On Fri,7/15/2016 10:07 AM, Wes Stewart wrote:
shows an example where IONCAP says there is no (usable) path between
two stations, yet QSOs are made.
Wes,
There are exceptions to every generalization, even when the
generalization is good most of the time. I recall some well known person
who had come up poor but was no longer saying "I've been poor and I've
been rich, and rich is better." :)
Sure, there are times when a higher angle path is better than a low
angle path (or exists when the low angle path is not present). But
N6BV's statistical data for paths to various locations shows low angle
paths to be better far more often than higher angle paths. It also shows
high angle paths some smaller percentage of the time.
The HUGE problem with using the concept of "takeoff angle," and ONLY the
takeoff angle to describe and evaluate antenna performance is that by
looking at only one curve at a time, it fails to compare one antenna or
mounting height to another. Again, my work looking at the effects of
antenna height in a "flatland" QTH have all plotted the complete
vertical pattern ON THE SAME GRAPH, which clearly shows that for the
range of vertical angles where we can use the ionosphere, higher is
better! N6BV presents this quite well as a "figure of merit" for the
plots of his elevation studies in HFTA, while also showing the complete
vertical data.
73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
