Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Higher is better? Sometimes

To: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Higher is better? Sometimes
From: Bill via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Reply-to: cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:14:58 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I agree.  Out in KH6 my triband stack was limited to 94 feet.  Last time I was 
able to erect a 150 footer but only put the triband stack at approximately at 
95 ft.  Why?  The stack would have been too high for the US on 20 and way too 
high for the US on 15 and 10.  The same was true for the JA path.  Now on 40, 
that was different game.  Best height was a 150 over 80 stack which absolutely 
screamed on 40 in all down slope directions.  I wish I could put up a tower 
that was 150 feet, but am limited to 90+ by the county.  I wouldn't change the 
height of the triband stack, but sure would like the 150/80 stack back for 40.
HFTA rocks.  Anyone who doesn't live on flat terrain may spend thousands on a 
radio, amp, tower and antennas...but is missing optimum performance by not 
modelling. Those couple of extra sticks of tower might actually be hurting your 
signal, not helping.
KH7XS/K4XS




Actually Wes, this is 100% wrong if you have complex terrain.  I have that
here and I modeled 10, 15, 20, 40 using HFTA.  On 40M a higher antenna would
be even more potent.  But on 10. 15. 20.  My lower antennas to EU - where I
have significant terrain enhancement, modeled to be the better antennas.
And after a decade of on the air observation, HFTA is spot on.



73



Ed  N1UR

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [TowerTalk] Higher is better? Sometimes, Bill via TowerTalk <=