Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Fwd: Vertical in pond

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Vertical in pond
From: HansLG@aol.com
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:45:54 EDT
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Hi Guys,
 
Water has a dielectric constant of around 80, high enough to reflect most  
anything, RF included. Beside getting a good ground (read low resistance) you  
also need a low loss surrounding to get a nice reflex of the RF leaving the  
vertical. (Horizontal radiation is not so sensitive to this, I am told.)
 
You should get good coverage in the direction of you pond. With the  vertical 
in the middle of the pond should be good in all directions. 
 
I always  wondered about this and know several has with their QTH next  to 
water, salt as well as fresh water ponds/lakes. They all sound better than  
"the 
rest of us".
 
Would suggest you put a vertical i a boat/float of some sort. You could  then 
float a feeder on the water out to the float/boat. Would probably be a neat  
article in QST.
 
73 de N2JFS
 
Hans
 
 
  
____________________________________
 From: n4zr@contesting.com
To: ve3zi@rac.ca,  towertalk@contesting.com
Sent: 3/17/2009 8:25:28 A.M. Eastern Standard  Time
Subj: Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical in pond


Isn't it more likely that the ground characteristics in  that location are 
more favorable than in the previous one?  I can  imagine ground well 
saturated with fresh water as having a sufficient  quantity of ions in 
solution to improve its conductivity  considerably.  The fresh water itself, 
on the other hand, probably  doesn't matter.  Or does it?  Anyone have 
anything beyond  anecdotal experience to pass on?

73, Pete N4ZR

At 09:20 AM  3/17/2009, Roger Parsons wrote:

>Jim
>
>I'm not sure  that this is exactly analagous, but I have a tri-band 
>vertical mounted  right at the edge of a reasonably large lake (~0.5km x 
>20km). I found  that that dramatically improved its performance compared to 
>mounting  it 100m away. The improvement was at least 10dB which changed it 
>from  being a waste of time to a useful second antenna - and the radial  
>system (lots) was identical in each case.
>
>73  Roger
>VE3ZI
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


_______________________________________________



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

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