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 terrain for 1-2 miles
gently slope down from the antenna site? Is the 3500' high site
a wetlands?
I had a simple 80m halfwave up about 85', adjacent to the
Chesepeake Bay. 20' above sealevel. Played great.
On the other hand, when K2BMI bought his place in NJ's
Sourland Mountains, he used to say "there's rf
up there, that never gets down to the flatlands". And,
in fact, I heard openings from there I'd never heard before.
So, unfortunately, your mileage may vary. I'd be interested
to know if anyone is aware of such a study.
n2ea
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:22:23 -0600
From: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Altitude
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 surrounded by salt water vs. desert sand
5. etc.
BUT: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE (if the same above conditions exist) whether the
site is located
at 300 ft or at 800 ft or at 1500 ft or 3500 ft? WHY? Tnx es 73, de Jim
KG0KP
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|