Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp52436igc; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.6.8 with SMTP id w8mr28006623wjw.16.1394376724413; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w12si556453wiv.65.2014.03.09.07.52.03 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 07:52:04 -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 1WMeAz-0004U3-V4 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:54:01 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WMeAy-0004Tu-E5 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:54:00 +0000 Received: from qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.17]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WMeAq-0001Yn-9g for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:53:59 +0000 Received: from omta18.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.74]) by qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bRmB1n0011bwxycAARtq9N; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:53:50 +0000 Received: from Owner ([166.137.182.142]) by omta18.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bRtU1n00D34kqxi8eRta0L; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:53:44 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=comcast.net Result=Signature OK From: "hvanesce" 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> <03c401cf3b91$098dd320$1ca97960$@comcast.net> <51F01230D95049B4A9D87797841FE64F@gnat> In-Reply-To: <51F01230D95049B4A9D87797841FE64F@gnat> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 06:53:23 -0700 Message-ID: <03f701cf3b9e$f9f1d200$edd57600$@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFwHFQtNP1cuGk4XhlGVCAC9znl2gG7rsFSAR0lnQgBd+LZewJLh/X8Ab8nTT4C/5bZTAGUATieAUzcPSMBZtiUawDaWzx3AoAxwksBwVpScwI72uscAimolEcBOx9H9AFvOCeiAkNoEzYCaGo2mQKz9UH9ARpCXyACeA3iQgIPZjJZAhiOByOaP7500A== Content-Language: en-us DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1394373230; bh=VzcUPeDBILqL2ZlXUkWRCUIm7EQibeWrLFDatfvNAmY=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=Yzf0J9p4Qb2/0oqwoKPQ2pQJHX0GkkO/CV690bfu2jQnr+5hnF1Lvnkma+OWIw5HC gisA04rXDzFSzQlpCQkFh9UUwFPuXbPsHr+Od+3XRCVVAodhEwxvLDZbMMfa/UmY4v nOshty7wZAVMgL61F9sAT2sxVi0gBURmQz4aOFMjEMD+T0HDYrOU1osuYdiiXWkQ6p nm3UmBg3pch2wHPxovDeOFToxvQ6wghA/N1imvAtIt2huy5a+tbxgVH+aPiypeIjOs oJOrdzyAnLOttrkafWZ4BO8cC0YRjM/EDzIgcKwtPg6zkIddHnUsNj5f6qQ7LIUkIa H5E+WWO5nNP6g== 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: Alan, I agree, Watt's groundwave loss analysis, while detailed, could be considered first-order in the context of real VLF far-field signals. It's ironic in a way; he describes the antenna and its field in 394 succinct pages, and only scratches the surface. Infrastructure is not considered, which was OK for his immediate purposes; but I only know of a handful of spots that I can access wherein infrastructure would not substantially affect a short VLF transmitting antenna. [...] 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 [76.96.30.17 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (hvanesce[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: cb8f4d9b6be68419653ce9b3f17d575f Subject: RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03F8_01CF3B64.4D962E50" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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 multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03F8_01CF3B64.4D962E50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan, I agree, Watt's groundwave loss analysis, while detailed, could be considered first-order in the context of real VLF far-field signals. It's ironic in a way; he describes the antenna and its field in 394 succinct pages, and only scratches the surface. Infrastructure is not considered, which was OK for his immediate purposes; but I only know of a handful of spots that I can access wherein infrastructure would not substantially affect a short VLF transmitting antenna. 73, Jim From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Alan Melia Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:07 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz I would have to ask how do you know what is actually "groundwave" It is extremely difficult to determine because at these frequencies there is return from the ionosphere at very short ranges. Also when comparing with the Antarctic don't forget they are sitting on about 1000metres or so, of ice not just a couple of feet of frozen ground. Medium wave performance (propagation) can be very different to LF/VLF. Laurence in Alaska reports better signals over frozen ground. Yes he has foliage around, but this has little effect in terms of loss on loop antennas. He was also involved in the Antarctic VLF station. Most amateur antennas at this frequency are classed as short and radiate close to omnidirectionally. The ground conditions do give a "cut in" at zero degree elevation for worse that perfect conductivity ground, meaning that a a lot more of the signal is radiated at higher angles. Some measurements were made by Jim Moritz M0BMU comparing a typical amateur inverted "L" 10m high is the middle of a field (i.e no trees) and a 300 foot ex Decca Navigator mast antenna. The result was with the same calculated ERP signals were the same strength at ranges of 100km upwards. He didnt have the weather to do the test over ice :-)) I think Jim is correct that the Professionals have no interest in short antennas or inverted "L" and they can usually choose their location to suit tall verticals. The best areas to search are the VLF antennas which scale to amateur sized LF antennas. Rugby GBR on 16kHz increased the capacity substantially in 1967 when the station was refurbished. Incresing the antenna top-load capacity has been shown to substantially reduce the ground loss, though I have not seen this stated in quite this way I have confirming measurements at LF. Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: hvanesce To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:13 PM 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_03F8_01CF3B64.4D962E50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Alan,

