum balance between weight, cost and strength 40 meter elements have a strong centre and step down to much smaller diameter tubing. A reducer is needed for the larger steps. Often these can be made from short sections of intermediate tube diameters. This may not be possible when pipes are used because NPS pipes often don't telescope well with other pipes and tubes.

The first large step is between 1.9" and 1.315" OD pipes. The radial gap is (1.61 - 1.315) ÷ 2 = 0.1475". A tube or pipe of this non-standard wall thickness must be fabricated. Rather than machining a reducer I fabricated a two-step reducer using material on hand. The reducer is 6" long to match the pipe overlap.

A 1.5" OD tube with a wall of ~0.095" was cut to size and slit with a hacksaw. When the slit is slightly spread it fits tightly over the smaller pipe. Another 1.5" pipe of 0.065" wall thickness was cut into 3 lengthwise pieces and one is used to fill the remaining gap. The fit is tight. All of this was determined by calculation and experiment.

When assembled two holes at right angles are drilled through the pipes and reducer for ¼" bolts and nylocs. One of those bolts is centred on the double thickness of the reducers. Both pipes must be aligned so that the element is straight. I moved the drill press to the floor and levelled the pipes with the drill press's work surface.

The finished joint is strong and straight. I don't anticipate any problems. As with all joints the mating surfaces are sanded to remove oxide and then coated with conductive grease. I have always had good success with Noalox but there are alternative products available from electrical suppliers.

Flashing reducer

Sometimes the fit is close but not close enough. There is a tight fit is between the 1" OD tube and the 1.315" OD pipe with its 1.049" ID. There's a radial gap of 0.0245". I keep a roll of aluminum flashing handy for these situations.

One layer of flashing made a reasonably tight fit. I have long lost the packaging and I don't recall the flashing thickness. Since a second layer made it too thick the flashing may be ~0.015". I used #10 screws (3/16") to secure the joint.

Because of the large stress on the joint at this mid-point location on the element I opened up just one of the holes for the screw head to press against the flashing and 1" tube. This ensures a solid electrical connection.

Both sides of the flashing are coated with conductive grease. The overlap is 4".

Closed tube reducer

For ⅛" step sizes and 0.058" walls it is easy to make a reducer. All you need is a short length of the missing step size(s). This is what I needed to make the step from 1" to ⅝". The 0.120" wall thickness of the 1" tube is 2 steps on it own so a ¾" tube fits nicely. Since I didn't have that size with a 0.058" wall on hand I made one from 0.125" wall thickness tube.

I drilled 3" lengths of the ¾" tube as described in the (previously linked) article about building the 15 and 20 meter yagis. I then reamed the reducers to 0.627". The resulting reducers are an excellent fit. With the sunk screw heads the electrical and mechanical bond is strong.

Element tips

The ½" tube is joined to the ⅝" tube with a slit and gear clamp. This joint is the primary one for adjusting element length for tuning so the ½" tube is longer than required for a solid mechanical joint.

The 0.065" wall of the ½" tube must be reamed to accept a ⅜" tube. The few thousandths reduction of wall thickness is easily accomplished with a hand drill and ⅜" and fluted bit. It does not bind or wander off centre, difficulties that can arise when more material must be removed. A reamer is a better choice than a fluted bit for this job, but most ham workshops may not have these reamers.

The job was done in a minute. Unfortunately there is little adjustment room in this joint, perhaps 2". Should more length be needed I will use longer ½" tubes or insert a ¼" rod into the ⅜" tube with a slit and gear clamp.

Capacitance hat clamps

The capacitance hats have a ½" centre and ⅜" tips. They are joined as described above. There is little room for adjustment and that is acceptable. For now I am using fixed length hats and tuning the element by adjusting the element tips.

The 4 arms of each hats are made of two of these assemblies. Each arm is 43" long (1.1 m). The ½" tube is drilled with two ¼" holes (reamed slightly larger) to fit a 1" u-bolt.

While strong enough for the prototype this is a poor joining method. Those ¼" holes weaken the ½" tube, and greater contact area is needed between the tubes for reliable electrical contact and to prevent bending and slippage.

A cursory search did not find turn up suitable commercial clamps with the attributes I need so I have a few design ideas that I will experiment with in my workshop in the coming weeks.

This is the furthest outboard I am willing to mount the capacitance hat. Loading increases (element shortens) the closer the capacitance hats are to the tips. However the tubes further out have narrower walls and the weight would increase droop and reduce survival from ice loads. Since my primary objective is to tame the third harmonic and not to greatly reduce element length the chosen position is an acceptable compromise.

Fully assembled element

The assembled element weighs in at 42 lb (19 kg). The steel backing plate and clamps are a further 10 lb (4.5 kg). I expect the final weight with an aluminum element-to-boom clamp to weigh ~48 lb (22 kg). That is a typical weight for 40 meter yagi elements. The capacitance hats added back most of the weight saved by the 10% length reduction.

Droop and flexing is not as bad as it appears in the photo! It's due to a combination of perspective and flexing at the improvised centre joint. The tips are not touching the ground. Using the 2.375" pipe as a guide the droop to the element tips is only 2'. With a continuous pipe at the centre the droop is expected to increase a small amount, perhaps to as much as 3' at the tips.

That is quite good for an element that is 62' (19 m) long. Ice loading is a greater danger than wind at this QTH and I still need to do the calculations to confirm that it will survive our weather. Similarly constructed 40 meter yagis have successfully survived severe weather, albeit with substantial bending.

Above is a close up of the element centre so that you can better see the causes of the additional flexing. The ¼" steel backing plate is bending more than I expected. However it can withstand the abuse. Compression of the wood fibre of the maple causes misalignment of the pair of 2.375" pipes. Despite the bending and misalignment I have little doubt that it will survive repeated trips on the tram.

Not shown are holes near the top edge of the plate that are for  bolting the antenna to the tower. The orientation of the backing plate will be vertical.

