Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna Height Question that is confusing me.

To: "Michael Baker" <k7ddmjb@qwest.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna Height Question that is confusing me.
From: "Scott McClements" <kc2pih@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:35:45 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Michael,

The ARRL Antenna Book latest edition has a program called "High
Frequency Terrain Analysis" (HTFA).  You download topographical
information from the *exact* location where the dipole will be, import
that into HFTA, tell it you have a dipole and how high. Pick a compass
direction and it will do ray tracing based on the topo info and the
antena and give you a very good idea what type of lobes you'll have.
HFTA only works for horizontal polarization.

http://www.arrl.org/catalog/9043/HFTA.pdf

-Scott, WU2X



On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Michael Baker <k7ddmjb@qwest.net> wrote:
> Hi Gang,
>
>        Let me pick the brain of the great collective and see what pops out.
>
>        I take EZNEC and put up a dipole for 20 meters at about 1/2 wl in
> the air and I have a set of patterns that look like what I would expect to
> see.
>        What happens if the dipole is not working against a normally flat
> surface like when it is on top of a mountain?
>        My field day site is at about 6800' and drops off from that altitude
> to about 1100' in a radius of about 270 degrees and about 250' from the
> proposed antenna site. If I mount the antenna on this plateau on a short
> mast (20') do I still have the low angle of attack that I would have at that
> 5700' drop off or is it still primarily effected by the 20' height above the
> near field ground?  Is there anyway to model this?
>        Don't get me wrong, I know the site works well I am just trying to
> understand what is going on.
>        Anyone care to give me a bit of a readers digest version of an
> answer as I am not an engineer, just a long time ham with questions.  ;>)
>
>        My own best guess is that I have some residual effect from the near
> field because of the proximity to ground so I get a pretty vertical angle of
> attack for at least one lobe.  In the far field ground which is sooooo far
> away I an thinking I get the good clear field of attack on the horizon and a
> lot of lobes from the various reflected signals/waves (Frenzal Effect?)so it
> performs well.  How close am I?
>
> Michael Baker  K7DD
> k7ddmjb@qwest.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>