Oh, here comes the "guru" again. :-)
Unnecessary debate? We are talking about experiences and RESULTS of
comparing normal in land "ground" effect vs. salt water beach or
marshes. We are commenting on the benefit of immediate proximity of salt
water to antenna performance, especially on low angles.
K3BU and others found out that it is not "feeling," but S-meter readings
in order of 10 - 20 dB (RX and TX!) in favor of salty beach. It is like
driving inside into the amplifier
There is really no debate or argument. Anyone can verify that by driving
mobile around the ocean front.
Team vertical N2KW put the numbers on the effect - world high in CQ WW
with bunch of "fishing rods" on the beach from 6Y5. Anyone interested in
finding about the effect or using it can do it and testify themselves. I
did it from the Cape Hatteras and was amazed. Operating as N2EE/4 from
Cape Hatteras, NC in CQ WW SSB 2000 it is still all time US 10m LP
record.
For those not knowing about the effect, it is an eye opener, for those
knowing or experiencing it, there is no argument. Those who do not
believe it, can get into their mobile and drive around watching the
S-meter and putting the numbers with two decimal places to it. Those
going on expeditions to places with oceanfront can multiply their
results by placing the antennas close to the salt water as others
commented.
The best way to take advantage of the salty effect is to use phased or
parasitic verticals, or vertically polarized beams (Yagi or Quad) about
half wave up. No need for high towers, waste of using horizontal beams.
Yuri, K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com
By the way, my intention is not to make anyone feel bad, but to just
to remind people that an impression or feeling is not confirmation.
Impressions really get us off track, and lead to unnecessary debates
and arguments.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom W8JI" To: Sent: Tuesday,
August 12, 2014 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"
Just to set the record straight, I have no doubt saltwater helps
propagation at most angles.
I probably did not make my point very well. My point is, with no
comparison, an "impression" or "feeling" is not convincing data. It
doesn't mean a thing.
I think this is a pretty simple concept. Not having proper
comparative data is what allows all sorts of misplaced voodoo
nonsense, like 360 radials is worth 6 dB.
There is a huge difference between the validity of an A-B comparison
and running away with a feeling.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl" To: "Yuri Blanarovich" ;
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"
There have been reports of verticals and salt water almost as long
as there has been radio. It helps horizontal antennas also.
Ive operated for enough years aboard USN ships to know it is often a
band opener and have to laugh at a couple of petty comments. The
difference between operating shipboard and MARS/ham club stations
was often a couple of hours and even with big yagis there was no
comparison. Go back to the ship tied up at the pier or at anchor and
the band was wide open again and again, and again.
After awhile you learn to ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism.
Carl
KM1H
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yuri Blanarovich" To: Sent:
Monday, August 11, 2014 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"
One pony needs to get into one drag radio car and drive around the
ocean front, over the bridges, back over the land and watch the
S-meter and listen to the bands. Observant would see 10 - 20 dB
difference in signal levels in "lousy" mobile, especially on low
angle propagation.
Examples: Driving around Sydney, NS and listening to Disney 1670 AM
in NJ - no signals over land, full quieting solid signal while
driving on bridge over salt water.
While contesting as N2EE from Cape Hatteras, NC on 10m in contest,
was told by ZS6EZ to be the first NA he heard, with vertical on the
beach.
Results of "Team Vertical" speak for themselves.
Some of us do know. The reverse beacons testing can verify or
legitimize modeling program's "calculated guessing".
Yuri, K3BU.us
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
My point is if no one else is on, we really don't how other
signals
would be. It's like a drag race with just one car, or a pony show
with one horse.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hardy Landskov" To: "Tom W8JI"
; "TopBand List" Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a
beach"
Tom,
I was totallly not expecting any station from that direction,
just thought I'd work a few locals with high incident angles
before Sunset here. Then I heard the 6Y2 guys and it was amazing.
He was the only station--no KV4FZ, NP4A, etc and certainly no EU
at our time. Made me a believer in beach verticals.
73 N7RT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom W8JI" To: "TopBand List"
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a
beach"
How was his signal compared to someone from a similar heading
and distance at the same time who was not on the beach?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hardy Landskov" To: "Guy
Olinger K2AV" ; "Richard Fry"
Cc: "TopBand List" Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a
beach"
Just an observation to all:
When Tom, N6BT went to Jaimaca and operated 6Y2J (I think was
the call) with verticals on the beach I was blown away. I heard
them 2 hours before Sunset here on 160....nuff said. The proof
is in the pudding.
73 N7RT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" To:
"Richard Fry" Cc: "TopBand List" Sent: Saturday, August 09,
2014 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a
beach"
Just to mention that the prior opinion is controversial and
not universally
agreed upon. Nor to date has anyone surfaced with actual
measurements made
at the distances (25 to 50 km) and with span of altitudes (0
to 10 km) to
either prove or disprove either side.
It remains unproven modelling from NEC at those distances
either way. This
situation may, alas, persist this way, because the precise
subject
resolution appears to be without benefit to any commercial
interest and
therefore without funds to pay for some pretty expensive
experimenting
involving precision measurements from aircraft.
Additionally, there is considerable suspicion that moving from
LF to MF in
this general subject involves a ground modal change of some
sort that would
render 50x10 km measurments at 0.5 or 1 MHz unlike those at 2
MHz,
rendering commercial measurements at low and possibly high BC
of no value
for extrapolation to ham use.
Arguments on both sides remain basically intuitive. I have
"reasonable"
arguments to BOTH concur with Richard AND to not. NEC near
field
calculations over sea water at 50 km follow Richard's
assertions, and the
same over "average" ground does not. The model clearly thinks
that 50 km
over most types of ground slowly dissipates low angles
resulting in the
controversial "notch" in low angle elevation patterns.
So NEC based modelling cannot be used as a proof text to
decide an argument
NEC has with itself.
73, Guy K2AV.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Richard Fry wrote:
Just to note that the low-angle radiation produced by
monopoles is not
accurately shown by a NEC model/study that does not include
the surface
wave, regardless of whether one or two ground-plane media are
specified in
the model.
Below is a link to a NEC study of the low-angle fields of a
monopole
__including the surface wave__ for three values of earth
conductivity
ranging from extremely good to very poor.
The curves there all show maximum relative field in the
horizontal plane.
If the surface wave had not been included in these studies
then all of
those fields would have a zero value in the horizontal plane,
and reduced
fields at low angles just above the horizontal plane.
Reality is that radiation leaving the monopole at elevation
angles of at
least 5 degrees decays at a 1/r rate. Therefore that
radiation is a space
wave which propagates in a ~ straight line to reach the
ionosphere, where
(with suitable conditions) it can return to the earth as a
skywave.
NEC analyses of a vertical monopole of 5/8-lambda and less,
and not
including the fields of the NEC surface wave do not recognize
the radiation
sector capable of producing the greatest single-hop skywave
service range
that can be provided by that monopole.
http://s20.postimg.org/9xqgzu9d9/Monopole_Low_Angle_Radiation.jpg
R. Fry
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives -
http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives -
http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 4007/8013 - Release
Date: 08/10/14
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 4007/8013 - Release Date:
08/10/14
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 4007/8019 - Release Date:
08/11/14
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 4007/8019 - Release Date:
08/11/14
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 4007/8022 - Release Date:
08/12/14
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|
