Hi Rik and Johan I triggered Laurie to run his models for EZNEC again ( I am like that ....get other people to do my "dirty work" ...hehe ...thanks Laurie) again with a commercial vertical 1/4 wave a
Looking at the patterns: am I right to conclude that not-so-perfect ground will only attenuate the surface wave (radiated at 0°) but will not affect skywave (or even improve it a bit)? I don't know.
Dear Rik, Johan, LF Group, I should explain that I re-measured my "10m high x 40m" inverted L, which is actually 9.5m and 10.5m at the ends, and reaches a lowest point of about 8.7m near the middle,
Hello Johan, a most interesting theory to explain the "lost dB's". Looking at the patterns: am I right to conclude that not-so-perfect ground will only attenuate the surface wave (radiated at 0°) but
Hello, If there are a few dBs still missing when all near field losses have been taken into account, I would guess it is time to blame the non-perfect ground. The lower the ground conductivity, the w
Hello Jim, based on radiation resistance it should be 13.5 times better on 504 kHz [ (504/137)^2 ]. I guess that the remaining factor of 4.4 [ 59/13.5 ] is due to lower losses on 504 kHz. BTW: Simula
Dear LF Group, To complement the 136kHz field strength measurements done a few days ago, I have now made some measurements on 503.8kHz. The average of 57 measurements with an antenna current of 400mA
