TopBand: Gads, weird science again

[K3BU@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-08-02 01:29:37 EDT, W8JI writes:

<<  1.) There isn't one of us who can measure polarity or wave angle on 160.
It's all just a guess with plenty of opinions and no proof of anything.
 Because of that, we have no proof the problem is rooted in wave angle or
 polarity.
>> 

Yes, it can be measured by using ferrite rod antennas (might be hard to do
with weak signals). The wave angle is more likely to be the dominant factor,
due to polarity being "fuzzied" and "wandering around" by the wave going
through the media after appreciable distance. 

<< 2.) The problem might be as simple as some of us being unable to manage an
efficient vertical for whatever particular reason. It could be a question of
which antenna is less poor, rather than which antenna matches the propagation
mode we visualize in our heads.
 >>
  
Well, at VE1ZZ QTH I used as vertical 4 square of Inv L's, longer than quarter
wave, each with over 100 radials (using hardline coaxes and steel guy wires as
radials) under each, sitting on the hill next to salt water. The inverted Vee
was at 60 ft tower. In this case 4square would produce lower angles than one
vertical alone. Again, I was able to work Euros about an hour earlier on InvV
than on 4 Square. In my mind there is no question that the effect was
primarily due to the angle. Polarization "wandering" usually is of short
duration (like around minute) while angle "thing" lasts up to about an hour.

<< 3.) I'm not offering any answers. I'm just telling my test results. I have
 nothing to defend because I offer nothing except my results.
 >>

I am defending what I (an others) have found. It is there, and if we want to
take advantage of it in some marginal situations, we better have the "other"
antennas too.
 

<<4.) Measure the polarity, or the wave angle, and we will have a "better"
 fact. Unfortunately, that is all but impossible on 160.
 >>

It is possible with ferrite stick antennas (it is done with Fox Hunt, or RDF
sport too.)

<< 5.) I went through painstaking effort to have nearly ideal antennas to
 compare. I think my results show the effect blamed on propagation might
 likely be more one of antenna efficiency and wave angle.
>>

Maybe you should lower your ideal InvVee below 90 feet (forget the "theory").
I think as far antenna efficiency, above mentioned setup indicates that InvVee
was the deficcient one, yet produced better results. (Euroes heard me on
"lousy" InVee, and not on super-duper 4square.)

<< 6.) I fail to see what comparing one less than ideal antenna to another
 less than ideal antenna proves, except which one is a less efficient
 antenna. >>

Proves that if I can work'em on the coathanger, I will (I'm not ashamed Hi).
In the contest you can use whatever gets you slight edge and confirms that you
NEVER HAVE ENOUGH ANTENNAS. (I never had anyway.) In the above discussion and
results, location and seasons could play some role too.
   BTW Jack keeps that "lousy" InVee up, few times he found it handy when
4square couldn't cut it.
   Other than that, it is this mystery and surprise that keep us listening to
the noise on the top band. What a fun, Eh?

Yuri, K3BU/m, VE3BMV/1 maybe VO1, so don't relay on DTA files!



--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions:              topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-topband@contesting.com