 

I agree, Watt’s groundwave loss analysis, while detailed, could = be considered first-order in the context of real VLF far-field signals. = It’s ironic in a way; he describes the antenna and its field in = 394 succinct pages, and only scratches the surface. Infrastructure is = not considered, which was OK for his immediate purposes; but I only know = of a handful of spots that I can access wherein infrastructure would not = substantially affect a short VLF transmitting = antenna.

 

73,  Jim

 

From:= = owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org = [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Alan = Melia
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:07 AM
To: = rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Daytime 29.499 = kHz

 

I would have = to ask how do you know what is actually "groundwave" It is = extremely difficult to determine because at these frequencies there is = return from the ionosphere at very short ranges. Also when comparing = with the Antarctic don't forget they are sitting on about 1000metres or = so, of ice not just a couple of feet of frozen ground. Medium wave = performance (propagation) can be very different to LF/VLF. =

 

Laurence in = Alaska reports better signals over frozen ground. Yes he has foliage = around, but this has little effect in terms of loss on loop antennas. He = was also involved in the Antarctic VLF = station.

 

Most amateur = antennas at this frequency are classed as short and radiate close to = omnidirectionally. The ground conditions do give a "cut in" at = zero degree elevation for worse that perfect conductivity ground, = meaning that a a lot more of the signal is radiated at higher = angles.

 

Some = measurements were made by Jim Moritz M0BMU comparing a typical amateur = inverted "L" 10m high is the middle of a field (i.e no trees) = and a 300 foot ex Decca Navigator mast antenna. The result was with the = same calculated ERP signals were the same strength at ranges of 100km = upwards. He didnt have the weather to do the test over ice = :-))

 

I think Jim = is correct that the Professionals have no interest in short antennas or = inverted "L" and they can usually choose their location to = suit tall verticals. The best areas to search are the VLF antennas which = scale to amateur sized LF antennas. Rugby GBR on 16kHz increased the = capacity substantially in 1967 when the station was refurbished. = Incresing the antenna top-load capacity has been shown to substantially = reduce the ground loss, though I have not seen this stated in quite this = way I have confirming measurements at = LF. 

 

Alan

G3NYK<= o:p>

----- = Original Message -----

From:<= /b> hvanesce =

Sent:<= /b> = Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:13 PM

Subject: = RE: LF: Daytime 29.499 kHz

 

Markus,<= /o:p>

 

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@bl= acksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_g= roup@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)

 <= /o:p>

From:= = hvanesce =

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

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/AJUSvXVI= IIn5p270.pdf          =  http://nova.stan= ford.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 =3D [.046 * sqrt(f)]  *  1/{h * sqrt(s) * = sqrt[1 – (fc/f)^2]}    (in units of dB per 1000 = km)     (5)

 

where f =3D 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@bl= acksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_g= roup@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_03F8_01CF3B64.4D962E50--