Return-Path: Received: from rly-dd04.mx.aol.com (rly-dd04.mail.aol.com [172.19.141.151]) by air-dd07.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDD074-b74493a7bee320; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:20:02 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-dd04.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDD046-b74493a7bee320; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:19:45 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1L8x3c-00078c-FW for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:18:52 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1L8x3b-00078T-ON for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:18:51 +0000 Received: from smtp802.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([217.146.188.62]) by relay3.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L8x3a-0000Eb-Ra for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:18:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 84907 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2008 13:18:45 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=gwoyqbJLdx4bh3f9xol2xlwyFb4LnRT0JSg+GR6Cdf2wnFo1IHUkGaGIRSakouSjJAXc+xSacz0BsM5G5scGCRyPiciLlsB6f43GO8f/icrui6oGtCrD/cPl8CeUaJPQ/c8HQ5aa9lUixriCs1tH9Gal5l3dKE9YTFMtV7RV9Hc= ; Received: from unknown (HELO w4o8m9) (james.moritz@86.134.108.92 with login) by smtp802.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2008 13:18:45 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: ReZLvrEVM1loydZ_lemo6rGjvAIrAV7sPC5J0DwqeFpsCgfDGxPXnKwGIWEkNsr.1cMdK1xG.gUacr6E3htSMtT46xOLJwE2onqrrBe9iQ5gch3NZ4.e32Rb1RSHiIIR7rKQLLn6fLsjP4c9CvL4AbVdOxsxwP0JZERqiII- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.5.552 [270.9.15/1833]); Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:18:16 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c956db$eecfeb80$4201a8c0@home> From: "James Moritz" To: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:18:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: Re: ERP calculations / measurements Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Dear Rik, Brian, Andy, LF Group, As Andy says, it is difficult to seperate out the directivity (i.e. gain due to the shape of the radiation pattern of the antenna), the gain reduction due to antenna losses, and the losses due to propagation over lossy ground (which probably isn't really part of the antenna gain, but in practice will always be present to some extent). When you make field strength measurements to determine ERP, you are effectively measuring a combination of these things, but by keeping the measuring distance reasonably short, you can reasonably expect the ground wave losses to be negligibly small. This is fine as far as ERP is concerned, because ERP is a measure of the overall strength of the signal being radiated. In principle, one could determine directivity by measuring the radiation pattern of the antenna, but of course this is practically very hard to do at LF and MF at anything other than zero elevation angle, unless you happen to have a suitably equipped aircraft handy! An important thing to remember when looking at the results of antenna simulation is that what it gives is the far-field radiation pattern. This is effectively the radiation pattern measured "as distance tends to infinity". Infinite distance means infinitely more ground loss for the ground wave signal at zero elevation as compared to the signal propagating away from the ground, when anything other than "perfect" ground is simulated. So there is always a null in the radiation pattern at zero elevation, and some reduction of the lower angle radiation. But the reality is that field strength is not measured at infinite distance, and the ground wave signal is not attenuated to an infinitesimal level - in fact, over practical distances it is hardly attenuated at all. The consensus seems to be that the radiation pattern at these relatively short distances is the same as the "perfect ground" case. It obviously isn't easy to check this. But in my experiments with LF/MF antennas in an "open field" site last year, the FS measurements agreed almost perfectly with the values calculated assuming the "perfect ground" 4.77dBi gain value. The far-field-with-lossy-ground radiation pattern concept is probably fine at HF, because the ground wave is heavily attenuated even at short distances. But at MF, and especially LF, we are often communicating over distances where the ground wave is the major component of the received signal at distances of many hundreds of km. Since the effective parts of the ionosphere are only of the order of 100km high for these signals, and the curvature of the earth is also a significant factor affecting ground wave strength, the situation that is being simulated using NEC consisting if an antenna with flat ground plane and space above going off to infinity is not at all realistic. Also, mine and other peoples' experiments have shown that the trees and other objects around the antenna at short distances often dominate the antenna performance, something that is hard to model. So I think simulations of LF/MF antennas with ground losses are not very helpful at all in predicting antenna performance. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU