Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 09:46 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default Vertical Monopole Radiation Characteristics

Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 1, 11:21 am, wrote:
I haven't really given this much thought, but seems to me the
low angle radiation that does reach the ionosphere and would
be useful for very long ranges would be considered the lower angles
of the space wave, and would be separate from the ground or surface
wave...


I totally agree. That is the point I have been trying to make:
radiation from low elevation angles is not attenuated virtually to
zero before it reaches the ionosphere.

RF


I'm completely confused about the point you were trying to make. You
called NEC results "misleading" when showing only "far field" (sky wave,
without surface wave) results, and implied that the surface wave must be
considered when determining skip performance. Are you now agreeing that
it correctly shows the amount of radiation at low angles which is
capable of reaching the ionosphere? If so, what's misleading about it?
Or are you saying that the field strength capable of reaching the
ionosphere at low angles is greater than NEC "far field" (sky wave)
analysis reports? And if so, how much greater and why?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 1st 09, 11:25 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 440
Default Vertical Monopole Radiation Characteristics

On Jan 1, 3:46*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:

I'm completely confused about the point you were trying to make.
You called NEC results "misleading" when showing only "far field"
(sky wave, without surface wave) results, and implied that the
surface wave must be considered when determining skip per-
formance.


No, I did not write that the surface wave must be considered when
determining skywave performance. Your understanding of what I posted
is incorrect. Please re-read what I posted previously, and quote us
any of my text that you believe supports your present conclusion about
this.

Do you reject the data in the Terman and Laport plots I linked to
showing that the most distant, single-hop skywave coverage over a
real, curved earth originates from space wave radiation at very low
elevation angles (less than 5 degrees above the horizontal plane at
the transmit antenna site)?

Are you now agreeing that it (far-field NEC) correctly shows the
amount of radiation at low angles which is capable of reaching
the ionosphere?


Absolutely not, and I am rather surprised that, apparently,
you believe and support this concept.

RF
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low-angle Elevation Gain of a 1/4-wave Vertical Monopole Richard Fry Antenna 62 December 3rd 08 02:21 AM
Vertical radiation from horizontal dipole? lu6etj Antenna 14 August 23rd 06 07:24 PM
Vertical Radiation Pattern? jimbo Antenna 1 July 17th 05 12:07 AM
Vacuum tube characteristics OCEANRADIO Boatanchors 0 December 19th 04 04:03 PM
Cardiod radiation pattern - 70 cm phased vertical dipoles Ray Gaschk Antenna 3 February 21st 04 12:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017