Hills, particularly large buildings, sometimes above ground
power/telephone/cable distribution (more an issue on 160 than 10,
certainly). The closer the building, the smaller it can be and
obstruct or attenuate signals.
Someone I knew was complaining about his vertical's low angle
performance. I went by his residence, and noted that the NE direction
was UP the street (literally), something like ten houses before things
leveled out.
It was a really nice neighborhood, and doesn't deserve the word
clutter, but for radio purposes NE it was.
When I lived in Albuquerque, the Sandia Mountains (10K+) were east of
me, and the lowest bit of sky east was up 25 degrees. Extremely
scenic, but qualifies as radio clutter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris BONDE" <ve7hcb@rac.ca>
To: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av@contesting.com>
Cc: <TOWERTALK@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Towertalk] 160m Inverted L
> At 03:37 PM 2002-08-11 -0400, Guy Olinger, K2AV wrote:
>
> >This also puts the current maxima at the ground which improves low
> >angle performance, assuming a good radial field and no low angle
> >clutter which would block the low angles anyway.
> No low angle clutter, I assume that this is referring to objects
on the
> ground or near to the ground sothat it is in the path of the
outmoving
> wave. Does what is considered a clutter change with the frequency
of the
> Tx. Say would something at 160m not be at 10m or, vice versa?
>
> Chris opr VE7HCB
|