Subj : Re: Moon bounce
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf
From : Roger
Date : Thu Oct 20 2005 23:54:09

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 04:08:39 GMT, "Dale Parfitt"
<par@parelectronics.com> wrote:

>
>"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message 
>news:ibj8l19tgr9ego1qkl41hj171h23tc9mn0@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Oct 2005 13:16:54 -0700, "an old friend" <kb9rqz@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>>> > Also a lot of what I have read talks about using
>>>> >2M to do the moon bounce, wouldn't a higher frequency work better?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, 432 and higher can help make the antennas smaller but then
>>>> you run into feedline losses and getting low noise recievers.   So
>>>> there are conflicting tradeoffs.
>>
>> You also run into higher atmospheric absorption.
>
>Not true, at least at VHF and UHF:
>Atmospheric absorption is  a non factor in all weather conditions from VHF 
>into the lower microwave bands.

I find clouds and particularly rain to be real problems.
above 440.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>At 10GHz and higher, absorption from atmospheric oxygen and water vapor 
>begin to come into play.
>
>Dale W4OP 
>

.