Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Skywaves from Monopole Surface Waves

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Skywaves from Monopole Surface Waves
From: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:58:57 -0700
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
On 10/9/2012 7:31 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
So again my question - if this low-angle ground-wave (aka surface-wave) energy dies off so quickly (e.g. down 20dB at just 20 miles), how does any of it get to the ionosphere where it can be useful for topband DX?
Is the disagreement about how useful the really low angles are, or is 
the disagreement about if a low angle measurement (groundwave) is 
meaningful in determining changes in radiation at useful higher angles?
Groundwave has no value at all for working long distances, and under 
nearly all conditions extremely low angles have no value on 160 meters 
for DX.
On the other hand, I don't think many would dispute a groundwave 
measurement of FS changes between various vertically polarized 
radiators would be closely tied to FS at usable higher angles. The 
exception would be those cases where high angle horizontal propagation 
is a dominant mode.
I have about ten pages of ABC tests from here to VK/ZL and I'm pretty 
comfortable that angles at or below 20 - 30 degrees dominate almost 
all of the time, with the most common exceptions only at sunrise or 
during geomagnetic disturbances. This even compared a dipole at about 
280 feet effective height above ground, so there was "lowish" angle 
horizontal polarization in the test.
Groundwave is a very good way to evaluate vertical antenna efficiency, 
but certainly not a horizontally polarized mode. I know someone who 
measured a horizontal antenna at a modest distance and claimed he 
improved efficiency 10-20 dB by removing his balun and altering 
feedline length. :-)
Tom,

I agree that groundwave measurements provide a meaningful way to evaluate vertical efficiency, but not horizontal antenna efficiency. Also, I see no reason to dispute your findings on which angles of radiation are best for DX. I remember eavesdropping on some of those test you made when you were keeping daily skeds with VK3ZL and I've done no such tests myself.
My question (it is not a disagreement because I am not sure I know the 
correct answer) is whether the NEC-4 elevation patterns which include 
surface-wave (such as the one Richard Fry has linked to) are 
representative of what gets projected on to the distant ionosphere or if 
the far-field skywave pattern is a better representation. If Richard's 
assessment is correct, then a vertical over average soil should have as 
much gain at 1 or 2 degrees elevation angle as it does at 20 or 30 
degrees. Furthermore, it should only be a few dB down from a vertical 
over salt water over that same broad range of elevation angles. That 
certainly contradicts the conventional wisdom.
73, Mike W4EF.........





_______________________________________________
Remember the PreStew coming on October 20th.  http://www.kkn.net/stew for more 
info.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>