"Certainly the topography of adjacent radials affects the true
performance on one radial that won't show up in the HFTA model. No?"
I'm pretty certain that N6BV himself has pointed that out as a
limitation of HFTA. It's a complicated world.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 1/19/2019 8:33 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:
"There are folks who claim that a few thousand meters or so is all the further
anyone should have to collected data points, but that's a garbage generalization. I
have
another mountain range about 15 miles east of me and by editing the terrain file to
either include it or not I can see definite differences."
And that brings me to this point: consider a case where a radial is analyzed
in HFTA and extends to 14,000 ft. At that distance, each 1 deg radial is
approx. 244 ft apart.
From what I can determine, HFTA is calculating the radiation profile from data on only one
radial. But since terrain often changes on adjacent radials, sometimes dramatically, then
doesn’t the model really need data that's spliced and factored from adjacent radials
to get a true picture of the profile? If the antenna beamwidth is say...40 degrees, then
don’t we really need a more comprehensive analysis of radials within the swath just to
determine the profile of one radial?
Performance as actually measured on one radial could be undermined (or
enhanced) by adverse terrain characteristics from adjacent radials. Certainly
the topography of adjacent radials affects the true performance on one radial
that won't show up in the HFTA model. No?
Paul, W9AC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
|