Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"

[Yuri Blanarovich]

 On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 08:14 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
 
 >
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yuri Blanarovich" To: Sent: 
> Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"
>
>
>>
>> Oh, here comes the "guru" again. :-)
>
> Is that immature stuff really necessary?
>
Subject of effect of ground, salt water front was discussed, some 
experiences were mentioned, but you  judge it "unnecessary" and 
"feelings". We have been there before: first you don't believe it, deny 
it, then when convinced that you were wrong, you go quiet for a while, 
and then you "discover" the stuff and post article on your web site, 
like it was your invention all along. I have been biting my pen, but 
sometimes stuff just slips out. Looks like nothing new. Maybe there is a 
help by bringing it up.
So, here we go again:

>> Unnecessary debate? We are talking about experiences and RESULTS of 
>> comparing normal in land "ground" effect vs. salt water beach or 
>> marshes. We are commenting on the benefit of immediate proximity of 
>> salt water to antenna performance, especially on low angles.
>> K3BU and others found out that it is not "feeling," but S-meter 
>> readings in order of 10 - 20 dB (RX and TX!) in favor of salty beach. 
>> It is like driving inside into the amplifier
>
> Perhaps you can explain why VOA and others willingly gave up that 
> 10-20 dB, and how K3LR and W3LPL do so well inland, when they pay a 
> 10-20 dB penalty for communications?
>

Ask VOA engineers how they chose their locations. I see why WOO - RCA 
and AT&T engineers chose their site in Ocean Gate, NJ  on some 240 acres 
of salty marshes, and how they dominated overseas comms.
K3LR and W3LPL knowingly chose inland sites, because they don't need 
extra dBs? Comparing results to which beach station? Maybe operators 
have something to do with it?
Using scores between comparable stations gives some indication. But the 
real test is the observation of signals in said locations. Simple test 
of driving around in the mobile demonstrates the effect. WRTC 2014 
disqualified few sites because they were too good, they did the tests 
and those too close for salty comfort were not used in order to keep 
things more equal (for the inland locations that were available).

 
> One would think if there was a 10-20 db penalty, it would show on 
> skimmers and that W2GD would be unbeatable being on the water. I'm 
> sure I'm missing something. What is it I am missing?
>
It is not penalty, it is advantage. It all depends how one takes 
advantage of the effect and how good operator(s) are. You are missing 
getting into the car, drive to Cape Hatteras and observe S-meter while 
driving close to, or away from the salt water or over the bridges. You 
are also overlooking experiences of experienced contesters commenting on 
the effect and calling it unnecessary debate and feelings.
It is not easy to find beachfront property suitable for station, but it 
is rewarding to get 10 - 20 dB on RX and TX for "free" if one can. I got 
convinced and have seen the results and still have few records, even if 
anecdotal from XJ3ZZ/1 St. Paul, from VE1ZZ, N2EE/4, TF4X, WOO site, 
etc.  Others have described their enhancements too, so it is not fairy 
tale.

Hope it helps.

Yuri, K3BU.us


> Thanks, Tom
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>