In a message dated 4/6/2001 19:48:05 Eastern Daylight Time,
w8ji@contesting.com writes:
>
> Hi Yuri,
> When we re-quote someone, let's make some attempt to do it
> accurately.
>
> > Eh? Not long ago W8JI called me pathological scientist for stating
> > that there is skewed path and high angle propagation on 160, now he is
> > "guru" on the subject.
>
> Clearly that is not what you stated, and it certainly is not how I
> responded. Let's not play "you said this, I said that" games Yuri.
>
> Make your points, but don't make things up.
> 73, Tom W8JI
> W8JI@contesting.com
>
OK, here it is in its entirety as you wrote it, I will let others be the
judge, who is making things up. I can't get any more accurate than that. Any
similarity to this topic?
You can make fun of me, time will tell who is foolish like in this case.
******************************************************
Subj: Re: TopBand: Skewed propagation, TX RX angles
From: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Sender: owner-topband@contesting.com
To: K3BU@aol.com, topband@contesting.com
> From: K3BU@aol.com
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: TopBand: Skewed propagation, TX RX angles
> (I am putting this on reflector in order to open the eyes of those who are
> interested:
It sure opened my eye Yuri (I only have one I).
> I don't care what Brown or other "scientists" say or explain, or what some
> mickey- mouse software says. (I'd like to meet them, in the contest!) The
> skewed propagation I have seen from 40 down to 160 is in order of up to 30 -
> 45 degrees (azimuth).
The question I have is how do you "see" it?? How large and high are
your antenna arrays on 160 through 40? What chart recorders or data
files do you compile?
>The only thing I do not know is the possible vertical
> angle of signals entering and exiting the duct. Did not have the chance to
> seriously observe it, had no antennas specifically set up to detect that.
Are you saying you have no equipment to detect anything
about what you theorize, yet we should take your word for
it because you declare you "know it". You "know" there is
a duct, yet you have nothing "set up" to measure or confirm anything.
> From casual experience (operated K3BU in 97 160m CW from Cape Henlopen DE)
> with being forced to run low - 40' Inv Vee - Radials (too windy for
balloon),
> I found it easier to get the Eu stations to answer me than I was accustomed
> with balloon vertical. So my suspicion is that we need higher angles.
And so through "casual experience" you conclude with a "suspicion"
we need higher angles.
> What's your hangup with "analytic work"? I find that things are
> discovered by experimenters or by accident, and then the guys in white coats
> get wind of it, start studying it, write papers, present them at the
> conference of white coats, get the glory, while the real inventor doesn't
> even get mentioned. I tried to submit my paper on ducting radio propagation
> theory to RadioScience conference in Montreal in 80s, but was turned down.
> What some poor slob ham knows? Us, "scientists" in white coats and
> calculators know better. Right?
Real scientists DO know better. Since your "paper" was based on
guesses and "suspicions", they should reject it. They are interested
in facts, not unsubstantiated wild guesses or personal opinions.
> I tell you another "shocking" discovery I made, that is not mentioned
> and doesn't fit bouncing theory ("mirrors" should be working the same way
> both ways): There is in order of 70 - 80 % disagreement between RX and TX
> antenna (which is better at the time).
How do you make any contest contacts, while recording all the data
needed to get a 70-80% number Yuri?
I find it difficult to log the calls and get and give accurate
reports (I often just send 599 or 559), let alone add the antenna
used and wrangle accurate to the dB reports into and out of the log.
> If you have bunch of stacked beams or
> multiple antennas at various heights, try to get reports on transmit and
> correlate them to reports you see on receive. I could not believe what I was
> getting (20m and up)! I used that in the contest, periodically I would do a
> check "number 1 - 2 - 3" and keep the better TX antenna on while running
> particular area. RX antenna was switched as needed.
"Periodically" signals fade, "periodically" they come back. Unless you
spend a considerable amount of time with ONE station you have no idea
what the heck is going on. A less than one minute view of one signal
tells you nothing at all, no matter how many one minute "snapshots"
you take.
That's called Pathological data.
> Same goes for antenna modelling software, I see so many "designs"
taken
> so seriously. Everybody with antenna program is designer now. I tell good
> antenna, when it can hear (work) something that the other antenna can't.
That
> is the ultimate test, and not what the plot shows. (Computer simulation is a
> handy tool, and I inted to use it, but for a guidance, and not as a gospel.)
> When designing my Razor Beams, I have seen so many variables and
> disagreements with "paper" wisdom, that I opted for experimental route and
> spent 4 months designing antennas on the test range. It sure made the
> difference, gave me 1 to 2 hour jump on W2PV.
Above you give great weight to a comparison made by two different
operators with different skills. Not only is the comparison between
two very different locations, it includes different antennas, noise
levels, voices, operating skills, equipment, power, and so on.
Then in the next breath, after you dismiss all those variables for
*your* test, you reinstate them for other people in the world by
saying......
> Another important factor in RX vs. TX antenna that is usually overlooked,
> is role of surroundings and terrain. ON TX generally you trying to have
> antenna up and unobstructed to get the max energy at the best momentary
angle
> out. On receive you can have surroundings (atmosperic conditions, etc.)
> playing games being something like a lens or a dish, or reflecting plane.
> This provides some focusing and/or rejection. Have you heard stories about
> the guy in the valley hearing better than one on the hill? Or difference
> being on different sides of huge power lines? Or driven in a car and
> listening to marginal station and all of a sudden signal coming up 10 - 20
> dB, and it is only in that particular spot? This is why I suspect that we
> might need high angle TX antenna to get at those one way Eu at the beginning
> of the opening (our sunset).
The many variables you listed above obviously render YOUR
observations invalid, yet you don't consider that fact important.
Your data is good data, because its yours.
However, when someone else makes an observation, suddenly the
very same things that don't work against you now work against them.
That's called Pathological Science Yuri.
> The point is, don't believe everything you read, paper can take a lot.
That's why papers based on Pathological Science or gut feelings are
not generally accepted by professional or academic groups. They
have to pass a "smell test". Gut feeling science (Pathological
Science) generally only appears in non-professional publications.
73, Tom W8JI
******************************** end of quote.
Well, I believe now you know that there is a skewed path and there is
high angle propagation on 160m, you are preaching about it. Real man would
apologize for the above treatment and learn the lesson.
73 Yuri, K3BU
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|