Hi Emir,
Thanks for info!
I’m up here in Maine for a week of work with my son Bobby.
On cold Maine afternoon with 30f temp and mix precipitation I walked the land.
I really wanted to fly the drone to get a full perspective but that will have
to wait for another day. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see marsh land
on the outside perimeter of the property that didn’t show up on google earth.
The near field looks very promising for the low band verticals!
Basically the land sits anywhere from 150’ -90’ asl and the swamp is in the
near field from Northeast clockwise to south which slopes to 0’ asl.
I created and album with few photos and video of today’s walk:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3HxWmjGCF5b4x98o7
Thanks again,
Ray Higgins
W2RE.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 23, 2019, at 11:56 AM, Emir Memic <emir.memic@emssolutions.at> wrote:
>
> Ray,
>
> If we are talking about horizontal polarized antennas
> You cant be high enough on 80m/160m
> And there is no needs to think a lot about effects of fresnel zone on 160/80
>
> Not even with 300m high tower
>
> Of course if there are no uphills around you .....but so far understand you
> That location is free with slight slope around
>
> In my mind its important to have flat or homogeny slope in desired direction
> Effect of excellent soil is not so critical for ground reflection if you are
> using horizontal polarized antennas!
>
> On other side for vertical antennas soil is more important but directly under
> the antennas and in closed flied!
>
> In simple words if you can have antenna in saltwater or very close to it put
> it in
>
> If you are far away from good soil with vertical (even 1 wavelength) you will
> need standard numbers of radials under the antenna!
>
> Iif you are on flat terrain with excellent soil you will need very large
> antenna on high tower to outperform 4SQ on 80m !
>
> On 160m is non sense to even try something else than vertical or vertical
> arrays
>
>
> 73s
> Braco
> E77DX
>
>
> --
> Emir Memic
> EMS SOLUTIONS
> Köhlergasse 12/3
> 1180 Wien
> +4369919227041
> emir.memic@emssolutions.at
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Topband <topband-bounces@contesting.com> Im Auftrag von Ray Higgins
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. April 2019 16:49
> An: topband@contesting.com
> Betreff: Topband: Fresnel Zone
>
> I have two questions about fresnel zone.
>
> I just purchased 22.5/ac near the ocean near Machiasport, ME. This is in the
> Northeast corner of Maine about 30 miles south of Eastport and a Lubec. This
> is going to be my personal Remote Contest station! I plan to be contesting
> from this new qth starting in 2020 but will be QRV by mid 2019 for testing.
> This qth is anywhere between 1-3 miles from the ocean or the bay, it sits on
> a high plateau 150’ asl thats slopes in all directions to saltwater
> (peninsula) except N/NW. The property has a saltwater river and marsh that
> runs the perimeter from south to north favoring the NE direction, the marsh
> is only 50-100' wide and 1500-2000’ away from the property. The land has a
> gradual slope to the marsh.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.) Is the saltwater river bed/marsh wide enough to be an effective field in
> the Fresnal Zone?
> 2.) What is the wavelengths needed to be within the Fresnal zone of a
> river/marsh compared to an ocean?
>
> In this photo album (last pic) I have outlined the river saltwater marsh and
> property boundry from a google earth shot.
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/ui79t2jFo95b29et6
>
> I’m only concerned about 80 and 160m in the Fresnal Zone.
>
> Any input would be welcomed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray W2RE
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|