Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Re: lf andnoise and offshore.

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: lf andnoise and offshore.
From: "Frank Gentges" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:02:12 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <014d01c3dac6$cd3aabe0$f89a8418@Peter> <[email protected]> <008301c3db50$4b377c60$b3c428c3@captbrian> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: <[email protected]>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
Let me add a few tidbits here as a nice discussion on sea gain seems to have begun.

At 24 kHz, vertically polarized signals become pretty much unreadable with the best technology about 25 feet under the surface. Horizontally polarized signals do much less well. At 130 kHz the distance would be less. While it is remarkable that the signals penetrate at all, most of the signal is reflected or absorbed. In our case I think we can neglect the component that penetrates down.

I suggest a model of a perfectly reflecting surface and sum the incoming waves accumulating into a coherent surface wave. Look at how the signal strength would be by looking out from the receiving antenna at zero degrees elevation. It is like summing a large number of samples where many tend to add and not so many subtract.

Then modify that model to account for wave tilt due to the imperfect conductivity of the sea water as the wave tilt will limit the length of surface that is reflecting. In the case of sea water that length will be quite long if these waves can make it all the way from NY City to the Outer Banks on surface waves.

Wave tilt is not covered in many modern texts but was topic for study with a few hardy souls such as Hund in his book on RF measurements back in the early 1930s. Hund dropped the subject in his secon revision. I would be happy to forward that section of his text as it seems to be a lost concept, at least over here in the US.

The whole subject of sea gain deserves some attention and discussion.

Frank K0BRA

Alberto di Bene wrote:

captbrian wrote:

Franks interesting bit about reception in NC refers to 770khz - a long way
from 136 - which in turn is a long way from the  navy/submarine freqs.
(anyone know what the navy freqs. are ? )

From the site of Renato Romero ( http://www.vlf.it/submarine/sbmarine.html ) :
----
Signals directed to atomic submarines in immersion. USA and Russia transmit in the ELF band generating a slow binary code. Frequencies are 76 Hz for the U.S. system and 82 Hz in the Russian system; the E.R.P. (Effective Radiated Power) is small, probably a few Watts, but signals are receivable around the world.
----

Note : they are 76 and 82 Hertz, not kilohertz...

73  Alberto  I2PHD









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>