During his talk at Visalia, I asked Dean, N6BV why his TOA statistics
showed that takeoff angles would be higher on 10 meters than 15 (he
was showing a case study comparing TOAs at W6NL and N6RO). That
didn't make sense to me (I would have expected the opposite) and
Dean didn't really have a good answer. Anyone have an explanation for
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Jim Lux" <email@example.com>; "W3YY" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "TowerTalk
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower height increments
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Lux" <email@example.com>
> > and the peak elevation angle for propagation on 40 is only 3
> > degrees above the horizon
> While I agree with the admonition to consider the effects of tower
> height on the lower takeoff angles...
> It is neither proven nor universally accepted that on 40m the "best"
> or "peak" takeoff angle is three degrees for all amateur radio needs.
> That three degree figure probably comes from VOACAP or VOACAP derived
> sources. Those programs have an entirely different agenda that is only
> a portion of typical ham radio uses and needs. VOACAP has broadcast
> derived blind spots that have to be worked around carefully.
> Particularly, VOACAP heavily weights takeoff angles that are
> continuously successful over long times and calendar intervals. A one
> hour strong opening somewhere, that would be a ham's delight, is
> largely dunned by VOACAP.
> VOACAP assumes that a broadcaster can actually construct high, large
> and efficient enough antennas, and run high enough power levels to
> make use of such openings.
> The experience at large contest stations with switchable antennas
> confirms that higher angles, even in the 20's, are significant on 40m
> over the course of an evening, depending on conditions, path to DX and
> It was discovered, only last year, that VOACAP systematically
> discarded any data regarding a fourth incoming angle, that combined
> with a low starting angle (such as one or three degrees), made it
> incapable of reporting the existence of significant high incoming
> angles. It is a restriction that can be removed by completely recoding
> the application and its spin-offs in something other than its
> sixties-based Fortran.
> A two element 40m beam at 70' will prove to be an excellent antenna if
> it's not lossy and the f/b is decent.
> Particularly if you mainly want to work DX, the 70' height provides a
> rejection of high angles (30 and up) and rejection of close in (NVIS)
> signals and QRN which can be extremely helpful.
> You may be beaten out by a 5 element wide spaced quad, but hey...
> 73, and good luck.
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> TowerTalk mailing list
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list