Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp56293igc; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 09:15:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.190.10 with SMTP id gm10mr162012wjc.55.1394381705650; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ec3si671798wib.28.2014.03.09.09.15.05 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@comcast.net Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WMfiS-0004zE-Hf for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:32:40 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WMfiR-0004z5-1o for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:32:39 +0000 Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.40]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WMfiM-0001s7-4l for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:32:37 +0000 Received: from omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bTPP1n0010bG4ec54TYYjD; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:32:32 +0000 Received: from JAYDELL ([71.234.119.9]) by omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bTYX1n0090CFS1j3PTYXXH; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:32:31 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=comcast.net Result=Signature OK Message-ID: <008b01cf3bac$c9568ce0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> From: To: References: <2662DF5AA7FA416CBB09CDB90BBFF7B1@White> <016101cf39df$4f4c89a0$ede59ce0$@comcast.net>, <01dc01cf3a3f$86997bb0$93cc7310$@comcast.net>, <2FC5CAB271A6437CB35A5B100185CEDA@White> <025101cf3a52$e0925750$a1b705f0$@comcast.net> <7DB9DD5669FC4C648838510DCAC08AFB@White> <531A506E.9040103@abelian.org> <531A5C19.9060209@abelian.org> <02ba01cf3aa3$debaad50$9c3007f0$@comcast.net> <531AF126.2060600@abelian.org> <850A470A5B9F4483BED8B49D4791044A@White>,<531B1D0C.3070208@abelian.org> ,<531B4E01.7000304@abelian.org> <039f01cf3b72$bfa1db80$3ee59280$@comcast.net> <76F90E9771CA44F3981F679241E1A005@White> <03ca01cf3b92$eea24670$cbe6d350$@comcast.net> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1394379152; bh=D4DkakDRePcZazcBx1dp26ZCENjbU1nHAI4kj3o5hQs=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=jU8UwTQyhb8HRS6JAqjwx2mt+3728APptefzGCCDLlw6Mku2RQPhcevFeDpaJM24r 4HpLzWemeiFZoFlvNM26CUplRiu9MskD0wQi0chhO+y/Fd2fovUvsyw+KOruUF2va9 MAEKdh75ZuMq5IbClszuuPPVEdAgSm6cNw8O6r5w4ksHIOpPdN7f+efMDSvsoSmRfL y1umzrGoCizjQiPpDDS0nAWmRC/qQx4/9tc9q55pFX0DhE0NSqu7ChU9p1im7o92zA Hz3aQm6aa12a9LnCjEnT4QFh3nkrbRiYh+hk+e7t+ZgNZlmX2das0RH0dewIsPDPnk mfMn0woPfF6SA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: While not VLF, WWVB at 60 kHz shows no significant difference in signal level at various receiving locations summer vs. winter. http://www.w1vd.com/WWVBwintersummersig.jpg As expected though, SNR is better in winter. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.62.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: d80fe1544fb5006ebc70f068724a61e1 Subject: Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0087_01CF3B8B.41E7FFD0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,NO_REAL_NAME 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01CF3B8B.41E7FFD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While not VLF, WWVB at 60 kHz shows no significant difference in signal level at various receiving locations summer vs. winter. http://www.w1vd.com/WWVBwintersummersig.jpg As expected though, SNR is better in winter. http://www.w1vd.com/WWVBwintersummersnr.jpg Hard to believe things would be vastly different at 30 kHz ... but suppose anything is possible. Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 WG2XRS/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: hvanesce To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:27 AM Subject: RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Markus, I found a typo: At 30kHz, ground-wave loss in non-frozen soil of poor conductivity (10^-4 mhos/m) might be 20dB greater (20dB more loss) than in non-frozen soil of fairly good conductivity (10^-2 mhos/m) Should be: At 30kHz, ground-wave loss in frozen soil of poor conductivity (10^-4 mhos/m) might be 20dB greater (20dB more loss) than in non-frozen soil of fairly good conductivity (10^-2 mhos/m) Thanks, Jim AA5BW From: hvanesce [mailto:hvanesce@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 5:14 AM To: 'rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org' Subject: RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Markus, Thank you for the feedback. I have a feeling that with discussion, the group might make particularly quick progress on electrically short VLF antennas for long-range paths. It's an area that may need to be led by experiment, something in which this group excels and industry, with all respect, may not. You mentioned: "My take on the subject was that with lower temperatures groundwave propagation is more (not less) attenuated" Yes, I tried to say the same thing; did I say it backwards? It sounds like we agree: groundwave is more attenuated at lower temperatures, as you stated above. For similar reasons, the skywave