Coming up: lifting and tuning

I am planning to test and tune of the 40 meter element in mid-July, once I get a few other projects out of the way. I expect it to be an interesting exercise, figuratively and literally.

When I have collected all the data that I need to design and build a 3-element yagi based on this element design I will build an element with a continuous centre pipe. It will be fed by a gamma match, in keeping the the "plumber's delight" construction.

I will either side mount it at 100' on the 150' tower or (if I'm brave) raise it to the top of mast. The latter position will produce better data on its robustness and give me a temporary high 40 meter antenna to work distant DX. This could be valuable is the (likely) case that the yagi can't be completed in 2020.

Spotlight Propagation on 6 Meters

A long time ago I was driving through the city with one of my siblings. The sky was uniformly gray and a steady rain was falling. Further down the road the rain abruptly stopped within less than one block. Two blocks later the pavement was dry and soon thereafter the clouds parted and sunshine blazed. It had become a beautiful day.

She expressed surprise that the rain could disappear so abruptly, with such a sharp dividing line. I answered that the rain has to end somewhere so why not here. Of course this happens all the time but our perspective is different when we are standing still and the weather moves over us rather than the opposite.

Radio propagation can behave the same. For sporadic E on 6 meters we are almost always riding the MUF, the frequency above which the signals don't reach the ground. The E-layer regions of unusually intense ionization are small and typically only support propagation between relatively small areas, except in exceptional cases. We call it spotlight propagation and like a spotlight the edges are often sharply defined.

A shift of a few kilometers can be the difference between the opening of a lifetime and an empty log. I experienced this phenomenon twice in the past week. With the arrival of the summer solstice the sporadic E season is at its annual peak 6 meters is consuming all the time I have available for operating and makes me all too aware of the joys and frustrations of DXing on the magic band.

I will give you two examples that are illustrative of the phenomenon of a bright line between the haves and have nots. These may help to explain why you are in a DX desert or the land o' plenty.

About a week ago 6 meters was wide open almost everywhere at the same time. Within minutes signals could be heard here from Europe, Africa, South America, the Pacific and the Far East. I didn't know which way to turn the yagi. The rotator had a real workout that afternoon.

I worked a lot of amazing DX, including my first KH6 via sporadic E. The spotlight roamed in the Pacific, eventually striking the sweet spot for working Hawaii. In other places the spotlight stood still, such as in South America where I only heard Ecuador and proceeded to work what may be every HC active on 6 meters. What I didn't work was the Far East.

It was aggravating. Just 300 km to the west many hams I know in FN03, EN93 and nearby grids (and eventually extending west right across the country) were working a steady stream of JA, HL, DU and BY. Here is FN24 I decoded a total of 3 FT8 messages, and that was from a single JA. That's it. While it was going on I was exchanging messages with a couple of friends in FN14, about 100 km to the west, and they didn't hear anything at all (my antenna is better).

In the map below you can see that the beginning of the peak probability for the path to Japan and the vicinity is 2200Z when the sun is midway between here and there, and therefore the greatest insolation on the northern edge of the path. Sporadic E is sporadic but it needs energy input.

This was my second near miss with JA this year. It's a difficult path and the rain has to end somewhere. That somewhere was near Toronto. The good fortune did extend further south, along the same path from the northwest that favoured southern Ontario. You just had to be in the right place; FN24 was in the rain and FN03 was in the sunshine.

I shouldn't complain too much. I had my day with working Japan last year, and there is reason to hope for more this year. To the east, further from the line of propagation, the big gun 6 meter stations heard nothing. It's a difficult path since a short move east brings the path from the Far East closer to the north pole. The benefit of 24 hour daylight in the Arctic at the solstice is rarely sufficient.

The next example of spotlight propagation is one that favoured me and few others. During a marginal opening to Europe I saw 6W1TA calling CQ on FT8. I turned the beam east and his signal came up nicely. Since I worked him earlier this year I let him be. I tend not to make duplicate contacts since you never know if the person will be annoyed or glad to know he's getting through. However I am always happy to respond to duplicate callers.

This went on for some time. Was this a spotlight opening and only I could hear him? There could have been other factors like yagis pointed to Europe or the Caribbean which would significantly attenuate west Africa signals. Perhaps I should have spotted him although that would have required starting other software and I rarely spot FT8 stations since anyone can see them themselves if they have propagation.

It isn't every day you are called by a moderately rare station and especially on 6 meters. I suppose he heard little other than me since the CQing and I didn't notice him call anyone else. Those in rare locales are hams just like everyone else and they want to communicate. I was happy to make the duplicate contact.

It's funny that not long ago I chased him hard to earn the new 6 meter country. Last year I was unlucky and missed him because although the opening was superb it was also superb for everyone else in North America.

Eventually he did work at least one or two other stations. I was amused to later discover that he had spotted me. You need propagation to benefit from being spotted and 6 meter sporadic E long DX paths and this was no different. No one scrambled to call me or they did and heard nothing.

I was going to end the article here when the very same thing happened again the next day.

It is difficult to believe that only I heard him or that everyone in this region has worked him. I monitored 30 minutes of CQ with no apparent callers. His signal was weak but steady all that time. There are a few others active in Africa so hopefully one day I'll work them. But I worked TT8SN already and elected not to bother him.

I will stop now. Should you be wondering what happened to all the technical articles, fear not. I have several projects underway and I won't write about them until they're done. Pictures and words are accumulating and the articles will eventually be published.

While that work continues in the background and with sporadic E in full swing these little articles almost write themselves. I suspect my slow summer blogging pace won't return this year.

Don't Be a Curmudgeon

"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re 15 and 35 is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." 

The quote is by the British comedy writer Douglas Adams. For brevity we'll call the last point the curmudgeon's credo. It applies to pretty much everything. Yes, that includes amateur radio. The demographics of our hobby are such that over 90% fall into the third category. I am and it's very likely that you are, too.

