Rik,
I think your suggestion is part of the point of this discussion. Modeling
things at higher frequencies, like 40 meters, wouldn't apply to how 160
works...... IF what we are saying is true or has merit. The only way to know
that 160 truly is different is to model at 160 :) :)
Personally, given what I have experienced and all that has been written, I am
beginning to think this just might be the case. People have been modeling at
frequencies where the lowest possible angle works very well...... So,the model
would "say" that 5/8 wave verticals should work very well for low angle
radiation. What seems to be happening on 160 is not that..... Maybe it is some
mid-angle or something higher that 20 degrees or something along those lines.
This would or could explain why those taller verticals don't seem to work very
well and the "shortened" ones seem to work better (?????). Definitely
counter-intuitive if the modeling at other freqs was telling us the truth.
Mike AB7ZU
Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
On Oct 24, 2012, at 16:34, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 06:37 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>> So according to your tests, the ~5/8 wave tower was always inferior to the
>> 190' tower, no matter what the distance was? That is very interesting, And
>> I have little doubt all your towers had sufficient radials under them. :-)
>>
>> What do you think about 120' vs 190' ? Ever do any tests like that?
> I wonder if it would be an idea to try these ideas
> on 40m. That way it could be tested with much
> antennas small enough multiple people might be
> willing to set them up for testing.
> _______________________________________________
> Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
_______________________________________________
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
|