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
|