Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Low-angle Elevation Gain of a 1/4-wave Vertical Monopole | Antenna | |||
Vertical radiation from horizontal dipole? | Antenna | |||
Vertical Radiation Pattern? | Antenna | |||
Vacuum tube characteristics | Boatanchors | |||
Cardiod radiation pattern - 70 cm phased vertical dipoles | Antenna |