is more attenuated by the ground effects it encounters in the waveguide, at lower temperatures. In both cases, the increase in attenuation at sub-freezing temperatures is substantial. You mentioned: "But regarding the near field, losses and E-field shunting from trees around the antenna decrease with frost, so radiation efficiency improves significantly. This effect is probably not covered by the literature, as commercial LF antennas tend to be installed above a ground screen on a clear field. With valley-spanning installations (eg. the former Haiku antenna on Oahu), it was mentioned that forestry beneath the antenna had been removed to reduce losses." Yes, I agree 100%. My comments did not consider trees. Before leaving this point, I'd like to include a thought for other (treeless) cases that might arise (especially as amateur LF antennas evolve in pursuit of better radiation efficiencies), with apologies if this is well-worn ground: Without trees (in an open, flat rural area for example) a significant portion of the losses in a small VLF vertical antenna system might be from reactive-field current returning to the ground radials or ground screen through soil. A lot of current flows in the reactive field, and a VLF reactive field's footprint is closer to the size of an old VLF transmitter ground radial system than to my backyard ground radial or ground screen system, so reactive field return current would flow through soil, which has higher resistance at sub-freezing temperatures. This is one of the losses that the old commercial VLF systems worked to minimize, but I wonder if, in a treeless environment this might be a more substantial concern for amateur VLF vertical antennas than for the old commercial VLF antennas. This might not apply to antennas for 137 kHz, but I wonder about amateur VLF antennas. Thank you for the feedback. I'm looking forward to whatever we might learn about radiation efficiency of short VLF transmitting antennas, in the presence of infrastructure. As you mentioned, the literature reflects commercial scenarios, and that leaves a substantial gap that work in this group might help to close. 73, Jim AA5BW From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Markus Vester Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 2:26 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Thanks Jim for the detailed information. Bob and I had discussed the temperature effects in a private mail exchange, and hadn't quite come o the same conclusions. My take on the subject was that with lower temperatures groundwave propagation is more (not less) attenuated. But regarding the near field, losses and E-field shunting from trees around the antenna decrease with frost, so radiation efficiency improves significantly. This effect is probably not covered by the literature, as commercial LF antennas tend to be installed above a ground screen on a clear field. With valley-spanning installations (eg. the former Haiku antenna on Oahu), it was mentioned that forestry beneath the antenna had been removed to reduce losses. Best 73, Markus (DF6NM) From: hvanesce Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:36 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Bob, Some information below on the effects of above-freezing and below-freezing temperatures on various VLF losses, including (a) ground-wave losses, (b) near-field ground effects losses and (c) skywave (waveguide) ground effects losses. A short preface: The discussion below is for a VLF system with a vertical transmit antenna. In a VLF system with a vertical transmit antenna, high surface conductivity under the antenna and in the near and far fields is desirable. (1) In a VLF system with a horizontal antenna, low surface conductivity under the antenna is desired, and high surface conductivity is desired elsewhere in the near field, and in the far field. (1) This makes Antarctica a great place for VLF QRP: ice under the antenna; salt water elsewhere (whence the 42 km long dipole at Siple Station: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/AJUSvXVIIIn5/AJUSvXVIIIn5p270.pdf http://nova.stanford.edu/~vlf/Antarctica/Siple/ ) Temperature coefficients of conductivity: As temperature drops, non-frozen soil conductivity (mhos, siemens) decreases by roughly 1.9% per degree C. (2) As temperature drops below freezing, soil VLF conductivity decreases rapidly; the rate of change is highly dependent on soil type, but a 2:1 change per 10 degrees C at 10 kHz (for below-freezing temperatures) is a reasonable example for some soils. (3) Near field and ground wave losses: As conductivity decreases (i.e. with decreasing temperature), VLF near-field and ground wave losses increase non-linearly (4) At 30kHz, ground wave amplitude is low at 5000 km (4) At 30kHz, ground-wave loss in non-frozen soil of poor conductivity (10^-4 mhos/m) might be 20dB greater (20dB more loss) than in non-frozen soil of fairly good conductivity (10^-2 mhos/m) (4) At 30kHz, ground-wave loss in frozen soil would be very high (4) All of the above might suggest a very low amplitude