Paul, Jim,
Paul, if you wound a coil for me to resonate on 2 kHz, i will do it ;-)
But if i get the special permission for 300m we could test on 8,97 but also on
5,18kHz (3*C => f=8,97/sqrt3=5,18)
Maybe it is necessary to stay on the ground and focus on 8,97 than even going
lower. I cannot imagine that we get an improvement at even lower frequencies.
Jim, have you seen the output wave form? If it is not rectangular, it might be
a problem if high accuracy is needed. You know, i have a switching mode PA. And
i will inform the group about the next test. I will plan it in the morning
about 10 UTC, maybe on a sunday. Would be nice if you will be also one of the
receivers! And no problem abt my notebook: It is fed by it's normal power
supply that is connected to the generator. And the generator can be refilled
during operation;-)
Stefan
________________________________
Von: [email protected] im Auftrag von Paul Nicholson
Gesendet: Di 16.03.2010 23:29
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: AW: LF: 8.97kHz antennas
Stefan schrieb:
> The most enjoyable finding (within ham experiments)is, that the
> E field decay relly seems to be rather ~ 1/sqrt(d) than ~1/d :-)
1/sqrt(d) is doing better than 1/d, so far with just one data point
to go by.
> Does that mean that if the ERP is 3dB higher (21kV instead of the
> 15kV i had yesterday), the maximum distance will be 4 times the
> old distance, ideally?
There is also an attenuation factor. Approx 3dB per 1000km in
daylight, and 2dB/1000km at night, at 10kHz. Combine that with
1/sqrt(d) and we are getting a good match with your measured flux
density.
The D layer is quite absorbing to higher frequencies, but at VLF
it is more of a mirror. It is appropriate then to look at propagation
in terms of cavity modes, as compared to following rays.
9kHz is a bad frequency - background noise is highest there because
lightning energy couples well to the Earth-ionosphere cavity at
that frequency, giving a broad peak in the noise spectrum.
Better might be say 2kHz, just above the waveguide cut-off frequency,
where noise is low. Obviously lower ERP but maybe the lower
noise more than compensates? Must do some arithmetic...
(Always there is more arithmetic. Flying kites sounds nice.)
Earth 'loops'? Could work in some situations. Limestone country
with underground stream to complete the loop? Top to bottom of
a long rocky escarpment, forcing current to go the long way round?
Oxbow bend in a stream over rock or clay? Hard to model. Easy and
fun to test.
--
Paul Nicholson
--
<<winmail.dat>>
|
