In article , Marky P
 scribeth thus
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:22:45 +0100, tony sayer 
>wrote:
>
>>In article , Marky P
>> scribeth thus
>>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:29:11 +0100, tony sayer 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article , Bill Wright
>>>> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>"Marky P"  wrote in message 
>>>>>news:hb88649m6qgrcsdi0895vnp2rvkt4s3qbm@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:25:58 +0100, "Bill Wright"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> But maybe that crane is reflecting the sea path signal towards the
>>>>>> aerial!  Sounds like a long shot, but that could be the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>To get severe tidal fading the reflected signal needs to approach the main 
>>>>>signal in amplitude. The path you suggest would be unlikely to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Dunno.. What about the big hill in the direct LOS line?..
>>>
>>>So the hill could be reflecting the signal?  The odd thing is that all
>>>these signal problems are a recent occurence.  There have been no
>>>problems with reception over the past year until now.
>>>
>>>Marky P.
>>>
>>
>>No /// the hill in line attenuates the main signal so the reflected one
>>is more like the same amplitude as the reflected...
>
>Ah!  Now that makes more sense!  Just thought of something else.  I
>would imagine that the two missing elements on the X43 would not only
>reduce gain, but also directivity.  So that would make it more
>susceptable to picking up reflected signals from off-axis directions.
>
>Marky P.
>

Their hardly enough to make that much difference. I rather think that
the "direct" signal wasn't that strong and there is now a reflected one
via perhaps the crane which is causing all the bother. You can sometimes
see this quite well if viewing an analogue channel and noting the
variations in the piccy when the cranes moving around..

Not that exact a way but a good indicator nonetheless..
-- 
Tony Sayer