ground wave at TA distances in mid-winter (ground wave including direct, ground-reflected, Norton surface and trapped surface waves) In that case the long-path part of the problem reduces to skywave losses (skywave ionospheric losses and skywave ground-effects losses): Skywave loss (waveguide loss in this case) due to ground effects is nominally: d_alpha_gnd = [.046 * sqrt(f)] * 1/{h * sqrt(s) * sqrt[1 - (fc/f)^2]} (in units of dB per 1000 km) (5) where f = 29,500 (Hz), fc ~ 2100 (Hz) (day) or 1700 (Hz) (night), h ~ 70 (kilometers), .0001 < s < .01 [s for sigma (conductivity), in mhos per meter; range of values from .01 for very good (highly conductive) soil to .0001 for frozen earth; values below .0001 occur in arctic regions, but such regions tend to have snow and ice above the soil. A different formula is used for snow and ice losses at frequencies below 1 MHz] The formula above may be sufficient for analysis of cold-weather propagation losses over distances of 5 Mm or more. Besides propagation losses, there are near-field and antenna-system losses. Near-field and antenna-system losses: VLF near-field and antenna-system losses associated with ground effects, increase as temperature (and therefore conductivity) decline. The increase in near-field and antenna-system losses can be between sqrt (s) and s^1.5, but the nominal value of these losses is hard to determine analytically for an electrically-short antenna. The calculation for ice/snow cover for your antenna system may be easier to determine analytically; if you're interested I'll send a notional formula. If your VLF signal reports do not change appreciably after a snowfall or an ice storm, that information can be used to help generate a temperature model of your ground-effects-related near-field and antenna-system losses, in which case you might have a good starting point for a whole-system model for all temperatures. Noting what happens to signal reports after a freeze, after a snowfall and after an ice-storm can help to nail down the most difficult part of the system model for a VLF system with an electrically short antenna (antenna-system losses and near-field losses). In summary: A) VLF near-field and antenna-system losses associated with ground effects, increase as temperature declines. Noting what happens to signal reports after a freeze, after a snowfall and after an ice-storm can help to establish a good model for these. Such a model will be useful at all temperatures, and very helpful in the optimization of an electrically-short VLF antenna. B) The formula above for d_alpha_gnd (relative ground-effects losses incurred by the skywave in the waveguide) gives values from about 2 dB per megameter to 6 dB per megameter at 29.5 kHz for soil conditions ranging from fairly good to frozen. This formula is useful by itself for assessing the difference in far-field path loss at various temperatures. Total path loss includes other terms that add to and subtract from* d_alpha_gnd, but those terms are not necessary for assessing changes in ground-effects-related skywave path losses (in the waveguide) over temperature. C) Ideally, you would add (A) to (B) to obtain the sum of the predominant contributors to loss variation over temperature. * terms such as the convergence factor, and reinforcements at discontinuities, subtract from path loss (1) Biggs, AGARD, 1970 (2) a general approximation; Corwin 2005, Ma 2010 (3) Moore 1992 (4) Watt 3.2 (5) Watt 3.4.33 73, Jim AA5BW From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Bob Raide Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:33 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Paul; It is not only the ground but the air temp has great influence and maybe much more than the shallow depths of the ground freezing-Bob > Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:06:09 +0000 > From: vlf0403@abelian.org > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz > > > Bob wrote: > > > Wonder what effects soil conductivity changes has on the > > propagation at these VLF freqs?? > > I have no information. You would expect ground resistance > to rise, but would that make noticeable difference to > propagation if it is only a freezing of a shallow surface > layer? > > I had to go to a narrower bandwidth to produce phase and > amplitude plots for last night's test > > http://abelian.org/vlf/tmp/29499_140308a.gif > > Signal is down by some 5dB compared with some recent > tests. > > Nothing detected this afternoon. > > Propagation seems normal, noise floor normal. > > Maybe the cold and frozen ground is affecting the tx > efficiency, some lower Q of the loading coil - antenna - > ground loop, or a reduction of effective height. > > Will be interesting to see what happens after the thaw. > > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- > ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01CF3B8B.41E7FFD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While not VLF, WWVB at 60 kHz shows no = significant=20 difference in signal level at various receiving locations summer vs. = winter.=20
 
http://www.w1vd.com/= WWVBwintersummersig.jpg
 
As expected though, SNR is better in=20 winter.
 
http://www.w1vd.com/= WWVBwintersummersnr.jpg
 
Hard to believe things would be vastly = different at=20 30 kHz ... but suppose anything is possible.=20    
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  = WE2XGR/2 =20 WG2XRS/2
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 hvanesce=20
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 = 8:27=20 AM
Subject: RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 = kHz

Markus,

 

I=20 found a typo:

 

At=20 30kHz, ground-wave loss in non-frozen soil of poor conductivity (10^-4 = mhos/m)=20 might be 20dB greater (20dB more loss) than in non-frozen soil of = fairly good=20 conductivity (10^-2 mhos/m)

 

Should=20 be:

 

At=20 30kHz, ground-wave loss in frozen soil of poor conductivity (10^-4 = mhos/m)=20 might be 20dB greater (20dB more loss) than in non-frozen soil of = fairly good=20 conductivity (10^-2 mhos/m)

 

Thanks,

 

Jim=20 AA5BW

 

 

 

From: = hvanesce=20 [mailto:hvanesce@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 = 5:14=20 AM
To: 'rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org'
Subject: RE: = LF:=20 Daytime 29.499 kHz

 

Markus,

 

Thank you = for the=20 feedback. I have a feeling that with discussion, the group might make=20 particularly quick progress on electrically short VLF antennas for = long-range=20 paths. It=92s an area that may need to be led by experiment, something = in which=20 this group excels and industry, with all respect, may=20 not.

 

You = mentioned: =93My=20 take on the subject was that with lower temperatures groundwave = propagation is=20 more (not less) attenuated=94

Yes, I = tried to say=20 the same thing; did I say it backwards? It sounds like we agree: = groundwave is=20 more attenuated at lower temperatures, as you stated=20 above.

For = similar=20 reasons, the skywave is more attenuated by the ground effects it = encounters in=20 the waveguide, at lower temperatures.

In both = cases, the=20 increase in attenuation at sub-freezing temperatures is substantial.=20

 

You = mentioned:=20 =93But regarding the near field, losses and E-field shunting = from=20 trees around the antenna decrease with frost, so radiation=20 efficiency improves significantly. This effect is probably not = covered by=20 the literature, as commercial LF antennas tend to be = installed above=20 a ground screen on a clear field. With valley-spanning = installations (eg.=20 the former Haiku antenna on Oahu), it was mentioned that forestry = beneath=20 the antenna had been removed to=20 reduce losses.=94

Yes, I = agree=20 100%.

My = comments did not=20 consider trees.

Before = leaving this=20 point, I=92d like to include a thought for other (treeless) cases that = might=20 arise (especially as amateur LF antennas evolve in pursuit of better = radiation=20 efficiencies), with apologies if this is well-worn=20 ground:

Without = trees (in=20 an open, flat rural area for example) a significant portion of the = losses in a=20 small VLF vertical antenna system might be from reactive-field current = returning to the ground radials or ground screen through soil. A lot = of=20 current flows in the reactive field, and a VLF reactive field=92s = footprint is=20 closer to the size of an old VLF transmitter ground radial system than = to my=20 backyard ground radial or ground screen system, so reactive field = return=20 current would flow through soil, which has higher resistance at = sub-freezing=20 temperatures. This is one of the losses that the old commercial VLF = systems=20 worked to minimize, but I wonder if, in a treeless environment this = might be a=20 more substantial concern for amateur VLF vertical antennas than for = the old=20 commercial VLF antennas. This might not apply to antennas for 137 kHz, = but I=20 wonder about amateur VLF antennas.

 

Thank you = for the=20 feedback. I=92m looking forward to whatever we might learn about = radiation=20 efficiency of short VLF transmitting antennas, in the presence of=20 infrastructure. As you mentioned, the literature reflects commercial=20 scenarios, and that leaves a substantial gap that work in this group = might=20 help to close.

