- 1. [Towertalk] Low-Angle Scattering (score: 1)
- Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:35:41 -0500
- Interesting... Here are the numbers on 14 MHz for a 2-high stack of 2-element yagis at 97 and 69 feet, as computed by YT (this is close to my antenna system, which uses C-3Es): At the very-low-angle
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00001.html (8,748 bytes)
- 2. [Towertalk] Low-Angle Scattering (score: 1)
- Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:44:51 -0500
- One of the great unverified assumptions of low-angle propagation is that smooth, sharp decrease of gain from a horizontal antenna as the angle goes down in the last handful of degrees. This lack of v
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00007.html (10,630 bytes)
- 3. [Towertalk] Low-Angle Scattering (score: 1)
- Author: k1mk@alum.mit.edu (Michael Keane, K1MK)
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:35:39 -0800 (PST)
- Pete, No it isn't. Scattering by itself might be expected to partially fill in the nulls, reducing their depth. If the models predict a greater intensity near zero elevation than in the peak of the p
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00009.html (7,487 bytes)
- 4. [Towertalk] Low-Angle Scattering (score: 1)
- Author: millersg@dmapub.dma.org (Steve Miller)
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:50:42 -0500 (EST)
- Pete, These low angle 'inflated gains' are modeling artifacts. I saw similar behavior after entering a rather detailed topography for my location. To check the model, I took the original terrain prof
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00089.html (7,409 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu