[Antennas] Altitude

[Joe]

Hi Jim,

Well, yes and no,

The higher location, will be better on the VHF and UHF bands. Line of 
sight is line of sight, and any height advantage pushes that radio 
horizon that much further out.

BUT

On HF,  there would be minimal at best differences of these two 
locations.  Performance on HF is determined mostly by ground 
conductivity, and the very near field area around the antenna.  Here the 
height of the tower and the surrounding immediate area make 99% of the 
difference.

Joe WB9SBD

Jim Miller wrote:

>OK (embarrassed) what's the deal?
>
>Say I am surrounded by level ground for miles in all directions and there are no obstructions.  I have a tower with a vertical on top and elevated radials at whatever the magical length and number is the greatest.  My altitude is 600 feet above some standard reference (mean sea level if they haven't changed the name for that too).
>
>I have another location that is identical but the Altitude if 1600 feet.
>
>WHY is it that the one that is at the higher altitude is supposed to be so much greater of a location than the other as far as performance is concerned?  (I just heard it again - First guy says - I am at 8xx ft and the next guy pipes up proudly and BOASTS that he is at 12xx ft like 800 is a horrible place to be).
>
>WHY ????
>
>Thanks es 73, de Jim KG0KP
>______________________________________________________________
>Antennas mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:Antennas at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
>  
>