As we grow older not only do we because suspicious of new technology and ways of doing things we are more likely to say it. The social governor we grew in adolescence begins to malfunction. We say what we want when we want to everyone and anyone. We ignore or fail to see the reactions of others. Physical presence is unnecessary: we say it on air or by pounding on a keyboard.

When I was a new ham in the 1970s quite a few of the older generations remained dissatisfied with SSB and transistors -- "real radios glow in the dark" -- and made sure you knew it. Contests and DXpeditions were frequent targets. For my operating interests I endured many derisory comments from the gray haired crowd. I quickly lost my respect for these elder hams. My teenager friends and I sneered and laughed at them and finally ignored the curmudgeons altogether.

Yesteryear's adolescent hams are today's curmudgeons. The passage of time does that. Not all of us succumb though far too many do. They're everywhere. Indeed, you may be one and not realize it.

Do you believe that the quality of hams declined when CW was removed from the license exams? Is FT8 not real ham radio because it's a machine talking to another machine? Do you demean those who use modelling software to develop and optimize their antennas because you know that any old wire tossed into a tree works just fine? Do you lament the endless cries of "599 04" filling the bands during contest weekends despite your not having turned on a rig other than a 2 meter handheld for the past 3 months?

If you answered "yes" to any of those questions you may be a curmudgeon. Even if you thought to yourself, "no, that's not me," there is likely another similar question out there that will tempt you to answer "yes." I consider myself pretty adaptable to the progress of technology and operating practices and yet I occasionally get caught. The certainty of the old is insidious.

There is an antidote. There is a cardinal rule to remember to test yourself for curmudgeonly behaviour. I don't know the original source though variations are widely quoted. It can be a tough pill to swallow.

Never mistake a personal preference for a universal truth.

You see this play out daily in the news, infecting politics, religion, our families and our jobs. The tide against this style of thinking currently fills the streets with protests. Hams are not immune to the same deep misunderstanding. Escaping the trap of "universal truth" requires a leap of perspective.

No one is beneath you because they make different choices. Time changes everything. What was once common is now rare and what was once impossible is now routine. Technological progress changes our culture and especially the interests of the younger generations of hams. There is no right and wrong about it, just that we are most comfortable with what we know and believe.

Remember that and you will avoid becoming a curmudgeon. If you discover that you have become a curmudgeon it is never too late to change. Kick yourself out of your comfort zone and try something new. You have nothing to lose and you may find a new way to enjoy amateur radio and gain new friends.

L-network for Stacked Yagis

An important component of switching stacks of yagis is an impedance matching network. When yagis are connected together their impedances are in parallel. Two 50 Ω yagis present a 25 Ω load to the transmission line. The parallel impedance should be transformed to 50 Ω to lower transmission line loss and to keep the transmitter happy. The network is switched out of circuit when only one of the yagis in the stack is selected.

The network is 2:1 for a two yagi stack and higher ratios should be used for 3 or more yagis. More than one network may be needed if a variable number of yagis can be selected in stacks with 3 or more antennas. The 15 and 20 meter stacks I am building have two yagis each so that is the antenna system I will primarily address in this article.

The simplified schematic shows the topology of a stack switch for two yagis. The options are upper, lower or both in phase (BIP). Switches for both out of phase (BOP) and 3 or more yagis are similar but more complex. I am sticking with the simplest version since it helps with the explanation and is what is needed for the 15 and 20 meter stacks I am building. 'N' is the matching network.

Most stack switches I've looked at typically have all yagis connected and in phase, therefore the network is in line by default. When only one of a two yagi stack is selected the network is bypassed and that yagi is connected to the input port. The basic two yagi circuit requires 4 SPDT relays rated for the RF power. The diodes isolate the control lines from each other since both must power K1 and K2.

The unused yagi(s) can be left connected to the network under the assumption that the yagis are far enough apart that their mutual impedance is low. This is a fair assumption since otherwise the network would require customization to accommodate impedances that are neither 50 Ω individually nor 25 Ω for two together.

With DC injectors, reverse polarity for one the selections and several diodes the transmission line can be used in lieu of separate control lines (3 wires for the above circuit). For the design of my station it is more convenient to use a dedicated control cable. With a common DC ground a total of 5 wires are required for the 15 and 20 meter stack switches (they are on the same tower).

There are a variety of networks that can be used for the impedance transformation. The most popular for HF are:

• Broadband transformer: Typically a transmission line transformer with trifilar windings on a ferrite toroid.
  
• Transmission line section: ¼λ transmission line to transform the 50 Ω of each yagi to a higher value so that the parallel impedance is 50 Ω or, alternatively, to transform the parallel impedance to 50 Ω.
• LC network: An L-network or similar network comprise of discrete inductors and capacitors.

Commercial products are almost all of the first type (example). These can be made to work on all bands from 80 through 10 meters with high efficiency and so a single product can suit many applications. Many home brew networks for mono-band stacks use the second type with 70 Ω coax (e.g. RG11) switched into both yagi ports. In all cases the electrical lengths of 50 Ω coax from the switch to each yagi must be equal to phase the yagi feed points for maximum gain.

Although they look simple enough building your own broadband transformer is not without its challenges. These are not conventional transformers but transmission line transformers. These are variations of the excellent design to be found in Sevick's Transmission Line Transformers book. Modern versions use Fair-Rite 61 mix 2.4" OD ferrite toroids.

The number and arrangement of the trifilar windings has a significant effect on efficiency, optimum port impedance and impedance ratio. Get it wrong and the heat generated at maximum legal limit, especially on 10 meters, can destroy the transformer. Compensation for stray capacitance at the highest bands may be required. When properly designed and built they perform very well, with a loss better than -0.1 db (20 watts dissipation for a 1000 watt transmitter) from 80 through 10 meters.

The transformer, and any matching network for that matter, can exhibit different behaviour with high Q yagis (e.g. most tri-band yagis) at the band edges where the SWR is high. Deviations of the impedance ratio and efficiency in these situations can become a serious problem with high power. Regardless of the matching network and SWR it is important that the yagi impedances are near equal at all frequencies of operation to achieve equal power division. Special design considerations for stacking dissimilar antennas are beyond the scope of this article.

For a multi-band yagi a broadband transformer is the best choice since the others have a narrower bandwidth and are only suitable for a mono-band stack, with narrow exceptions as we'll see. Since most stacks are mono-band the narrow band choices deserve a close look. I plan to build my own stack switching systems since they are not complex and I can put the money saved into other projects. The learning experience is another benefit. But I would like to keep it simple, hence the motivation for this article.

Since transmission line sections require more extensive switching systems and I don't have a ready supply of RG11 I pivoted to L-networks. Both can be very efficient for the broadband yagis I've built since the impedance is close to the ideal 50 + j0 Ω across the band. TLW produced the following design (with a low pass network topology) of a 15 meter L-network for a 2-yagi stack.

The L and C values are easily attainable. For stability the capacitor should be one that is not temperature sensitive and must have a low ESR (equivalent series resistance) for high efficiency and large enough to safely dissipate the heat. The coil will be physically small and with an easily attainable Q of 400 will only shed 3 watts at a power level of 1000 watts. Efficiency is worse for large deviations from 50 + j0 Ω so design the network accordingly.

While this is a simple and efficient way to match the stack parallel impedance there are a few issues to be considered:

• Tuning: Unlike a broadband transformer the L and C values must be carefully adjusted. A small variable capacitor with a rating of at least 1000 volts in parallel with a similar fixed capacitor is a good choice. The coil can be tapped and once the correct value is found the tap can be permanently bonded.
• Bandwidth: The design is for a single frequency near band centre. The network must work across the entire band and behave well when the yagi SWR is high. Yagis optimized for gain can have a high Q and therefore high SWR at the band edges.
• Field management: Within a metal box the value of a coil is different due to the field intersecting the enclosure, either increasing (steel) or decreasing (aluminum). Toroidal coils are mostly immune to this effect. Variable capacitors, the coil and wiring will exhibit stray capacitance with each other and the enclosure walls.

On the positive side the network is cheap and efficient and easy to adapt to bigger stacks by switching in one or more capacitors. For a 3-stack C is 210 pf and 260 pf for a 4-stack, while L decreases very little and can be left alone. An intermediate capacitor value can give a good match to 2 or 3 yagis in the stack without the need for switching.

The tuning process is not too demanding. To deal with enclosure effects simply cover the box after each adjustment. Broadband transformers and transmission line sections have similar issues that, although smaller, can be more difficult to compensate.

For me the critical issue is whether the L-network is broadband enough to use across the typical amateur band without additional tuning elements that must be dynamically switched. To test the concept I used EZNEC to model the L-network. As a first step I simulated the 2-stack 25 Ω parallel impedance with a long lossy transmission line. I have found that this is a good technique to emulate a resistive load in EZNEC. Although only virtual wires are needed the model requires a real wire so I specified one but didn't use it.

That's excellent. The match is even broader than the 15 meter band. I developed similar L-networks for 20 and 40 meters and achieved the same result. L-networks for a 3-stack and 4-stack were equally good across the entire band despite the higher transformation ratio.

Real antennas do not have a perfect 50 Ω impedance across the entire band. I did not explore the L-network's performance with high SWRs since my 15 and 20 meter yagis have low SWR (below 1.5) across each band. Besides, the other impedance matching alternatives would fare no better. With EZNEC I stacked the 5-element 15 meter yagis at 100' and 150' (close to the actual heights of my antennas), including the gamma matches previously modelled.

The match is perfect, barely deviating from the SWR curve for an individual yagi. The lengths of the phasing harnesses are nominal and close to the actuality but would only have a significant effect on the match were the SWR high, which it isn't in this case. To be fair the match is also very good for the broadband transformer despite its 22.25 Ω antenna port impedance (shown below). It is common for the same transformer to be used in a 3-stack, with 2 or 3 yagis selected, since the SWR is moderately good for a 17 Ω parallel impedance.

Having reached this point there is one important question to be explored: does a real L-network live up to the promise of the theory and model? Happily enough the answer is yes. I bread boarded the 15 meter L-network with little regard to good layout. The many sources of stray L and C tune out during adjustment of the network. The yagis are simulated by two parallel 51 Ω carbon composition resistors.

I measured the same excellent result with the L-network tuned for 20 meters. The only difficulty with the tuning was moving the coil tap with this fragile setup. Squeezing and spreading the coil turns does not allow a wide enough adjustment range.

To give an idea of how far the network can be pushed I modelled a L-network centred midway between our two closest (by percent) HF contest bands: 10 and 15 meters.

Although it does reasonably well it is marginal. It certainly cannot be used for a stack of tri-band yagis or for any other pair of adjacent bands. To test the model I measure the SWR of the 15 meter L-network prototype from 14 to 30 MHz. It does better than I expected for 20 meters but is unacceptable on 10. There may be unexplored loss in the network at the frequency extremes that damp the measured SWR and therefore overstate its actual performance.

Building it

The upper 15 meter yagi was raised last week. I'll have more to say about it in a forthcoming article. Once the yagi is in position at the top of the mast and the phasing harness installed I will build a stack switch using the L-network discussed in this article. If all goes well I will do the same for the 20 meter stack. The upper 20 meter yagi will not be raised before late summer.

Sometimes it feels like progress on the station is glacial. That is unavoidable since I do most of the work myself and rely on friends to help out with the big jobs. But I would not experience the same sense of accomplishment by hiring out the work and only using commercial products.

If all goes well I am going to have a lot of fun during the upcoming winter contest season.

6 Meter Blues

This is my fourth full season of 6 meter operation from my new QTH. It is also my third using FT8 for sporadic E DXing. Compared to my previous intensive 6 meter activity in the 1980s the experience is very different. With activity and propagation ramping up for this season I am doing some reflecting on where I am and where I'm going with respect to 6 meters. It's still fun although I find that my attitude is changing.

