Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: RF Density Maps  (Read 1220 times)
TVDX
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« on: March 10, 2017, 05:45:14 AM »

Hello,

I recently discovered RF Density maps using topography (such as the ones found at cplus.org). I wanted to ask a few questions about these maps and get some overall feedback, any and all comments are greatly appreciated.

First off I am really impressed and intrigued by these maps I didn't know they existed until recently. I have been looking at coverage for various repeaters in my area and find them very cool.

What are the accuracy of these maps? I know nothing is never 100% but in general how accurate does everyone feel they are? To me they look very accurate. What are the chances that a signal from a repeater on the fringe would actually be detectible as indicated by the map?

Also it is very interesting to see how say a repeater has coverage over a general area, but then way outside the general coverage area there will be a few blips of coverage here and there. I assume this is due to areas higher in elevation or other factors? How accurately would you say this actually is?

It is super cool to be able to modify settings like height to see how that changes the coverage. What does everyone think?
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 3041


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2017, 10:09:46 AM »

Take these maps with a grain of salt.  They make a lot of assumptions and do not take in factors like tree cover, large buildings, reflected signal paths, etc.  If you consider them to be a starting point, with actual observations to confirm the assumptions, they can serve you well.
Logged
N8EKT
Member

Posts: 574




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2017, 07:56:38 PM »

Some are better than others

The more information the software takes into consideration
the more accurate the results

The better ones require you enter parameters like ground conductivity, surface refractivity, dielectric constant of ground, and whether its a temperate or subtropical climate zone

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!