I don't think so. In my Electromagnetic Fields and Waves class in EE
school (way back when dinosaurs just stopped roaming the earth and
Constellations still graced the skies...) the prof derived the equation for
a received signal. The polarization terms disappeared after the first
ionospheric bounce.
73 Mark K3MSB
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 9:03 PM Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org> wrote:
> Interesting. Some say that on 160 vertical polarization rules, while on
> 80, horizontal polarization rules (or at least *often* rules). Of course
> polarization and angle of arrival are two different things...
>
> -Steve K8LX
>
> On 03/28/18 17:23 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Well I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again . . .
> >
> > In my experience, most DX propagation on 160m ISN'T low angle (unlike
> 80m
> > when it nearly always IS.)
> >
> > For the past 45 years, at several different QTHs I've always used a
> > horizontal co-ax fed halfwave dipole, only 50ft high . . . I'm sure most
> > people would agree I put a respectable DX signal. I've regularly worked
> all
> > over the world on Top band, and I've never had trouble getting through
> > pile-ups to work Dx-peditions.
> >
> > Plus a dipole at 40 feet will never really be an inverted vee ! (just a
> > horizontal antenna with drooping ends) - You'd have to have the centre at
> > least 100ft high for it to be an inverted vee.
> >
> > Roger G3YRO
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|