It's similar to when I was a new ham. Every DX contact was a thrill. There weren't many but each one counted. As time went on my expectations rose. No longer was I content with the same pace of DX accomplishment. I improved my skills and my station to do better, and when I plateaued I would at occasionally become frustrated.

Propagation on 6 meters this year is not out of the ordinary but my expectations have risen. So I sit here through the early part of the sporadic E season amid growing impatience. Where are the big openings? Why is my log not filling up with DX? Returning to CW and SSB from 50.313 MHz didn't help since almost all the activity is on FT8.

I'll run through a few examples of the categories of near misses I've experienced so far this season.

False dawn

A common occurrence during the summer sporadic E season is for the north Atlantic route to open in the early morning hours, from 2 to 4 hours after sunrise. The majority of these openings are unworkable from VE3 except with high power and big antennas. It's the E layer's big tease or, as I call it: false dawn.

Those to the east in Maine and VE1 fare better in these marginal openings. I can only watch as they work a few stations that barely decode here, if at all. The opening evaporates like dew as the sun rises higher in the sky.

Fortune favours...others

It is typical to hear your neighbours working DX that you cannot hear or is too weak and fleeting to be workable. Sometimes it's an adjacent province or state with the advantage and other times it's the lucky hams in the adjacent grid square. At least that's the way I always remember it. It is all too human to overlook those times when the advantage is mine.

It know my time will come, eventually. Hearing VE7/W7 have a great opening to Europe when I've worked next to nothing this year is especially aggravating. That's a remarkable and rare opening so kudos to them. I could deal with it better were we to get the correspondingly difficult opening to Japan and the Far East that is relatively easy for the west coast.

Another opening had W8/W9 working Hawaii. One more hop and we're right in there. Unfortunately "one more hop" is no easy feat. The only KH6's I've heard on 6 meters are Americans who've relocated to the mainland. My hopes are dashed when I decode the grid squares of those enticing call signs.

Same old, same old

Until yesterday (see below) I worked just 3 Europeans, all EA. Other DX, while welcome, was on well-trodden propagation paths: EA8, Caribbean, northern South America and Central America. Following the philosophy of appreciating what you have I jumped in with a modicum of enthusiasm. Many new stations were worked and a few from previous years were reworked.

There are surprises to be found on these paths. I worked 4 new countries, though none rare. These come about from increasing 6 meter activity from otherwise commonly heard countries. Same old, same old isn't necessarily bad.

Those enticing single decodes

The spotlight nature of sporadic E frequently results in fleeting openings at the highest frequencies. 6 meters, when it opens, if often riding the MUF. What might be long enough for a CW QSO on FT8 these blink-of-an-eye openings can result in a single decode and nothing more. It can be enticing.

Hearing TT8 was especially intriguing. From here the path is the same as for EA which were coming through at the time. Just one hop more is what it takes. But that one decode of TT8SN was all that I heard. A week later 6W1TA was in for a while with a weak signal. This bodes well for the coming weeks of improving propagation. The path to Africa is often open, but just as on HF there is little activity. Were Africans as common as Europeans the band would be sizzling.

Many single decodes were seen on the more common European path. The ones that catch my attention are the farthest stations and the countries I haven't yet worked. Eastern Europe and the Middle East  were the ones that kept popping up through May. This year I hope to work more of them.

Things are looking up

Had I written this article a day earlier I would have nothing more to say, and I would remain frustrated. Today we finally had a good opening into Europe and beyond. Adding 10 European QSOs in the FT8 log was very welcome. Among the enticing (and needed) countries heard were 4X, OD, LX YL, ES and more. I was called by a 4X station but we didn't complete the QSO. It was exciting nonetheless. Later in the evening several stations from TF, OX and LA were worked and I had a partial QSO with OH.

With the many projects underway my plan to upgrade the transmission line to the 6 meter yagi has been delayed. If all goes well it'll be done this month. That will give me a little more power by reducing loss. An amplifier remains in the plan but is not yet at the top of the list. A bigger signal would have netted me several new countries this season alone.

I now await improved sporadic E conditions as the peak approaches at the solstice in less than 20 days. It's a short season and that makes it intense and rewarding. If it were easy 6 meter DXing would be far less interesting.

Mast for the 15/20 Meter Tower

My new 140' (40 m) tower is primarily for my 15 and 20 meter stacked yagis. Recently I installed the mast for the upper yagis. The 15 meter yagi will be at the top of the mast and the 20 meter yagi at the bottom.

Last year I kept the top two sections of the new 140' tower on the ground so that the mast and rotation system could be fabricated to fit. The mast is supported by 3 bearings and bearing plates, a plate below them for the prop pitch motor and custom couplers between the mast and thrust (bottom) bearing and to the motor drive shaft.

I made sure to get it working before proceeding with installation of the tower sections and the mast. Correcting mechanical problems in the air can be extremely difficult. Time spent getting it right on the ground is well worth it. Avoid shortcuts and never imagine that a job of this magnitude will reward laziness.

There are two features of the rotation system for this tower that are different from that for the near-identical 150' tower. One is that the prop pitch motor is mounted upside down below the mast for direct drive instead of chain drive. The other is that the mast is aluminum rather than steel.

I was negligent about taking pictures of the construction and mast lifting. There are times I'm so focused on doing the work and keeping safe that the camera does not come to mind. Prose and graphics will have to suffice, complemented by pictures I took after the installation. The prop pitch motor, which isn't yet installed, will be left to a future article.

Mast size

The mast is a surplus standard 20' length of 2-⅞" OD 6061-T6 aluminum alloy pipe. My original plan was to use this as half the boom of a 3-element 40 meter yagi. Then I realized the pipe was schedule 80 rather than 40 which is heavy for a boom. The wall thickness is 0.276" and it weighs 53 lb (24 kg). It has a few holes from its previous use for a commercial antenna. The cap is welded with a spike for draining atmospheric charge.

