|Subject:||Re: [TowerTalk] Which better: TOP of hill or SIDE of hill?|
|From:||"John WA2GO" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:43:02 -0500|
Hello Guy (and all),|
I have spent the majority of the past week playing with HFTA. I found the process of acquiring my USGS data from the web and preparing it with MicroDEM to be quite challenging..... UNTIL I READ THE HFTA INSTRUCTIONS, at which point it became a piece of cake! (Just because one works with computers doesn't mean every single application is intuitive....<gulp> By following the directions in the Help file to the letter, it worked perfectly right away - except the URL for TIGER data didn't work, but I didn't care about that anyway.)
I second what Guy advises - if you don't have the ARRL Antenna Book and HFTA, and you use or plan to use a dipole or beam antenna, you need to get it! The software is quite amazing, and yes, it shows that antenna performance does indeed change (slightly but noticeably) when you move a tower back 50' or 100' from a ledge, etc. I have found it very helpful, and have heard great things about it from others, so I will be relying heavily on it while planning and building my new station.
In my particular situation, however, I was wanting the software to do something it cannot do. It is unable to take into account the terrain that is BEHIND the beam. I wanted to find out whether I would do better to Europe by placing a beam as much as 70' below the top of a northeast facing slope, rather than placing it at the top of the slope. The "TA" software (which is not available) can apparently model this, but HFTA cannot. (You can't put elevations that are "negative" distances from the tower into your PROfile.) I don't mind moving the tower down 70' if it will improve things, because I am at 600', and the NE property line is down at 450', still only half way down a 300' dropoff.
I spoke at length with N6BV about this, and he advised me to put the towers on the high point of the property. (A plus is that I will only need half as many towers that way, because I won't need separate west towers. But then again, I will have only half as many towers! =)
Dean said that placing the antenna down the slope would improve apparent F/B by knocking down the signals off the back, but would not improve absolute forward gain. I will definitely buy that.
My next question is: will moving the antenna down the slope also increase the level of super-high angle (approaching 90 degrees) stuff, which is more likely to be atmospheric than radio signals, except perhaps on certain bands in the middle of the day when you wouldn't likely be on them anyway, other than perhaps the Sunday doldrums period of my favorite November contests....
I don't have the answer to that question, so I conceived of very structured experiment to perform this spring. It uses five identical and parallel dipoles (40M or 20M, any suggestions?), all installed at the same height above ground, each 200' apart, one in the middle of a large flat area, one each on the precipice (ledge) of an eastern and a western slope, and one each about 70' below the top of each slope on the slope-face. I will examine what happens to low angle and high angle received and transmitted signals at different times of day and year. The big questions will be: how much do I reduce the signals off the back when I move down the slope, do I introduce more noise, and do I see any difference in signal strength at all when switching between the flat-area dipole, and the ledge-top and slope-face dipoles on the favored side, and if so, for what angle signals. (Any difference should be more pronounced on low angle stuff, I would think.)
I will report back in the late spring with results, assuming I am successful at obtaining town permits and I go ahead and buy this property. I will have a space 1,000' by 1,000' for antenna experimentation, including a large flat area and nice slopes down to the east, west and north. The south slope down is 900 feet away, at the bottom of the neighbor's property. Always wanted to have my own hilltop. For now, I'm going to have to share one. :-) Should be enough to keep me busy for a while at any rate...
Cheers and Happy New Year all,
From: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <email@example.com> To: "John WA2GO" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Which better: TOP of hill or SIDE of hill? Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:44:08 -0500
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 TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [TowerTalk] Which better: TOP of hill or SIDE of hill?, Guy Olinger, K2AV|
|Next by Date:||[TowerTalk] 130mph rohn 25G, Jim Jarvis|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] Which better: TOP of hill or SIDE of hill?, Guy Olinger, K2AV|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] Which better: TOP of hill or SIDE of hill?, Peter & Judy Grillo|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|