JC, Tim,
The 80 m antenna was not only not over the salt water, it was far more
shielded to the NE by the berm at the top of the beach. Maybe that is why it
produced weaker signal in NA.
73,
George
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:00:59 -0400
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here in Florida the KH1 signal on 160m was much better than 80m. Almost
everyday it started s3 after an hour it was s6 to s7 and some days peaking s9
near sunrise.
At the same time on 80m, the signal was always at noise level, very hard to
work.
The WF has better gain on 80m because at 120ft it is half wave above ground,
and the size is proportional bigger than 160m in wave length.
The numbers are hard to explain, but as I said here before. When you see it you
will believe on it. George explained the 80m vertical was damaged by storm and
removed from salt water, and installed near the salt water.
The difference in propagation from 160m to 80m is
average 20 db better on 80m, looking only into average signal to noise, the vertical over salt water signal on 160m was 20 db above noise floor.
How to explain 40 db difference? Well it is what it is, if you can’t explain or
understand it does not mean it is not there. It is like to say "based on the physics
laws that bug cannot fly", but it does fly.
EZENEC cannot simulate antenna over salt water. But near saltwater EZENEC can
do a good job simulation results.
I hope what you saw every night on 160 and 80m, made clear the TX antenna over
salt water is much better, hard to explain better then near salt water.
Please take the lesson for next DX expedition's.
George did it again with dedication and love for top band.
73's
JC
N4IS
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
