[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] more - Precip static

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] more - Precip static
From: (Dale Jones K5MM)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
 The following private message to Pete-N4ZR is sent to the reflector
 at Pete's suggestion.
 73 de Dale, K5MM

To: <>
>Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:29:30
>To: Pete Smith <>
>From: Dale Jones K5MM <>
>Subject: more - Precip static
> Pete: Your comments below are most interesting, and in particular
> when viewed together with the comments made by LB-W4RNL.  In the
> past, beginning at N5AU's big station in Dallas, and my own station
> in Oregon a few years ago, I had multiple antennas for all bands, 
> and they were all at different heights.
> For example, had a modified 205BA at 110 feet by itself, a 204BA
> side mounted at 70 feet on a second tower (with other antennas
> above it), and then thirdly a TH6DXX on a crank-up tower with only
> that antenna on that tower, which was usually cranked up to about 
> 60 feet.
> Oregon gets lots of rain in the autumn, winter and spring, and 
> my QTH was up on a hill where it snowed some in the winter too.
> During contests in the autumn, winter and early spring, the 
> propensity to get rain during contests was very high.  On 20 
> meters for example, when rain static and snow static came along, 
> the very highest antenna (205BA) was worthless.  It would generate 
> 20db to 49db over S-9 static on the receiver.  The lower two 
> antennas would not send virtually ANY static down to the receiver.
> Clearly, if I had only the high antenna, I would have been QRT
> during extended periods on time during the contests.  Fortunately
> the antennas ALWAYS enabled me to stay on the air.  
> I do not have any data showing these results --- too interested in
> contesting at the time --- but having those additional antennas
> made the difference between being off the air, and continuing to
> work sttions.  I recall thinking at the time....the high antennas
> must catch the static as it falls out of the sky first and then 
> dissipate it before it gets down to the lower antennas.  That was 
> just my ignorant supposition at the time.  That might be a correct
> supposition, but if so it's only luck, and not a clear understanding
> of what's going on in the atmosphere.
> Same thing occurred at N5AU's station years ago.  On 20 meters
> at Gordon's QTH, during 'static' times, the 4 element Quad was
> far superior to the high Yagi's.  A huge difference existed between
> those antennas.  High yagis were at 120 to 175 feet or so, and the
> quad (closed loop antenna) was at about 60-70 feet,  So, two 
> advantages to the quad--closed loop antenna and low to ground
> when compared to the yagis.
> 73 
> Dale  K5MM  
> Pete:  you wrote:
> snip----
>>Amen ... in earlier discussions, many people have also observed anecdotally
>>that high antennas are more affected than low ones, and that some
>>rainstorms are much noisier than others.  Anyone run across a 
>>systematic study in the literature?
>>Time and again, I've found that one rainstorm will be relatively 
>>quiet, while another (with similar rainfall rate and presence or
>>absence of lightning) will generate S9 +20 dB noise.
>>73, Pete Smith N4ZR

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>