To: | <topband@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta thanshorterversions?? |
From: | "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com> |
Reply-to: | Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com> |
Date: | Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:34:33 -0400 |
List-post: | <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
It all depends upon how much power is put into those very low angles versus path loss at higher ones. Brute force often gets the job done. Why would anyone use significantly more power to get a job done using a low angle, when the same job could be done with a higher angle and less power? That makes no sense at all.I don't know anyone who would intentionally use a more expensive, harder to errect, more difficult to maintain, antenna when a less expensive alternative would work better. _________________ Topband Reflector |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta than shorterversions??, Tom W8JI |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta than shorterversions??, Herb Schoenbohm |
Previous by Thread: | Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo betta than shorterversions??, Tom W8JI |
Next by Thread: | Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo bettathanshorterversions??, Tom W8JI |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |