Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Site\s+Elevation\s+and\s+TOA\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:46:49 -0400
I'm trying to locate land in south GA for a remote Internet station. Two self-supporting towers are ready for installation. Tower #1 is 140 ft and Tower #2 is 100 ft. A full-size, 4L 40m monoband Yag
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00145.html (8,555 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Bill via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
According to N6BV, who knows his stuff... Beyond approximately14000 feet has very little effect on the TOA for HF. Close in is far more important. You can test this by making up a file with hypotheti
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00146.html (10,101 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 23:29:00 -0700
Dean gave an HFTA talk at Seaside last week and I asked this question. "How far away do I not need to worry about a mountain?" His answer: "over the horizon". He showed some patterns much further out
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00152.html (11,629 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:07:42 -0700
I concur with that, at least as far as HFTA is concerned. I live on the eastern slope of a mountain range in southern Arizona, and the land slopes strongly down for about a half mile (about 15% slope
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00153.html (14,240 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:06:47 -0700
Yes. When I was first learning HFTA, I generated a couple of radials by tracing a line, picking elevations off of a terrain map. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ _________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00154.html (8,077 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "John Langdon" <jlangdon1@austin.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 04:48:37 -0500
The only way to really know is to run the numbers for the location. I am blessed with a sloping foreground in most directions: some out to about 4 miles, some out to 14 miles, and the resulting radia
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00155.html (14,172 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "Ian White" <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:52:07 +0100
and All users should try creating a .PRO file from scratch at least once, because creating your own file gives far more insight into how HFTA actually uses its radial data. If you use only the SRTM
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00156.html (9,528 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:00:41 -0400
One of the things I learned when inserting additional points in NED data is that it *is* possible to break HFTA by supplying too many points for it to work with - I just wish I could remember what th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00157.html (11,588 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Bill via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:31:24 -0400 (EDT)
In the past N6BV has been kind enough to supply me the "numbers" for my QTH using his wizardry to generate them in a few minutes and then ship me the files. His files went up to about 14000 feet, and
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00159.html (9,215 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:53:36 -0400
"Even here in fairly flat FL, where my dropoff to the NE is about 95 feet over a 1000 ft distance, the difference in takeoff angle compared to flat ground is significant." Thanks to all for the great
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00160.html (8,659 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:20:39 -0400
You cn see the truth of this quite readily, just by eyeballing the terrain profile and looking at the notches or enhancements in the pattern. 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at htt
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00161.html (10,515 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Jorge Diez CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:45:06 -0300
Really is nice to see HFTA suggestions For a project to put two 20M5 in a stack, I was told by several friends to put them at 69/138 ft HFTA show that this is not the best height and they must be not
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00162.html (10,653 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:35:01 -0500
69 feet and 138 feet are usually very good heights for 20m. I use similar stacking heights and I have numerious 20m contest plaques. I have never used HFTA, does it model stacks properly? A 200' high
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00163.html (9,172 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:30:07 -0700
One caveat with regard to using HFTA for planning stacks. HFTA overstates the stacking gain for narrow spacings. Choose your stack spacings based upon other more commonly accepted criteria or model i
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00164.html (10,316 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: Jorge Diez CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:32:31 -0300
Hi John Yes, my project was a 138 ft tower for two 20M5 in stack at 69/138 bit after running HFTA seems is not the best height So now I don't know if keep some contesters suggestion for 69/138 or go
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00168.html (10,415 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
looking for that gently sloping hill of salt water! Aren't we all? Hi. W7RM, a pioneering multi, multi contest station (on a bluff above NaClH2O) claimed the saltwater was worth 10 dB. Know what? He
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00170.html (9,064 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:19:47 -0700
On 6/18/2014 5:35 PM, K7LXC-- via TowerTalk wrote: Aren't we all? Hi. W7RM, a pioneering multi, multi contest station (on a bluff above NaClH2O) claimed the saltwater was worth 10 dB. Know what? He's
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00183.html (8,961 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: "John Langdon" <jlangdon1@austin.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:16:46 -0500
The verticals suffer more from poor ground conductivity especially at low radiation angles (Pseudo-Brewster angle etc.) so they seem even better in a good location, but the yagis and quads do better
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00184.html (9,718 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Site Elevation and TOA (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:34:42 -0400 (EDT)
verticals on the beach (which he used for receive only) would have made killer transmit antennas. It seems to me that the salt water would make a lot more difference with vertical polarization. I do
/archives//html/Towertalk/2014-06/msg00233.html (9,220 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu