TT:
Regarding ridiculously low dipoles and NVIS operation, they really do work
after a fashion. In addition to towers, I collect military radios and am a
member of the Military Radio Collectors' Association http://www.mrca.ar88.net/
. We meet on the air several times a week on HF. We also attend an annual
gathering of the membership (predominantly east coast) each September in
Gilbert, PA, in the Pocono Mountains. Here we actually use our shorter-range
51 MHz FM radios as well as our backpack HF rigs that the US Special Forces
used in 'nam. Several of our members have told hair-raising stories about
their use of these packs in the field.
To make a potentially long story mercifully shorter, we set up my NVIS
crossed inverted Vee antenna (75M and 60M wires) in a mountain valley 20 miles
north of our base camp at Gilbert. We operated a 50 W HF rig on 75 M USB and
base heard us Lima Charlie. (Loud and clear.) We then disassembled the Vees
and held the 75 M wires taut at chest height and base was still able to copy
us; a station in upstate New York also copied us LC. The SpecOps guys among us
told us that's how they used to deploy their skyhooks when they had no time to
string the wires between trees.
73 de
Gene Smar AD3F
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of jimlux
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 11:05 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] NVIS (not exactly towers, but HF)
On 6/9/20 7:39 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> I didn't see anything in the abstract that made me want to read it as
> far as ham radio is concerned. A number of hams over the past years
> have cited military work with cloud burners as a justification for
> their usefulness in ham radio. I don't contest a horizontal antenna
> that has its highest field intensity straight up, but I do contest the
> argument for ridiculously low hanging antennas because that's what
> other services do. There are several differences between ham and
> other services that have to do with power limits, frequency
> exclusivity, transmission modes, battle conditions, and radiation
> efficiency.
what's interesting in the article isn't so much the NVIS stuff, but the
modeling approach. They're doing some ionospheric ray tracing using ionosonde
measurements. For what it's worth, the antennas they are using are at 0.2
wavelength, which isn't one of those knee high wires.
At frequencies from 4-11 MHz it seems.
They're using Coleman's ray tracing approach 21] C. J. Coleman, “Point-to-point
ionospheric ray tracing by a direct variational method,” Radio Sci., vol. 46,
no. 5, pp. 1–7, 2011.
Here's a report on it
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a271058.pdf
These days, there's a lot more real-time ionosonde data available - it's sort
of the next step beyond NCDXF beacons or various reverse beacon networks.
Of particular interest is a paper I want to track down
[17] P. J. Coetzee, “A technique to determine the electromagnetic properties of
soil using moisture content,” South Afr. J. Sci., vol.
110, no. 5/6, pp. 1–4, 2014.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|