[hfsig] Good Marsh Ground but is also low

[Bob Nielsen]

Empirically I  agree with that statement, having lived for 17 years 
until recently in a location about 200 ft from salt water and about 50 
ft above (+/- tides).  It was on an inlet from Puget Sound, not a 
marsh.  The trees in between were mostly evergreens, not deciduous.  HF 
propagation with a multiband vertical was much better than I expected 
and I didn't really try to explain it but I was able to increase my DXCC 
totals from 260 to 309 while living there and typically did not run more 
than 100 watts (I also achieved QRP DXCC from that location during 
better solar conditions than currently exist).

It's been several years since I have seen relevant data but I recall 
that the effect of trees isn't very great at HF compared to UHF and 
microwave frequencies and the radiated signal can go through the trees 
rather than up and over.

73, Bob N7XY

On 4/12/18 5:21 PM, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>
> Everyone says a salt water marsh is an excellent ground for low angle 
> radiation from an HF vertical.
>
> But then the marsh is 40 feet below surrounding terrain about 200’ 
> away AND then add 80 feet of trees, and so what good is low angle 
> radiation if it has to go up and over trees?
>
> Anyone seen an answer to this?
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hfsig mailing list
> hfsig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/hfsig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/hfsig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20180412/d3d82f98/attachment.html>