 

73, =  Jim=20 AA5BW

 

 

From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@bl= acksheep.org=20 [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_g= roup@blacksheep.org]=20 On Behalf Of Markus Vester
Sent: Sunday, March 9, = 2014 2:26=20 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
Subject:=20 Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz

 

Thanks = Jim for the=20 detailed information. Bob and I had discussed the temperature effects = in a=20 private mail exchange, and hadn't quite come o the same conclusions.=20

 

My take = on the=20 subject was that with lower temperatures groundwave propagation is = more (not=20 less) attenuated. But regarding the near field, losses and = E-field=20 shunting from trees around the antenna decrease with frost, so = radiation=20 efficiency improves significantly. This effect is probably not = covered by=20 the literature, as commercial LF antennas tend to be = installed above=20 a ground screen on a clear field. With valley-spanning = installations (eg.=20 the former Haiku antenna on Oahu), it was mentioned that forestry = beneath=20 the antenna had been removed to=20 reduce losses.   

 

Best=20 73,

Markus=20 (DF6NM)

 

From: hvanesce=20

Sent: Sunday, = March 09,=20 2014 9:36 AM

To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= =20

Subject: RE: LF: = Daytime=20 29.499 kHz

 

Bob,

 

Some=20 information below on the effects of above-freezing and below-freezing=20 temperatures on various VLF losses, including (a) ground-wave losses, = (b)=20 near-field ground effects losses and (c) skywave (waveguide) ground = effects=20 losses.

 

A=20 short preface:

The=20 discussion below is for a VLF system with a vertical transmit=20 antenna.

In=20 a VLF system with a vertical transmit antenna, high surface = conductivity under=20 the antenna and in the near and far fields is desirable. =20 (1)

In=20 a VLF system with a horizontal antenna, low surface conductivity under = the=20 antenna is desired, and high surface conductivity is desired elsewhere = in the=20 near field, and in the far field.  (1)

This=20 makes Antarctica a great place for VLF QRP: ice under the antenna; = salt water=20 elsewhere (whence the 42 km long dipole at Siple Station: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/AJUSvXVIIIn5/AJUSvXVI= IIn5p270.pdf         =20  http://nova.stan= ford.edu/~vlf/Antarctica/Siple/=20 )    

 

 

Temperature=20 coefficients of conductivity:

As=20 temperature drops, non-frozen soil conductivity (mhos, siemens) = decreases by=20 roughly 1.9%  per degree C. (2)

As=20 temperature drops below freezing, soil VLF conductivity decreases = rapidly; the=20 rate of change is highly dependent on soil type, but a 2:1 change per = 10=20 degrees C at 10 kHz (for below-freezing temperatures) is a reasonable = example=20 for some soils. (3)

 

Near=20 field and ground wave losses:

As=20 conductivity decreases (i.e. with decreasing temperature), VLF = near-field and=20 ground wave losses increase non-linearly (4)

At=20 30kHz, ground wave amplitude is low at 5000 km = (4)

At=20 30kHz, ground-wave loss in non-frozen soil of poor conductivity (10^-4 = mhos/m)=20 might be 20dB greater (20dB more loss) than in non-frozen soil of = fairly good=20 conductivity (10^-2 mhos/m)   (4)

At=20 30kHz, ground-wave loss in frozen soil would be very high (4)=20

All=20 of the above might suggest a very low amplitude ground wave at TA = distances in=20 mid-winter (ground wave including direct, ground-reflected, Norton = surface and=20 trapped surface waves)

 

 

In=20 that case the long-path part of the problem reduces to skywave losses = (skywave=20 ionospheric losses and skywave ground-effects = losses):

Skywave=20 loss (waveguide loss in this case) due to ground effects is=20 nominally:

 

d_alpha_gnd=20 =3D [.046 * sqrt(f)]  *  1/{h * sqrt(s) * sqrt[1 =96=20 (fc/f)^2]}    (in units of dB per 1000 km) =20    (5)

 

where=20 f =3D 29,500 (Hz), fc ~ 2100 (Hz) (day) or 1700 (Hz) (night), h ~ 70=20 (kilometers),  .0001 < s < .01  [s for sigma = (conductivity),=20 in mhos per meter; range of values from .01 for very good (highly = conductive)=20 soil to .0001 for frozen earth; values below .0001 occur in arctic = regions,=20 but such regions tend to have snow and ice above the soil. A different = formula=20 is used for snow and ice losses at frequencies below 1=20 MHz]

 

The=20 formula above may be sufficient for analysis of cold-weather = propagation=20 losses over distances of 5 Mm or more. Besides propagation losses, = there are=20 near-field and antenna-system losses.

