![[Home]](/wiki.gif)
Amateur Radio - N7JL Testing Hilltop Remote Compared With Lower Altitude VerticalAmateur Radio - N7JL Testing Hilltop Remote Compared With Lower Altitude Vertical
| |
| The Bush Survival Guide - 250 Ways to Make It Through The NExt Four Years Without Misunderestimating the Dangers Ahead, and Other Subliminable Stategeries |
|
Links:
| |
Subjects > Amateur Radio > Art Bell Shortwave Discussions > Art Bell Shortwave - April 9 2004
N7JL testing... 5/9 from his home location.
Remote base on 5600 foot hilltop.... Only about 1 or 2 units about the noise. Maybe a 23 signal.
Going up high on a hill doesn't neccessary work well on HF. Home station running 1100 watts in to hustler 5 10 ground mounted, with a somewhat adequate ground plane.
Art noticed a 20 db mountain. The home hustler antenna was 20 over 9, the antenna on the hill was barely audible.
Art has been saying that going high up a hill for HF is not a good thing to do.
KC6YKE, Garnet, asked Art why he thinks that hills are bad for HF.
Art's guess is that being high on a hill gives a lousy ground. The stations that get out better are the ones with bowls around them.
Broadcast stations never go up high on mountains, the ones that do have lousy signals. You never put a broadcast station on a mountain, only the FMs do. The AMs go to the lowest marshiest places they can find.
In RV mobile, with 75 meter mobile, when he is up in a mountain all the signals drop.
Someone else commmented how the noise level is less being lower.
Greg is 1.75 miles from someone else on the frequency, and the tuning up shows a signal that changes all over from 55 over to 59. 200 miles up, and 200 miles down.
Jim gets out well on 160, and nothing accounts for it other than the ground system.
Someone else suggests that hilltop locations might often use compromise antennas.
Art suggests someone get rid of their vertical and put up an inverted V.
Art says that 80 meters is terrible for verticals.
Check out [Facts About Trees]
Search for books about:
|
Interested in Lent?