I plugged the yagi data and pipe data into a mast stress calculator. It should support my 5-element 15 meter yagi at the top and 5-element 20 meter yagi at the bottom for winds up to 180 kph. These are the upper yagis of my 15 and 20 meter stacks. Their electrically identical and lower twins are side mounted and fixed towards Europe.

The expected maximum wind for this region is 135 kph (85 mph). The mast has a good safety margin, including an allowance for the holes mentioned earlier. Since aluminum alloy has a difficult to determine cyclical stress (fatigue) capacity the large margin is more important than for a steel mast.

Lift

One benefit of aluminum is the low weight compared to steel. Two men were comfortably able to lift the mast to the top of the 140' tower. I rigged the rope with pulleys so that my helpers could work apart and respect the 2 meter separation to protect against COVID-19. The gross lifting weight was approximately 70 lb (32 kg) including the top plate and bearing and fasteners.

There are two reasons to lift the top plate with the mast instead of beforehand. First, it shifts the centre of gravity lower. My gin pole can lift a load a maximum of 7'-8" above the tower and that is below the midpoint of the 20' pipe. The plate moves the centre of gravity 2' lower, which is almost but not quite enough. More on that in a moment.

The second reason is to ease the drop into the top of the tower. The clearance through the 75 mm bearing is tight for a 73 mm diameter pipe. The pipe would have to be almost perfectly vertical to slip through. With the bearing plate attached to the mast it drop more easily into the tower. Once the mast slips into the middle bearing 5' below the top plate can be bolted to the tower girt.

The same technique was used for the mast for the other big tower. Except in that case the mast was shorter so the gin pole had adequate reach.

Some of the alternatives for overcoming this constraint were described in the article on topping the Trylon with a 19' mast. The technique used here is better and takes advantage of having two helpers on the rope who could quickly react to verbal instructions. I had to shouted so they could hear me 140' below; none of our radios has the hands-free feature.

Absent a picture I drew a diagram. The heavy bearing plate, held in position by a muffler clamp, lowers the centre-of-gravity (CoG) ~2' below the pipe centre (C). This is 6" short of the gin pole's reach. A muffler clamp higher on the mast snags the lift rope which effectively shifts the attachment far above the CoG. The clamp isn't too tight so it doesn't crush the rope. Use the U as the snag not the sharp saddle!

The mast hangs almost perfectly vertical. The only time it leans (as depicted) is when the bottom is still on the ground. I followed the mast upward in 20' steps to guide the mast and bearing plate past the tower, guys and side mount yagis. A tag line hung from the bottom for another steering alternative and as a safety line in case the mast swung out of control during the final stage of the lift.

When I'm as high as is safe at the top of the tower the snag bolt is loosened and slid down as my friends continue the lift. Eventually the clamp bottoms out on the rope coil that grips the pipe. That's when you need to hold the pipe vertical from the bottom so that it doesn't overturn. The tag line is trapped in my gear in case I need it in an emergency. The operation went smoothly without mishap.

As the mast descends into the tower the plate stops when it contacts the tower. The clamp doubles as a stop when it contacts the middle bearing. That's when the top plate is bolted to the tower. The rope coil is slid upward a few feet as the rope is slacked and then the weight is retaken by my friends. I descend to the middle bearing, move the clamp up a short distance and the mast is lowered until the clamp again holds the weight.

The previous day I lifted the mast coupler and associated hardware so they were already at hand. It's ~2.5' of 3.5" OD 6061-T6 schedule 40 pipe. The coupler is attached to mast and it is dropped until it is sitting on the lower bearing. That bearing takes the full thrust load of the mast and antennas. All the bearings are 75 mm deep groove double sealed industrial bearings (FAG) with a capacity far in excess of the axial and radial loads of this application. This is a good fit for 2-⅞" (73 mm) pipe. A shim can be used on the top bearing to reduce chatter if that's a concern.

Whether a shim is used or not check for free 360° rotation. The bearings will likely require some adjustment to centre the mast. I have a small misalignment that I will correct later.

Mast Coupler

The coupler I fabricated has a few functions:

• As a mast collar it transfers vertical load to the bottom (thrust) bearing
• Extends the mast to the design length, with 12' extending above the tower
• Attachment for the prop pitch motor drive shaft, keeping it centred and free from axial and radial loads
  

The coupler was partially described earlier. The pictures give a closer view (sorry, I couldn't keep my feet out of the frame). Shims are needed to centre the mast and lower coupler to the 2-⅞" mast and lower coupler. Unlike for the first big tower I machined the shims so that the bolts go through them and so cannot creep out. Jam nuts are better than lock washers to secure fasteners on a round pipe.

The only critical dimension is that for the lower coupler to the motor shaft. It needs to be centred within the coupler and the vertical distance to the motor crown gear must ensure full engagement but without placing load on the motor. The raw motor without an adaptor plate and thrust bearing is not rated for significant axial and radial loads.

The shaft is 1-¼" steel schedule 40 pipe with a 1.66" OD. The coupler ID is 2.469". A grade 8 bolt transfers torque and two ⅜" bolts in tapped holes centre the shaft. The design is fully adjustable and permits easy removal of the drive shaft for maintenance of the system including motor removal.

The shaft came with the motor and I decided to try it out since it is well made, if a little rusty. Downward flowing water is shunted to the side and away from the motor. If the shaft is unequal to the job I will take it to a machine shop and make it stronger.

Although the bearing plates are ¼" steel they will deflect under load. To simulate the effect I used a winch to put several hundred pounds of load on the system when it was still on the ground. The deflection of the bottom thrust bearing was no more than ⅛" yet this is enough to be worth the effort to compensate for in the design.

Adapting antennas to the mast

The boom-to-mast clamps and boom truss are home brew and not adaptations of commercial clamps. The design takes account of the softness of aluminum alloy in comparison to steel.

The upper 15 meter 5-element yagi of the stack is mounted at the top of the mast. For this reason the boom truss support is integrated with the boom-to-mast clamp. This way the mast does not require extra height for the truss support and installation and service are easier.

