Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Low\-Angle\s+Scattering\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Low\-Angle\s+Scattering\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

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)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]