Topband: Salt-Water Qth!

[Ray Higgins (W2RE)]

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your detailed answer. I appreciate your valuable time in responding.

After a few emails and a phone call it looks like we need to be within the fresnel zone, which is five wavelengths according to the ON4UN book. 

Yes! I know Peter K3ZM location all too well. We put up his 190’ R25 support for his 4SQ in 30+ mph winds a few years back. Great location on a marsh about 1/4 mile from the Ocean. 

Thanks for the input, we looking forward to start building the contest station! :)

73,

Ray W2RE

On Apr 1, 2015, at 12:17 PM, donovanf at starpower.net wrote:

> Hi Ray,
> 
> Two primary factors affect sky wave signal strength from Topband
> verticals close to salt water:
> 
> 1. ground loss in the immediate vicinity of the feed point. The feed
> point must be much closer than 1/4 wavelength from salt water
> or a salt marsh to significantly reduce ground loss.
> 
>  2. ground reflection loss, especially close to the near edge of the 
> Fresnel Zone
> 
> Perhaps the most practical solution to achieving very low ground loss
> is to place the base of the vertical in a salt marsh such as at W1KM.   
> There is an AM broadcast tower on a pier extending well into San 
> Francisco Bay but this would be exceptionally difficult to duplicate in 
> a ham installation.  Its not practical to place a vertical closer than 1/4 
> wavelength of an ocean beachfront except in a temporary installation 
> such as a DXpedition.
> 
> Most ground reflection loss within the Fresnel Zone of a vertical with 
> the feed point at ground level occurs within one wavelength of the feed 
> point for low angle sky wave signals.  This requires that a Topband
> vertical be located within several hundred feet of salt water or a salt 
> marsh.    
> 
> For horizontally polarized antennas, the only significant factors are
> ground reflection efficiency within the Fresnel zone and blockage
> of the horizon by terrain. For very tall towers and very low angles, 
> the Fresnel Zone extends out at least several miles but much closer
> than the horizon except in mountainous terrain that blocks the visual
> line of sight to the distant horizon. For horizontally polarized antennas, 
> salt water isn't significantly more efficient for Fresnel Zone reflection 
> than average soil on very flat terrain.  
> 
> Perhaps the biggest improvement for horizontal polarization at an ocean 
> front location derives from its exceptionally flat Fresnel Zone, especially 
> for VHF EME where the full 6 dB ground gain is very difficult to achieve 
> over typical urban and densely populated suburban location. An 
> exceptionally flat Fresnel Zone can be a significant improvement compared
> to locations where the Fresnel Zone encompasses many large buildings or 
> any location with sharp elevation changes (greater than 1/4 wavelength) 
> close to the near edge of the Fresnel Zone.
> 
> Don't forget to consider the many serious maintenance problems of an 
> ocean front location, not only antenna maintenance but also resolution of
> RFI from power lines for many miles around.   K3ZM had serious RFI 
> very efficiently propagated across the Chesapeake Bay from power lines 
> nearly 20 miles away.  This could be a significant problem in an area with 
> power lines near the ocean.
> 
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "HVT" <w2re at hudsonvalleytowers.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 12:47:23 PM
> Subject: Topband: Salt-Water Qth!
> 
> This is my first post to the Top-Band Reflector, so please excuse my ignorance if this topic has been discussed in the past. 
> 
> Is there any scientific data in print to prove the theory that ocean front property is better than a location inland about a mile or so on a ridge overlooking salt water for HF. I had this heated debate over the weekend with two ham friends of mine while we traveled to Maine looking at real-estate along the coast. I understand the theory that verticals literally in or on the water have a huge advantage. The debate was about how far away from the water does it become a diminishing effect. I made the claim that the Ocean-Front property would be a better location than anything inland including a location on a ridge within a mile. This heated debate went on for about 500 miles while we were driving back to NY. It was a very interesting conversation and made the long drive back much quicker! :)
> 
> Additional information about the debate:
> 
> In the State of Maine there is a setback regulation on shoreline property regarding structures including radio towers. To play it safe with the shoreline protective rules, the proposed array system would be setback minimum 500’ from the water or as far back as 2000'. At these distances on 80/160 meter will a vertical antenna system see any positive effects with additional gain from the salt water? 
> 
> What about horizontal antennas? Do they see any effects from Salt-Water?
> 
> I'm sure I can use HFTA to model the terrain, which I have done in the past with great accuracy. However, I'm not sure if it calculates Salt-Water. Maybe it does. 
> 
> We are anxious to start building in Maine ASAP. Any input would be appreciated. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ray W2RE
> W2RE.com
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband