TANX, that was what I figured. I live in a residential area 116ft by 56ft
lot, house and car port, power pole and in NW to NE mig rocks about 7ooft
high. That is why I was looking at an elevated vertical or a dipole
verical with wire caps.
Chris opr VE7HCB
At 09:42 PM 2002-08-11 -0400, Guy Olinger, K2AV wrote:
>Hills, particularly large buildings, sometimes above ground
>power/telephone/cable distribution (more an issue on 160 than 10,
>certainly). The closer the building, the smaller it can be and
>obstruct or attenuate signals.
>Someone I knew was complaining about his vertical's low angle
>performance. I went by his residence, and noted that the NE direction
>was UP the street (literally), something like ten houses before things
>It was a really nice neighborhood, and doesn't deserve the word
>clutter, but for radio purposes NE it was.
>When I lived in Albuquerque, the Sandia Mountains (10K+) were east of
>me, and the lowest bit of sky east was up 25 degrees. Extremely
>scenic, but qualifies as radio clutter.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris BONDE" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <email@example.com>
>Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 6:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L
> > At 03:37 PM 2002-08-11 -0400, Guy Olinger, K2AV wrote:
> > >This also puts the current maxima at the ground which improves low
> > >angle performance, assuming a good radial field and no low angle
> > >clutter which would block the low angles anyway.
> > No low angle clutter, I assume that this is referring to objects
> > ground or near to the ground sothat it is in the path of the
> > wave. Does what is considered a clutter change with the frequency
> > Tx. Say would something at 160m not be at 10m or, vice versa?
> > Chris opr VE7HCB
>Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
>Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and take an
>additional 5 percent off
>any weather station price.
>Towertalk mailing list