 

Near-field=20 and antenna-system losses:

VLF=20 near-field and antenna-system losses associated with ground effects, = increase=20 as temperature (and therefore conductivity) decline. The increase in=20 near-field and antenna-system losses can be between sqrt (s) and = s^1.5, but=20 the nominal value of these losses is hard to determine analytically = for an=20 electrically-short antenna. The calculation for ice/snow cover for = your=20 antenna system may be easier to determine analytically; if you=92re = interested=20 I=92ll send a notional formula.

If=20 your VLF signal reports do not change appreciably after a snowfall or = an ice=20 storm, that information can be used to help generate a temperature = model of=20 your ground-effects-related near-field and antenna-system losses, in = which=20 case you might have a good starting point for a whole-system model for = all=20 temperatures.  Noting what happens to signal reports after a = freeze,=20 after a snowfall and after an ice-storm can help to nail down the most = difficult part of the system model for a VLF system with an = electrically short=20 antenna (antenna-system losses and near-field = losses).

 

In=20 summary:

A)     = VLF=20 near-field and antenna-system losses associated with ground effects, = increase=20 as temperature declines.  Noting what happens to signal reports = after a=20 freeze, after a snowfall and after an ice-storm can help to establish = a good=20 model for these. Such a model will be useful at all temperatures, and = very=20 helpful in the optimization of an electrically-short VLF antenna.=20

B)     = The=20 formula above for d_alpha_gnd (relative ground-effects losses incurred = by the=20 skywave in the waveguide) gives values from about 2 dB per megameter = to 6 dB=20 per megameter at 29.5 kHz for soil conditions ranging from fairly good = to=20 frozen. This formula is useful by itself for assessing the difference = in=20 far-field path loss at various temperatures. Total path loss includes = other=20 terms that add to and subtract from* d_alpha_gnd, but those terms are = not=20 necessary for assessing changes in ground-effects-related skywave path = losses=20 (in the waveguide) over temperature.

C)     = Ideally,=20 you would add (A) to (B) to obtain the sum of the predominant = contributors to=20 loss variation over temperature.

 

*=20 terms such as the convergence factor, and reinforcements at = discontinuities,=20 subtract from path loss

 

(1)    = Biggs,=20 AGARD, 1970

(2)    = a=20 general approximation; Corwin 2005, Ma 2010

(3)    = Moore=20 1992

(4)    = Watt=20 3.2

(5)    = Watt=20 3.4.33

 

 

73, =20 Jim AA5BW

 

 

From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@bl= acksheep.org=20 [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_g= roup@blacksheep.org]=20 On Behalf Of Bob Raide
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 = 10:33=20 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
Subject:=20 RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz

 

Paul;
It is not only = the ground=20 but the air temp has great influence and maybe much more than the = shallow=20 depths of the ground freezing-Bob
 

>=20 Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:06:09 +0000
> From: vlf0403@abelian.org
> = To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=
>=20 Subject: Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz
>
>
> Bob=20 wrote:
>
> > Wonder what effects soil conductivity = changes has=20 on the
> > propagation at these VLF freqs??
>
> = I have=20 no information. You would expect ground resistance
> to rise, = but would=20 that make noticeable difference to
> propagation if it is only a = freezing of a shallow surface
> layer?
>
> I had to = go to a=20 narrower bandwidth to produce phase and
> amplitude plots for = last=20 night's test
>
> http://abelian.org/= vlf/tmp/29499_140308a.gif
>=20
> Signal is down by some 5dB compared with some recent
>=20 tests.
>
> Nothing detected this afternoon.
> =
>=20 Propagation seems normal, noise floor normal.
>
> Maybe = the cold=20 and frozen ground is affecting the tx
> efficiency, some lower Q = of the=20 loading coil - antenna -
> ground loop, or a reduction of = effective=20 height.
>
> Will be interesting to see what happens after = the=20 thaw.
>
> --
> Paul Nicholson
> --
>=20

------=_NextPart_000_0087_01CF3B8B.41E7FFD0--