Ken Arck wrote:
> At 03:20 PM 6/14/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> The extra will not make the difference, trust me, I went from 100 watts at
> the antenna to 85 watts and no one knows the difference. The problem that
> you are dealing with is a supherp amount of intermod in that city.
>
>
> <----My take on "the problem" is that of aperture. He said that a 220
> machine works from within the building (at least, that's how I read his
> comments) but 2 meters is another story.
>
> I suspect the shorter wavelength of 220 is able to be reflected and
> refracted inside the building much more easily than does 2 meter energy. I
> bet UHF would perform even better but there are too many variables to say
> for certain.
>
> I don't believe additional power on the transmitter side is going to make
> any *substantial* improvement.
>
> Ken
Ken is correct-the higher in frequency you go, the less RF will be
absorbed by most building materials, and more RF will 'bounce' around
once it get inside through a window or whatever (providing the window
isn't metalised...)
So 220 will 'penetrate' into a buliding slightly better then 2M. And UHF
will be even better yet.
That's partly why 2M and down are such crummy bands for hand-held use.
(The other half is getting a reasonable ground plane on a handheld.) If
you're primary concern on a repeater is portable coverage in buildings,
etc, go UHF or above. If you're concern is mobile coverage in hilly
terrain, go 2M, or better yet 6.
--
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
