To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 10:16:45 -0500 (EST)
> From: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com)
> Subject: Re: TopBand: Elevated GP vs. Vertical Antennas
> To: topband@contesting.com
> To Tom and those on the reflector that are following the elevated radial
> discussion.
snip
Hi Carl,
I have all the data you just posted in my stacks of papers on
this subject, and I see nothing new or conclusive in any of it. The
same small group of people keep throwing those types of obscure data
out as something meaningful, but I fail to see what any of the
Newburgh (or similar) data proves.
After all, the very same guy who filed and presented the Newburgh
data installed WVNJ AM and did the proof there. He, in the case of
WVNJ, claimed near 100% antenna efficiency with the elevated system.
The owner assured me he was told by this same person over and over
again the station could not be improved by going to a conventional
ground system. Yet when WVNJ installed a conventional ground, they
picked up several dB.
If the guy made a mistake of such magnitude at a big station like
WVNJ, how can we trust his data from a small temporary setup like
KPI-204?
Maybe I'm missing something you know and I don't know, so please
let me ask two simple questions.
Look at all the data you have, and tell me what the actual FS of
KPI-204 (that's the test transmitter in Newburgh) was at one
kilometer. The key word is actual.
Also, please tell me how they arrived at the figure of 286.4 mV/m/kw.
Do you know how they got that number?
73, Tom W8JI
w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|