On the downside all the weight bears on the boom and mast clamps. For a truss support on the mast -- the conventional method -- the weight on the boom-to-mast clamp is reduced.

There is provision for 4 saddle clamps to grip the mast. By distributing the load over more than 2 clamps they each don't need to "bite" as deeply into the aluminum alloy mast. Cold flow is reduced so that the grip force holds better over time. The pipe wall is so thick that marring by the clamps is not a structural risk. I have not yet decided how many clamps to use: I can start with two and add more later.

On the other hand this antenna is not terribly heavy. The 20 meter antenna that will be at the bottom of the mast is much heavier, but that force is reduced by the boom truss being mounted on the mast in the conventional manner.

Many of you will recognize the clamps from the DX Engineering catalogue. I have had good success with these "Cycle 24" galvanized saddle clamps in other projects. I prefer them to the stainless saddle clamps for their ease of use (special lubricants not required) and textured band for improved grip.

The mast clamps are offset 1" from centre to fit the truss support clamps beside it. The completed boom-to-mast clamp fits nicely on the yagi. If all goes well it will be raised before the hay grows too high. Otherwise it must wait until August. The larger 20 meter yagi is scheduled for lifting later this year.

Working on the mast isn't safe until the motor is installed since it is otherwise freewheeling. With the first yagi lift planned before motor installation a temporary solution is required.

The anti-spin grip is comprised of a muffler clamp and perforated angle stock. When the arm is tied to the tower the mast will not spin. The grip is easily removed or loosened when the motor is installed.

Next steps

I hurried to install the mast so that I can experiment with the 15 meter stack. The phasing and switching work is yet to be started. With the hay now at knee height and the easing of the pandemic lock down I have a brief window before work must be delayed until August.

My plan is as follows during the haying season:

• Raise the 15 meter 5-element upper yagi and ensure that it works
• Build the coax phasing harness between the yagis and connect them to the main transmission line
• Design and test the stack switch
• Install the prop pitch motor and test that the mast and yagi rotate properly

In the adjacent photo some of the hardware for the 15 meter yagi tram line can be seen on the mast several feet above the tower. Once the yagi is tested and mechanically adjusted it will be raised to the top of the mast. This last step is not urgent since the stacking work can proceed regardless.

If all goes well, after the hay is harvested I will assemble the 20 meter 5-element upper yagi, tune it and raise it to the top of the tower. The phasing harness and stack switch can then be constructed and installed. With a little luck my 15 and 20 meter stacks will be ready for the fall contest season.

I Hate Logging Software

Keeping a log has not been legally required for most hams for decades yet we almost all do. The only common exception is VHF/UHF FM. We keep logs for awards, to remember and greet new and old friends from conversations past, for future reminiscences. Until perhaps 2000 logs were mostly kept on paper and now it's almost all by computer.

Those who are forced to use paper during PC-less operating such as on mountaintops computerize their logs after returning to civilization. Yet there remain holdouts, sticking with paper, usually for aesthetic reasons.

My first experiment with computer logging was for contests in the late 1970s. Other than a bit of playing with computer contest logging with CT in the following decade my log was paper up until my long QRT began in 1992. When I returned to the hobby in 2013 my logging was solely done by computer.

There are plentiful alternatives from which to choose, free and commercial. Back in 2013 I looked at N3FJP, Log4OM, DXLab, HRD and a few others. All have their pros and cons. There is no one right answer for everyone. Free software was desirable for a first choice since I suspected I would want to migrate to something better. I am not averse to paying for good software and I did trial a few of those products.

I settled on the (then) non-commercial version of HRD (Ham Radio Deluxe). For me it had the best mix of usability, DXCC tracking, spot display and ancillary data. Also important to me was the ability to put the daily log and contest logs (imported after each event) in separate data bases and have all data bases contribute to DXCC tracking. Entering rapid-fire QSO data is not great but tolerable.

Several months ago the performance of the old HRD began to suffer gretly under Windows 10. It seemed that every update from Microsoft creates backward-compatibility problems, which is not unusual. So far as I know the newer commercial HRD does not suffer from these problems because they update the product as necessary to stay current with Windows.

After 7 years of being reasonably happy with the old HRD it was time to move on. I revisited products I first looked at in 2013 and a few others that appeared to be popular. Here is a partial list of what is important to me in daily (non-contest) logging software. Your priorities may not be quite different.

• Continuity and support: Will there be support and updates for years to come? Too many niche products die when the developer dies or loses interest.
• Rapid QSO entry: Outside of contests my QSOs tend to be short. I need to be able to enter start/stop times, reports and perhaps name with a minimum of keystrokes and mouse gestures.
• Band map of DX spots: Spotted calls graphically arranged by frequency tells me what is where at a glance. Maps and lists are poor alternatives.
• Automatic log lookup: Did I work the station before? When, where and name are wanted.
• DXCC tracking: Is a station a new country or band-country? Is the country correctly derived from the call sign? DXCC needs per band tied in with spotted calls.
• Ancillary QSO data: IOTA, QTH, free text comments for antenna and power, etc.
• Performance: I want everything to happen instantly. Processing delays for large data bases of contacts are a problem.

I am flexible rather than rigid in regards to logging software requirements. Not only is perfection unattainable most hams find that their requirements evolve as they become accustomed to a product and their operating preferences change. You think: if it can do this why can't it do that? Your thinking evolves, software products evolve, and indeed everything in our hobby evolves.

In short, I will make no recommendation. Indeed I rarely find recommendations useful. Perusing online reviews of logging software is more likely to confuse than enlighten. Reviews are typically made by those either very happy or very unhappy, and those eager to declare "me too!" Of the products I've tried the reviews are unlikely to agree with my experience.

Rather than making a recommendation I'll talk more generally about what to watch out for when investigating logging software. That is far more likely to be useful. Making a lazy choice can lead to frustration. Consider what is most important to you and then play with a few of your top candidates before making a decision.

