[TowerTalk] Fwd: Vertical in pond
n3xx at charter.net
Wed Mar 18 03:18:35 PDT 2009
Years ago I used to operate mobile frequently, on 20 & 40 Mtrs. Many times
I noticed when crossing over larger rivers, that received signal levels
would improve considerably. I never knew if it was the water or the metal
used in construction of the bridge that caused the improvement. When I
reached the other side of the river, received signals would drop back down.
Can't recall anyone ever commenting that my transmitted signal level
increased while crossing the river though.
Tim - N3XX
----- Original Message -----
From: <HansLG at aol.com>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:45 PM
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Vertical in pond
> 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)
> also need a low loss surrounding to get a nice reflex of the RF leaving
> 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
> 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
> rest of us".
> Would suggest you put a vertical i a boat/float of some sort. You could
> float a feeder on the water out to the float/boat. Would probably be a
> article in QST.
> 73 de N2JFS
> From: n4zr at contesting.com
> To: ve3zi at rac.ca, towertalk at 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
> 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:
>>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
>>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.
More information about the TowerTalk