Message-ID: <00c901bf6141$0b8b24a0$0200a8c0@test>
From: "Dave Brown" <tractorb@ihug.co.nz>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <3.0.1.16.20000117105039.0817cf64@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> <3883D76C.E608FA8@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LF: Transatlantic
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:17:23 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

 While it is generally correct to assume that bigger LF antennas will give
better results, there is an important limiting factor that means any amateur
'pond crossing' will not necessarily benefit from blindly following such
recommendations.
The propagation mechanism that will be involved is not necessarily
groundwave, highly unlikely in fact, and multihop skywave will I suggest be
the 'prime suspect'. I think there was a thread referring to this on this
reflector recently but with no archive I can't reference the discussion.
 That said, the use of larger verticals will not necessarily give the best
takeoff angle for the relatively poor skywave that they tend to produce.
Bigger ain't necessarily better in such cases. This is of course in direct
conflict with 'conventional' wisdom that is based on commercial practice
using groundwave only, not amateur 'limited' comms.
73
Dave
ZL3FJ