Hi I have no idea if it is a fact but on page 9-18 in ON4UNs book it is stated without any further explanation - "It is impossible to make a direct measurement of ground characteristics".>>> I know w
I built one right after the article appeared in QST. I live in the country with no close neighbors and had practically no noise to begin with. So I didn't notice a difference in reception, and I didn
Cristi, Thank you for the thoughtful answer. If I was of a mind to verify the use of probes, I would look at the attenuation slope of sample signal from a distance source across the area being measur
The only thing that is useful at this point is: 1.) location of someone with a signal that does not change very much day or night 2.) direction with some absolute certainly within a reasonable range
I have not been able to locate these FCC curves (and it appears that they may have been withdrawn). It would be interesting to know how the FCC curves were derived in the first place as it assumes th
Today the signal changed characteristics significantly. It is now on multiple frequencies from 1810 to 1815, with the strongest on 1813.5 This is why we don't want to ignore this stuff. _____________
I've never seen a suggestion that measuring at the surface is in any way indicative (or predictive) of conditions 50 ft down. Rather it's a data point for conditions between the top and bottom of the
The measured fields by the consultant show that no "notch" exists in the elevation pattern of that monopole from 0-3 degrees. Nor would one appear in the elevation pattern of ANY monopole up to 5/8-w
As W8JI pointed out, this is nothing new. Academics like Terman, BL&E, et. al. were teaching it back in the early 1930s. But we've become firm believers in the typical vertical profile field plots wh
So again my question - if this low-angle ground-wave (aka surface-wave) energy dies off so quickly (e.g. down 20dB at just 20 miles), how does any of it get to the ionosphere where it can be useful f
Is W1AW missing from 160 now? I use them to calibrate directions. _______________________________________________ Remember the PreStew coming on October 20th. http://www.kkn.net/stew for more info.
According to antenna engineering textbooks (Kraus, Balanis. Johnson & Jasik etc), the free space, far-field radiation pattern is not a function of the distance from the radiator, as it is in the near
DX Engineering/s RSC-2 splitter appears to have all three antenna terminals connected to a metal case; i.e., the grounds are all connected together. In ON4UNs 5th edition, he appears to recommend tha
The only thing I disagree with about Tom's advice is that, with the exception of a VERY large string of #73 beads (at least 100 beads), beads are useless on HF, and even those are not very useful at
I'll be putting up a T-top elevated vertical for 160 in the next couple of days. The baser will be around 60 ft above ground and the Tee (about 40 feet long will be at about 170-180 ft...depending on
Just DO the common mode choke on any vertical. Don't tempt Murphy. 1.) He has a vertical with the base 60 feet above ground, and it sounds like the feeder drops vertically 2.) If the coax is 60 feet
I find after some interesting conversations that readers of posts often read as if written to them. So I write my posts as to the general audience. If an expressed situation is so specific as to be e
Guy, I see K4XS as still being in the general case. That is because a wavelength on 160 is 539 feet. He wound up going up 55 feet (a separate TopBand thread) or 0.10 (a tenth) of a wavelength. That's
For DX we are interested in elevation angles from 3-15 degrees. How much error is there in a NEC model of a monopole at these elevations? Dave WX7G The issue here is one of measurement distance and t
from [Tom W8JI]: The issue here is one of measurement distance and the assumed flat earth, and how much the ground wave contributes to low angle radiation. We obviously know radiation at zero degrees