Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+altitude\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+altitude\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Altitude (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:22:23 -0600; If this is too far off topic, one flame will do. OK, I understand the effects of and on 1. height of the antenna 2. angle of radiation 3. layout of the terrain in the near field 4. location surrounde; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00214.html (6,645 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:21:35 -0500; Jim, I've never seen any quantitative site studies supporting altitude as a dominant variable, unto itself. The answer probably depends more on other variables than just altitude. Like...does the ter; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00216.html (7,812 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:14:23 -0600; I hear "my antenna is at 3500 ft" or something like that and it is supposed to imply it is a better site location than one that is at a lower altitude as in "my location is only at 850 ft" (or whatev; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00218.html (10,281 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: Joe Giacobello <k2xx@swva.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:20:06 -0500; I had asked a similar question several years ago. I had read that the real height and ground effects of a horizontal antenna were really determined by the ground and terrain 2-1/2 - 3 wavelengths fro; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00219.html (10,193 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:27:43 -0600; The perception may come from knowing that a VHF repeater antenna makes longer distance contacts possible as it gets higher, clear of line-of-sight obstructions. Put that repeater on a 1000 foot peak; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00220.html (8,490 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: "W3YY" <w3yy@cox.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:00:48 -0000; Joe - With all respect to whomever did your terrain analysis... The antenna 400ft above flat terrain will have a vertical radiation pattern characterized by many peaks and nulls, with the first peak; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00222.html (12,082 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>; Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:07:47 -0600; That I believe. Others have mentioned conditions that may be more likely to occur at differing locations but I hadn't thought about the terrain programs. The fact they do not consider ASL as part of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00226.html (15,007 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] altitude (score: 1): Author: Joe Giacobello <k2xx@swva.net>; Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:14:44 -0500; Bob, frankly I can't comment on the theoretical aspects here. I have never worked with the terrain programs. (However, they are on my to-do list.) Reasoning intuitively though, one could argue that i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-11/msg00228.html (15,626 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]