Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27916 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2001 00:43:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 19 Jun 2001 00:43:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 16548 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2001 00:43:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 19 Jun 2001 00:43:37 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15C9WG-0005Oh-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:37:24 +0100 Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.7]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15C9WF-0005Ob-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:37:23 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from MarkusVester@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id l.80.bdc4ee9 (18255) for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:36:18 -0400 (EDT) From: MarkusVester@aol.com Message-ID: <80.bdc4ee9.285ff881@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:36:17 EDT Subject: LF: Steep skywaves, polarisation, non-reciprocity To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 72 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi John, Alan, Mike, Rik and all, >> I remember hearing slow QSB on the transmissions of G2AJV (when I was in >> GW) and GW4ALG, both at about 300km. They both used loops and I have >> not heard QSB at less than 450km with Marconi antennas. > I can confirm that Roger, G2AJV, had a lot of QSB while othere G's at > about the same distance (but using verticals) had no QSB. One point may be polarisation: While the groundwave must have vertical E-field and transverse H to propagate, a skywave from above can have two independent polarisations of its horizontal magnetic field (and no E-field over conducting ground). We could surely think about re-using bandwidth by polarisation multiplexing ;-) In a coordinate system with z pointing vertical and x towards the receiver, the skywave of a vertical Tx antenna can be received by its Ez and Hy fields. The same would apply for a Tx loop oriented to the maximum (ie loop-plane in x-z) or a horizontal x-dipole. In the minimum orientation (ie in y-z), these would produce only Hx at the receiver and be undetectable by a vertical. And in the in-between case of near-minimum orientation, the skywave would be preferred and fading emphasized. > But there is one thing that I never really understood : > Even if a (transmitting) loop produces a lot of 'steep angle' radiation a > vertical antenna (for receiving) should be rather insensitive for the > incoming 'steep angle' signal. One would expect to notice the QSB only with > both TX and RX side are using loops. > But I could notice the QSB with a vertical as RX antenna. > If the reciprocal principle works then any antenna that can receive 'steep > angle' transmission should also transmit at these angles. > > 73, Rik ON7YD Yes, even though theoretically a path may be non-reciprocal at a given instant due to Faraday rotation in earth's field, on a long-term average the swapping of Rx and Tx antennas should give equal results. For 300km separation, the elevation would be around 35 deg, low enough for a vertical to be effective. How about that possible short-term non-reciprocity: Apparently it is common in moonbounce work, but can it really be observed at LF? As a simple experiment, one could (perhaps automatically) transmit periodic signal reports in a fading situation, and look for discrepancies at the other end. Regards Markus, DF6NM