| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
February 8th 07, 12:10 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
antenna hight
wrote in message oups.com... hello Jeff i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2 Regards naqvi Please show your work. |
|
#2
February 8th 07, 01:09 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
antenna hight
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... hello Jeff i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2 Regards naqvi Please show your work. Hi Stephan Your posts seem to inply that the receive antenna will "see" the 20 meter high transmitting antenna when the receiver antenna is in the shadow of the 80 meter hill. It seems that the receiver needs to be out of the shadow of the hill unless you are able to estimate refraction from the hill. But, your aparent confidance in the statement "0 feet" makes me wonder if I have this problem wrongly analyzed. I have so much confidance in Richard Fry's data that I had accepted his estimation of 270 meters to be as close as you can estimate. Do I misunderstand your post about what minimum height is needed? Jerry |
|
#3
February 8th 07, 01:43 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
antenna hight
"Jerry Martes" wrote in message news:iLuyh.5336$384.156@trnddc05... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... hello Jeff i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2 Regards naqvi Please show your work. Hi Stephan Your posts seem to inply that the receive antenna will "see" the 20 meter high transmitting antenna when the receiver antenna is in the shadow of the 80 meter hill. It seems that the receiver needs to be out of the shadow of the hill unless you are able to estimate refraction from the hill. But, your aparent confidance in the statement "0 feet" makes me wonder if I have this problem wrongly analyzed. I have so much confidance in Richard Fry's data that I had accepted his estimation of 270 meters to be as close as you can estimate. Do I misunderstand your post about what minimum height is needed? Jerry Hi Jerry, how many shadows have you seen that are 20Km long? |
|
#4
February 8th 07, 02:01 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
antenna hight
From: "Stefan Wolfe"
how many shadows have you seen that are 20Km long? ______________ Can we count the shadow of the moon on the earth during a fully-eclipsed sun? If so, that's a bit more than 20 km. RF |
|
#5
February 8th 07, 02:31 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
antenna hight
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... "Jerry Martes" wrote in message news:iLuyh.5336$384.156@trnddc05... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... hello Jeff i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2 Regards naqvi Please show your work. Hi Stephan Your posts seem to inply that the receive antenna will "see" the 20 meter high transmitting antenna when the receiver antenna is in the shadow of the 80 meter hill. It seems that the receiver needs to be out of the shadow of the hill unless you are able to estimate refraction from the hill. But, your aparent confidance in the statement "0 feet" makes me wonder if I have this problem wrongly analyzed. I have so much confidance in Richard Fry's data that I had accepted his estimation of 270 meters to be as close as you can estimate. Do I misunderstand your post about what minimum height is needed? Jerry Hi Jerry, how many shadows have you seen that are 20Km long? Hi Stephan Tell me where I have misunderstood the problem. I assumed the transmitting antenna was Lower than the top of the hill. But, you seem to imply that the transmitter can be seen even when the hill is blocking the "view" to it. I have actually never measured a shadow longer that a few feet, but I assumed they continued to exist to infinity when an object blocks them from view. Jerry |
|
#6
February 8th 07, 03:10 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
antenna hight
"Jerry Martes" wrote in message news:2Yvyh.37369$5U4.35764@trnddc07... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... "Jerry Martes" wrote in message news:iLuyh.5336$384.156@trnddc05... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... hello Jeff i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2 Regards naqvi Please show your work. Hi Stephan Your posts seem to inply that the receive antenna will "see" the 20 meter high transmitting antenna when the receiver antenna is in the shadow of the 80 meter hill. It seems that the receiver needs to be out of the shadow of the hill unless you are able to estimate refraction from the hill. But, your aparent confidance in the statement "0 feet" makes me wonder if I have this problem wrongly analyzed. I have so much confidance in Richard Fry's data that I had accepted his estimation of 270 meters to be as close as you can estimate. Do I misunderstand your post about what minimum height is needed? Jerry Hi Jerry, how many shadows have you seen that are 20Km long? Hi Stephan Tell me where I have misunderstood the problem. I assumed the transmitting antenna was Lower than the top of the hill. But, you seem to imply that the transmitter can be seen even when the hill is blocking the "view" to it. I have actually never measured a shadow longer that a few feet, but I assumed they continued to exist to infinity when an object blocks them from view. Well you see Jerry, the reason you only see it for a few feet is because the attenuation of the light varies inversely with the distance from the object that blocks the light. I think you have done a good job in making my point. Thanks, |
|
#7
February 8th 07, 04:14 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
antenna hight
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... "Jerry Martes" wrote in message news:2Yvyh.37369$5U4.35764@trnddc07... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... "Jerry Martes" wrote in message news:iLuyh.5336$384.156@trnddc05... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... hello Jeff i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2 Regards naqvi Please show your work. Hi Stephan Your posts seem to inply that the receive antenna will "see" the 20 meter high transmitting antenna when the receiver antenna is in the shadow of the 80 meter hill. It seems that the receiver needs to be out of the shadow of the hill unless you are able to estimate refraction from the hill. But, your aparent confidance in the statement "0 feet" makes me wonder if I have this problem wrongly analyzed. I have so much confidance in Richard Fry's data that I had accepted his estimation of 270 meters to be as close as you can estimate. Do I misunderstand your post about what minimum height is needed? Jerry Hi Jerry, how many shadows have you seen that are 20Km long? Hi Stephan Tell me where I have misunderstood the problem. I assumed the transmitting antenna was Lower than the top of the hill. But, you seem to imply that the transmitter can be seen even when the hill is blocking the "view" to it. I have actually never measured a shadow longer that a few feet, but I assumed they continued to exist to infinity when an object blocks them from view. Well you see Jerry, the reason you only see it for a few feet is because the attenuation of the light varies inversely with the distance from the object that blocks the light. I think you have done a good job in making my point. Thanks, Hi Stephan I now understand now that you do think you can receive 10 GHz signals while the receiver is in the shadow caused by the mountain between you and the transmitter. Do I understand you correctly? Jerry |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
