Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Height\s+vs\.\s+foliage\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Thomas <p-thomas@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:32:10 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Speaking of VHF contesting, and my ongoing poor results with my below-roof-mounted 2m beam at the home QTH, I figured I would ask the experts here for some advice. Operating under the knowledge that
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00068.html (7,985 bytes)

2. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: "George Sintchak" <wa2vnv@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:01:57 -0400
Patrick, Assuming moving your home to higher ground location is not an option, a roof tripod will be a (relatively cheap) option and give you a reasonable improvement. A better solution would be a fi
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00069.html (9,765 bytes)

3. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: "STEVE NOTEBOOK" <stephen.tripp@snet.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:07:41 -0400
Hi Patrick and George, George has given you a good suggestion using a house bracketed tower. Try and find a Rohn45 which is much stronger and will support a lot more without guys but of course more c
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00070.html (13,168 bytes)

4. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Rollinson" <Paulrollinson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:20:04 -0400
Telescoping towers have a permanent height and a temporary height. My permanent with mast is 40ft and temporarily (for contest) at 90'. A lot easier to tell them it's a 22' telescoping tower and let
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00071.html (13,573 bytes)

5. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Rhinosix via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:14:32 -0400
Could you tell the differience between an antenna at 40 ft or at 50 ft while standing under it unless they were side by side. Not as easy as it may look. I would go with loops in the 50 ft trees. Bla
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00072.html (15,150 bytes)

6. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: mike repinski via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:06:58 -0400
Unless they knew to count the sections. --Original Message-- From: Rhinosix via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> To: Paulrollinson <Paulrollinson@sbcglobal.net>; stephen.tripp <stephen.tr
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00074.html (16,168 bytes)

7. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:22:34 +0000 (UTC)
Yes, trees do make a difference on the higher bands. My qth is surrounded by 100' pines plus various lower trees. While I don't think it hurts too much on HF, cell phone service is noticeably weaker
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00076.html (10,358 bytes)

8. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 04:26:31 -0400
Patrick, I want to take a moment to relate a story that might give you some ideas what to do. When I was a new ham back in the late 60s and early 70s, there was another ham in the city where I grew u
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00081.html (14,165 bytes)

9. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Thomas <p-thomas@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:43:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Wow, thanks for all the feedback. It sounds like the anecdotal evidence varies, so maybe I need to look up those absorption articles and spend some time to do objective calculation at my frequencies
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00084.html (9,749 bytes)

10. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Rhinosix via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 14:33:48 -0400
We are looking into a solar min for the next 5 to 6 years so putting big bucks into a super antenna setup on six meters at this time may be disappointing. For 2 meters and 1 1/4 meters there is tropo
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00085.html (11,766 bytes)

11. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:42:58 -0500
evidence that the solar cycle plays a big role. If you have citations that do show that connection, please share! -- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! __________________________
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00086.html (8,743 bytes)

12. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: K7XC Tim Marek <k7xcnv1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 19:25:51 +0000
Six Meters Propagation is NOT directly tied to sunspots except for long haul DX using F2... Often requiring the flux to reach 175/200 or better! Not a common occurrence. However... I have worked Most
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00087.html (10,846 bytes)

13. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 14:51:08 -0500
Yagi, shamgi. I use my 80-40 trap dipole! :-D I did have a KB6KQ loop (and one for 2m as well - both for sale, BTW) but I found the wire was at least equivalent. Most of my 130 confirmed grids on 6 a
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00088.html (9,125 bytes)

14. Re: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Thomas <p-thomas@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 19:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
Although 6m is a great band, my primary interest is in 2m & 440, and really I would like to get more active on 220, 33cm (yes really), and 23cm. I only mention this because the line-of-sight, tree pe
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-07/msg00089.html (8,632 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu