[TowerTalk] Permitting Towers and Mountaintops

[Jim Brown]

On 9/3/2019 11:14 AM, jimlux wrote:
> So, while that mountain top site overlooking the Pacific Ocean may be 
> attractive for working JA (or P5<grin>) building a big tower may not be 
> possible.

Anyone who has done much operating from a mountaintop knows that a tall 
tower is not important for most ham activity. The mountain itself is a 
VERY tall tower, and the terrain falloff provides additional advantage 
at HF (as modeled by N6BV's HFTA software for horizontally polarized 
antennas, free with the ARRL Handbook). N6BT has shown a similar 
advantage for vertically polarized antennas positioned at the edge of a 
dropoff in the direction of the dropoff.

I've been part of a Field Day team led by K6MI that has operated QRP 
from a 5,000 ft peak about 50 miles east of Monterey, and have done the 
same with W6GJB and W6JTI from other peaks. We've often won 1A battery 
for the entire contest. During my first year with K6MI, I was running on 
15 during the last hour of FD with a rate of almost 70.

W6JTI's own station is on a small peak near his home in the Lost Coast 
of northern California. He operates almost entirely QRP (LP on 160) and 
regularly places in the top three in major contests. In all of these 
operations, none of the antennas have been higher than 30 ft above ground.

IMO, the only good reason for a tall tower on a mountaintop is for line 
of sight VHF/UHF coverage.

As to the permitting process in the west -- I have no cell coverage, 
thanks to the "tin-hat brigade's" vocal opposition to radiation that 
might fry their ignorant brains. It cost K5RC hundreds of thousands of 
dollars and several years to successfully fight opposition to the W7RN 
super-station SE of Reno, NV.

73, Jim K9YC