In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2015 03:40, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:45, Brian Howie wrote:

By coincidence my morning training run took me near the EDN NDB

http://www.b-howie.demon.co.uk/lfbcon.htm

It's a top loaded vertical, but looking over the fence, I could see a
lot green earth wire radials on the surface. It's possible there are
buried ones too , but there are only about 6 and they can't be more than
15ft long,

For the beacon to be of maximum use, they'll need a good sky-wave
signal; it sounds like the visible radials are there to provide a DC
path to earth probably in association with a ground spike, rather than
for getting the main lobe lowered.

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes.

That's amazing. So all those aircraft at 35000 feet in its service area
can't hear the beacon? If it didn't have sky wave, it would merely be a
ground-wave beacon, not much use as there aren't that many airports
within 35 miles of Edinburgh, and the aircraft captains would know where
they were anyway.

OK, I see the problem, you don't know what "skywave" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

BTW, at 35,000 feet, the propagation mode is line of sight out to
265 miles.

Sky wave propagation was discovered when amateurs started using frequencies
greater than 200 meters.

What's interesting here is now much of the radiated power goes
sky-wards, and how much goes into surface wave. But apparently no-one's
ever thought to determine this, so it'll remain a mystery.

The term for that is the vertical pattern and any antenna analysis
program will show it.

There have been LOTS of studies to determine the optimum vertical angle
for skywave propagation if that is what you are talking about.

--
Jim Pennino

On 05/12/2015 18:53, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2015 03:40, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:45, Brian Howie wrote:

By coincidence my morning training run took me near the EDN NDB

http://www.b-howie.demon.co.uk/lfbcon.htm

It's a top loaded vertical, but looking over the fence, I could see a
lot green earth wire radials on the surface. It's possible there are
buried ones too , but there are only about 6 and they can't be more than
15ft long,

For the beacon to be of maximum use, they'll need a good sky-wave
signal; it sounds like the visible radials are there to provide a DC
path to earth probably in association with a ground spike, rather than
for getting the main lobe lowered.

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That's amazing. So all those aircraft at 35000 feet in its service area
can't hear the beacon? If it didn't have sky wave, it would merely be a
ground-wave beacon, not much use as there aren't that many airports
within 35 miles of Edinburgh, and the aircraft captains would know where
they were anyway.

OK, I see the problem, you don't know what "skywave" means.

To be refracted back, the wave has to reach the relevant layer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

BTW, at 35,000 feet, the propagation mode is line of sight out to
265 miles.

And?

Sky wave propagation was discovered when amateurs started using frequencies
greater than 200 meters.

I've known that since 1956, but thanks for the reminder.

What's interesting here is now much of the radiated power goes
sky-wards, and how much goes into surface wave. But apparently no-one's
ever thought to determine this, so it'll remain a mystery.

The term for that is the vertical pattern and any antenna analysis
program will show it.

There have been LOTS of studies to determine the optimum vertical angle
for skywave propagation if that is what you are talking about.

Nope.

--
Spike

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles
with all its might against the attempts of crime"

- Maximilien Robespierre

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2015 18:53, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2015 03:40, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:45, Brian Howie wrote:

By coincidence my morning training run took me near the EDN NDB

http://www.b-howie.demon.co.uk/lfbcon.htm

It's a top loaded vertical, but looking over the fence, I could see a
lot green earth wire radials on the surface. It's possible there are
buried ones too , but there are only about 6 and they can't be more than
15ft long,

For the beacon to be of maximum use, they'll need a good sky-wave
signal; it sounds like the visible radials are there to provide a DC
path to earth probably in association with a ground spike, rather than
for getting the main lobe lowered.

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

That's amazing. So all those aircraft at 35000 feet in its service area
can't hear the beacon? If it didn't have sky wave, it would merely be a
ground-wave beacon, not much use as there aren't that many airports
within 35 miles of Edinburgh, and the aircraft captains would know where
they were anyway.

OK, I see the problem, you don't know what "skywave" means.

To be refracted back, the wave has to reach the relevant layer.

Didn't read the link below, did you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

BTW, at 35,000 feet, the propagation mode is line of sight out to
265 miles.

And?

And "those aircraft at 35000 feet" are receiving the beacon through
line of sight propagation, not skywave.


Sky wave propagation was discovered when amateurs started using frequencies
greater than 200 meters.

I've known that since 1956, but thanks for the reminder.

Perhaps you should have read more in 1956 to understand what the term
means.

What's interesting here is now much of the radiated power goes
sky-wards, and how much goes into surface wave. But apparently no-one's
ever thought to determine this, so it'll remain a mystery.

The term for that is the vertical pattern and any antenna analysis
program will show it.

There have been LOTS of studies to determine the optimum vertical angle
for skywave propagation if that is what you are talking about.

Nope.

Then you are ignorant of antenna analysis software and vertical radiation
patterns?

--
Jim Pennino

wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2015 18:53, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2015 03:40, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:45, Brian Howie wrote:

By coincidence my morning training run took me near the EDN NDB

http://www.b-howie.demon.co.uk/lfbcon.htm

It's a top loaded vertical, but looking over the fence, I could see a
lot green earth wire radials on the surface. It's possible there are
buried ones too , but there are only about 6 and they can't be more than
15ft long,

For the beacon to be of maximum use, they'll need a good sky-wave
signal; it sounds like the visible radials are there to provide a DC
path to earth probably in association with a ground spike, rather than
for getting the main lobe lowered.

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

That's amazing. So all those aircraft at 35000 feet in its service area
can't hear the beacon? If it didn't have sky wave, it would merely be a
ground-wave beacon, not much use as there aren't that many airports
within 35 miles of Edinburgh, and the aircraft captains would know where
they were anyway.

OK, I see the problem, you don't know what "skywave" means.

To be refracted back, the wave has to reach the relevant layer.

Didn't read the link below, did you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

BTW, at 35,000 feet, the propagation mode is line of sight out to
265 miles.

And?

And "those aircraft at 35000 feet" are receiving the beacon through
line of sight propagation, not skywave.


Sky wave propagation was discovered when amateurs started using frequencies
greater than 200 meters.

I've known that since 1956, but thanks for the reminder.

Perhaps you should have read more in 1956 to understand what the term
means.

What's interesting here is now much of the radiated power goes
sky-wards, and how much goes into surface wave. But apparently no-one's
ever thought to determine this, so it'll remain a mystery.

The term for that is the vertical pattern and any antenna analysis
program will show it.

There have been LOTS of studies to determine the optimum vertical angle
for skywave propagation if that is what you are talking about.

Nope.

Then you are ignorant of antenna analysis software and vertical radiation
patterns?

Jim doing a Jeff here and tearing Spike *yet another* new arsehole.
Excellent work, OM.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 06/12/2015 00:06, wrote:

snip

Your problem, or at least one of them, is that your first response
included this statement:

"Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes."

I let this slide in the interests of discussion, but seeing as you wish
to nit-pick and be rude, we'll revisit this by my asking you what you
meant, as you are implying that there is in fact some form of skywave at
these low-MF Aeronautical beacon frequencies. Please explain.

While doing that, please also explain what you think it is that causes
the claimed variations in the ground wave than enable DX beacon hunters
to hear such stations at very long ranges.

The relevant quotes are he

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

TIA

--
Spike

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles
with all its might against the attempts of crime"

- Maximilien Robespierre

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2015 00:06, wrote:

snip

Your problem, or at least one of them, is that your first response
included this statement:

"Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes."

I let this slide in the interests of discussion, but seeing as you wish
to nit-pick and be rude, we'll revisit this by my asking you what you
meant, as you are implying that there is in fact some form of skywave at
these low-MF Aeronautical beacon frequencies. Please explain.

I see you finally read the link so now you think you are going to sharp
shoot the original post.

BTW, "for all practical purposes" is synonymous with "unlikely to ever
happen".

While doing that, please also explain what you think it is that causes
the claimed variations in the ground wave than enable DX beacon hunters
to hear such stations at very long ranges.

Search for "ground wave propagation" and read up on it.

The relevant quotes are he

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

TIA


--
Jim Pennino

On 06/12/2015 18:29, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2015 00:06, wrote:

snip

Your problem, or at least one of them, is that your first response
included this statement:

"Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes."

I let this slide in the interests of discussion, but seeing as you wish
to nit-pick and be rude, we'll revisit this by my asking you what you
meant, as you are implying that there is in fact some form of skywave at
these low-MF Aeronautical beacon frequencies. Please explain.

I see you finally read the link so now you think you are going to sharp
shoot the original post.

BTW, "for all practical purposes" is synonymous with "unlikely to ever
happen".

You don't seem to know whether or not sky-wave exists at these
frequencies. 'Practically', sky-wave would be unreliable for NDB
working, but that doesn't mean to say sky-waves don't exist. When you
make up your mind about the topic, let me know what your answer is. To
help you, there is a shed-load of information out there on MF sky-wave
propagation.

While doing that, please also explain what you think it is that causes
the claimed variations in the ground wave than enable DX beacon hunters
to hear such stations at very long ranges.

Search for "ground wave propagation" and read up on it.

I can't take that from someone who doesn't know that sky-wave exists at MF.

Your variable ground-wave is a hoot.

The relevant quotes are he

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

You're a troll, aren't you?

