Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dd11.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dd11.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.151]) by air-da08.mail.aol.com (v127_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILINDA081-85ea4ba4a8b32b4; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:51:31 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-dd11.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 6E232380000E4; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NswG8-0001bp-OV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:50:24 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NswG8-0001bg-95 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:50:24 +0000 Received: from parrot.netcom.co.uk ([217.72.171.49]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NswG5-0002nN-VW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:50:24 +0000 Received: from abelian.netcom.co.uk (i-194-106-52-83.freedom2surf.net [194.106.52.83]) by parrot.netcom.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33EE328CB5 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:47:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by abelian.netcom.co.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o2KAoF8S023614 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:50:15 GMT Message-ID: <4BA4A867.1060907@abelian.org> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:50:15 +0000 From: Paul Nicholson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Cooperative ionosphere effects Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40974ba4a8b10c36 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Some daily plots of the background noise amplitude at 8.97kHz, each point averaged across 12Hz for 120 seconds, and rescaled to 1Hz bandwidth: http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100305.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100306.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100307.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100308.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100309.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100310.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100311.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100312.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100313.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100314.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100315.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100316.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100317.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100318.9kHz.png http://abelian.org/vlf/live/100319.9kHz.png Some days are quieter than others, compare for example the 12th with the 17th - a 6dB difference during the day. The average bearing of the noise is as important as the amplitude. If it is broadside to the wanted signal we gain typically another 6dB, sometimes even more. Therefore, we can expect 12dB or more difference between a day with favourable conditions and a poor day. Conditions for the test Monday 15th were not ideal, noise was not at its lowest and the bearing was unfavourable at the time. Alexander wrote: > You mentioned 'cooperative D-layer' before. Sorry, this is just my use of language. I just mean that the D-layer and the noise is working in our favour - it is cooperating with us. I don't refer to a physical effect. I wrote: >> My 'dream' would not be dx records, but to find a >> cooperative role Alex: > What does it mean? Here I mean that amateurs might be able to find a way to cooperate with researchers to do something useful. For example, detection and measurements of whistler ducts... If a thunderstorm is present beneath or near the entrance to a duct, some of the sferic energy will travel through the duct and be dispersed into whistlers at the other end. They often reflect back from the far end back to the source to produce a 2-hop whistler, or sometimes multi-hop as the sferic energy bounces back and forth. Researchers have to rely on a thunderstorm being present, otherwise the duct is not detected. The 'causative' sferic has to be identified for each whistler and its location determined from lightning triangulation systems. The size (width) of the entrance can be estimated from the statistics of these random sferics, and much information about the magnetosphere can be determined from analysis of the whistler signals themselves. If a beacon transmitter was present beneath the duct entrance, beaming upwards, some signal will pass through and echo back by reflecting from the upper surface of the ionosphere at the far end. The transit time is half a second or so as the whistler mode signal passes far out into the magnetosphere. It can be amplified - laser fashion, by interaction with plasma. If an echo is detected, a duct is present and measurements can be made without relying on the luck of having a thunderstorm nearby. Perhaps this could be done at low ERP - I haven't done the calculations, but one might imagine a system comprising a beacon tx with slow triangular FM and a rx or coherent network of rxs scanning for a weak delayed echo - the same triangular modulation but delayed perhaps up to half a second or so. Software would have to de-chirp the triangle for all range of delays, with continuous moving average over 10 or 20 mins to dig the echo out of the noise. If that could be made to work, researchers would be falling over themselves to get at your data! Well that is just an 'off the top of the head' suggestion to illustrate the kind of cooperation I mean. It is very advanced but I don't think any part of it is beyond amateur capability. It requires many different skills to come together in a joint effort. If it actually worked, the value to research could be immense. Isn't this kind of thing so much more meaningful than just exchanging callsigns and signal reports (rewarding though that is to those involved)? Perhaps the VLF band should be treated by amateurs as a place to do experiments, rather than just another band on which to score dx points. -- Paul Nicholson --