Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"

Mon Aug 11 22:23:04 EDT 2014

Yuri,
Thanks for your input. Tom asks, where are the other stations? It is a one 
pony race.  Well I am sure if we look at the CQ logs for that year we will 
see that there were other Carib stations on but we did not hear them out 
here--that is my point. I can't compare a set of verticals on the beach IF I 
CAN'T HEAR ANYONE ELSE AT THAT GENERAL QTH AT THAT TIME!
Verticals on the beach are a winner...nuff said.
73 N7RT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yuri Blanarovich" <k3bu at optimum.net>
To: <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:30 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 