[ARC5] Radios and the Canal

[Dennis Monticelli]

I know from FD experience that embedding an antenna within a wet canopy of
vegetation is an energy absorbing situation.  If the coast watcher antennas
were hidden beneath the canopy then it would take more power to get the
signal out.  Lower frequencies would perform better in terms of the signal
escaping, but lower frequencies would probably require more power anyway to
complete the link over that 1000 mi path,particularly since height above
ground for those wavelengths would have been inadequate.

Dennis AE6C


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Robert Eleazer <releazer at earthlink.net>wrote:

> I thought the same thing as Mike at first.  Surely the coastwatchers would
> have been better off with something like the SCR-288 or even a land-based
> version of the SCR-274-N - rather than the behemoths they probably had.
>
> But first, they originally were sited and equipped in peacetime and did
> not have to do a lot of running around, mobile style, even after the war
> started.
>
> Second, they needed some real RF power!  Communications had to be as
> reliable as possible.  There were times in which vital messages were not
> received or had to be relayed through intermediate stations.
>
> And by the way, they mention in the book that the "high moisture levels"
> in the South Pacific were an serious impediment to good communications.
>  Not sure what they men by that. Corrosion is an obvious problem, as are
> storms, but it's not clear to me why water in the air is a concern.
>
> Wayne
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>