Topband: Modeling the proverbial "vertical on a beach"

[Tom W8JI]

> The signals showing the most change were not the loudest. They were
> the ones on the edge of the developing band opening. The stronger or
> peak signals from these stations would occur later as (presumably) the
> angle of arrival moved up. The advantage to the water's edge I was
> hearing would only last from first hearing to full band opening. To
> the extent that the opening was very marginal, the advantage could
> persist.
>

One of the big things in any experiment is to think about all the factors 
that can cause a feeling or impression, and just look at the meaningful 
numbers.

1.) If you had a non-linear effect based on loss it was probably the common 
effect of small changes in threshold signals being most noticeable. This 
effect is just a fact of life. We see it without realizing it. Linear loss, 
and we know the loss is linear with level, change weak signals exactly the 
same as strong signals. They change noise exactly the same as signals.

2.) If you were observing a wave angle effect, you would have had to sort 
the signals by wave angle. The irony of this is the most vocal advocates of 
high angle propagation, where salt water has no advantage (except a small 
one on bounce) over a localized very modest copper screen, are the same 
people who claim enhancement.

All of this is measureable if we do a correct and reasonable test. It is not 
measureable or observable with poor methods, or by human emotionometers.

It is, on the surface, illogical to claim weak signals are changed in a way 
that does not occur on stronger signals. Nowhere in anything except 
non-linear circuits will that occur.

When people come up with numbers or observations exceeding the change 
possible by moving an antenna from over soil to over an infinite copper 
sheet, or invoke some sort of non-linearity based on level, something is 
obviously wrong with the observation or reporting.

73 Tom