Customization and the user experience

Beware software that is infinitely customizable! This is typically promoted as allowing each user to create a unique experience by adjusting, well, just about everything. What it instead screams to me is: "we don't know how it should work so you figure it out."

Creating an effective user experience (UX) is difficult. I've had to do this myself in my professional career and I have closely worked with those whose job was to improve product UX. You might think that a ham who produces ham software would be ideally placed to get it right. Regrettably this is often not the case.

Mostly what we have is users adapting to the peculiarities of the application or customizing it to the point that only they can use it. Once you've reached that point it is difficult to change. Instead it is our nature to rationalize and to defend our choices vociferously.

Of the products I've tried I think the worst in this category is DXLab. It has a large base of enthusiastic users. I've now come back to it for the third time and I still find it impossible to like. Window management is weird, the UI obsolete, customizing it to point of usability is long and difficult and there are simple bugs that seem to persist.

It's not all bad, of course, just not what I am comfortable with. Many like this type of software so perhaps you will as well.

Feature creep, or "bells and whistles"

Mature products frequently run into this problem. Whether in a bid to differentiate from competitors or to meet the needs of diverse and small numbers of users feature count increases with time. Obsolete and rarely used features are not removed. As features increase there are more things that can break and interactions among those features can decrease usability and have deleterious interactions.

Ham logging software is no exception to this rule. Perhaps the product adds an interface to a vintage rig, adds tracking for the "Worked All Podunk" award or supports Windows XP machines. Continue this for several years and the software can begin to collapse under its own weight. The majority who stick to the basic features can find their use impaired by features they never asked for and don't want.

In fairness developers are often doing no more than responding to requests from their customers or keeping up with new technology. But when a feature is added to a mature product rarely is the total UX reconsidered. It is usually left to the user to decide which features to enable or disable and to decide how they ought to interact (see previous section). Adequate testing becomes difficult to nigh impossible since feature interactions grow faster, often far faster, than the feature count.

There is one logging software product that has become so bloated with these bells and whistles it is jokingly said that for every 5 bugs fixed there are 6 new bugs introduced. Those bugs can become increasingly troublesome and software updates a source of user angst.

Oftentimes less is more.

Real-time application interfaces

The more sophisticated logging software support real-time interfaces to other amateur radio applications. These include:

• CAT for transceiver control
• Rotator control
• Serial interfaces for antenna, amplifier and filter switching and related contest peripherals
• UDP broadcasts to send or receive QSO data for storage and further processing
• Software API to receive QSO data from digital engines, including FT8, PSK, RTTY and CW
• Online databases to retrieve biographical data by call sign
• Upload QSOs for electronic QSL (confimation)

This is not a complete list. Not even close.

I prefer to use the absolute minimum of these interfaces. CAT is obviously needed and I am planning automation for antenna and filter switching. I am making progress with SO2R switching, including keyer and mic control. All the rest I am avoiding.

It takes time and effort to properly implement these interfaces and to keep them working. Even when done well problems will arise due to software updates. Communication glitches result in database synchronization errors that can be difficult to discover, track down and correct.

I prefer to transfer QSOs manually at month end between logging applications and to LoTW. Many hams enjoy fiddling with these interfaces and features. I am not among their number. Simple is good and good enough is good enough.

I go further in that I prefer software that does not support unwanted interfaces since that can lead to bugs in the features I use (see above). Where there are optional modules for these interface features I don't install them, and if the features have configuration switches those switches are set to off.

Support

Products built and maintained by a sole developer tend to have a limited lifetime. When that person retires or dies the product goes into stasis and will eventually become unusable, whether through changes to unrelated software that it uses or no support for future equipment and services. I have been very lucky that the old HRD has continued to work for me for 7 years. Over the past year I have endured increasing occurrences of software glitches.

Support and product improvements take time and effort that users must compensate, and payment is deserved. There are many free alternatives if the willingness to pay is low. Of course those who pay expect good support and should get it. HRD was a free product that now has a license fee to pay for support and new feature development.

A few products are both free and well supported by a team. N1MM Logger+ is an excellent example. Despite contests being its primary application it has been successfully used by DXpeditions and by many users for daily logging.

When you choose logging software how confident can you be that it will be there tomorrow? To protect yourself make sure the application can export the QSO data base in ADIF format, and test that it can by making periodic backups. In future you can import the data base into another logging application. Insist on that to insure yourself against future obsolescence.

What I'm doing now

My current daily logging software is N1MM Logger+. It meets most of my criteria and I am most familiar with it since it my contest logging software of choice. Where it misses my criteria, especially with regard to DXCC tracking, I transfer logs to HRD monthly at the same time I upload to LoTW. It was easy to import my log from HRD using ADIF.

The QSOs are kept in a separate database from contest logs. I have a "Contest" database in HRD to which contest logs are imported after every event. FT8 logs for 6 and 160 meters are directly uploaded to LoTW from the WSJT-X log but not exported to N1MM and HRD. While most hams want digital and non-digital QSOs in the same database I prefer the separation. LoTW does all the category assignments that matter to me.

The screen capture shows which N1MM windows I use for general logging, using the DX "contest" selection. There is the band map with both self spots and cluster spots, the Telnet window for the cluster and a map with the terminator and spots. The log window includes past QSO lookup. A tally of QSOs and countries per band and mode is in the summary window

CW and phone messages are easy to program and use. All are keyed from the entry window or in F-keys. This is superior to using the Winkeyer buttons. I keep CW speed under keyboard control rather than configuring that option only for contests.

Since I have more than 10× as many contest QSOs as non-contest QSO the use of separate databases is helpful. I generally do want to see when and where I've worked a station before but not if it was in a contest. To me they are very different and unrelated activities. I like that this is natural to N1MM Logger+ as it is for HRD. Most logging software has support for just one database.

Before and after contest several windows and options must be configured. That is a downside of using the same application for contests and daily operating. There are ways to smooth the changeover which I have not bothered with. I haven't even decided whether to stick with N1MM Logger+ for daily operating.

I may yet decide to try something different. For now it works well for me and my style of operating.