--
Spike

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles
with all its might against the attempts of crime"

- Maximilien Robespierre

Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2015 18:29, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2015 00:06, wrote:

snip

Your problem, or at least one of them, is that your first response
included this statement:

"Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes."

I let this slide in the interests of discussion, but seeing as you wish
to nit-pick and be rude, we'll revisit this by my asking you what you
meant, as you are implying that there is in fact some form of skywave at
these low-MF Aeronautical beacon frequencies. Please explain.

I see you finally read the link so now you think you are going to sharp
shoot the original post.

BTW, "for all practical purposes" is synonymous with "unlikely to ever
happen".

You don't seem to know whether or not sky-wave exists at these
frequencies. 'Practically', sky-wave would be unreliable for NDB working,
but that doesn't mean to say sky-waves don't exist. When you make up your
mind about the topic, let me know what your answer is. To help you, there
is a shed-load of information out there on MF sky-wave propagation.

While doing that, please also explain what you think it is that causes
the claimed variations in the ground wave than enable DX beacon hunters
to hear such stations at very long ranges.

Search for "ground wave propagation" and read up on it.

I can't take that from someone who doesn't know that sky-wave exists at MF.

Your variable ground-wave is a hoot.

The relevant quotes are he

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

You're a troll, aren't you?

Gotten to, and rattled. That new arsehole you've been torn must sting a
little, OM!

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2015 18:29, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2015 00:06, wrote:

snip

Your problem, or at least one of them, is that your first response
included this statement:

"Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical
purposes."

I let this slide in the interests of discussion, but seeing as you wish
to nit-pick and be rude, we'll revisit this by my asking you what you
meant, as you are implying that there is in fact some form of skywave at
these low-MF Aeronautical beacon frequencies. Please explain.

I see you finally read the link so now you think you are going to sharp
shoot the original post.

BTW, "for all practical purposes" is synonymous with "unlikely to ever
happen".

You don't seem to know whether or not sky-wave exists at these
frequencies. 'Practically', sky-wave would be unreliable for NDB
working, but that doesn't mean to say sky-waves don't exist. When you
make up your mind about the topic, let me know what your answer is. To
help you, there is a shed-load of information out there on MF sky-wave
propagation.

The term is "skywave" and it is not known to happen below 500 kHz.

While doing that, please also explain what you think it is that causes
the claimed variations in the ground wave than enable DX beacon hunters
to hear such stations at very long ranges.

Search for "ground wave propagation" and read up on it.

I can't take that from someone who doesn't know that sky-wave exists at MF.

Once again, the term is "skywave".

Define MF; there is no exact frequency where skywave ceases to exist, but
it has not been observed below 500 kHz. That does not mean that under
some extreme ionospheric conditions is can not happen, it means no one
has ever seen it happen.

Your variable ground-wave is a hoot.

The term is "ground wave" and ALL propagation modes are variable due
to many reasons; a heavy rainstorm will effect ground wave propagation
as it changes the ground conductivity.


The relevant quotes are he

Sky wave propagation doesn't happen at those frequencies for all practical purposes.

Tell that to the beacon DX hunters.

That is ground wave propagation; I'd give you a link but you obviously
prefer to pull crap out of your ass to reading links.

You're a troll, aren't you?

Says someone that can not even use the correct terms.


--
Jim Pennino

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 01:17:34 -0000, wrote:

The term is "skywave" and it is not known to happen below 500 kHz.

I beg to differ. The current issue of QEX has an article on a WWVB 60
KHz frequency standard:
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/2015/Nov-Dec_2015/Magliacane.pdf
On Pg 15 is the section on 60 KHz propagation:
LF radio propagation is substantially different from that
which exists at higher frequencies. Its remarkable stability
and reliability have often led to the belief that 60 kHz
signals propagate great distances over ground wave paths alone.
In reality, a combination of surface wave and D-layer
ionospheric paths are responsible for WWVB signal propagation.
At night, cosmic background radiation supports a level of
D-layer ionization that is sufficient for propagating LF (and
lower frequency) radio signals over long distances. Greater
D-layer efficiencies and increased effective height with
decreased ionization levels contribute to greater signal
coverage during the nighttime hours. etc...

So, here we have propagation via the ionospheric D-Layer which I
believe is considered a skywave. Note that the author talks about
measuring broadcast band frequencies to an accuracy 312 micro-hertz,
where such things as varying path lengths are important.

The wavelength of 60 KHz is about 5 km. The height of the D layer
varies from 60 to 90 km or about 12 to 18 wavelengths at 60 KHz.
That's too big for a waveguide structure, which suggests that the
dominant mode of propagation is skywave, not ground wave.

There is no frequency at which ground wave ceases and skywave takes
over. There seems to be quite a bit of overlap.

Mo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency#Propagation_characteristics

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558