Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Reg Edwards" wrote in message ... "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message ... Reg wrote: The type of antenna or its radiation pattern has nothing whatever to do with the path taken by the radio wave through the ionosphere. The take-off angle and its name, generated by EZNEC, can be very misleading. It has to do. It allows us to direct the RF under desired angle to hit the layer or region that supports the propagation to the chosen target. ========================================= Yuri, The elevation angle of the radio path from the transmitter on its way to the target changes with the number of hops. The ionospheric propagation is not that clear cut simple, it is very complicated. We have reflections going on and we have refractions going on in the media that is like stormy sea. With the same height layer, and uniform conditions, you can have more hops under higher launching angle, or you can have fewer hops under lower angles. There could be another higher layer with more complications of ducting or "bouncing" between the layers. How does Eznec know the number of hops? How does Eznec know which angle is correct? How does Eznec know the height of the reflecting layers? How does Eznec know the distances at which the radio wave returns to Earth to be re-reflected? EZNEC knows sheeet about propagation. EZNEC and other antenna modeling software can calculate the radiation pattern of modeled (not real) antenna according to given ground parameters and antenna geometry. It gives you idea how the pattern looks, but not the where the signal goes after entering propagation media. Eznec doesn't know. And neither does the radio operator unless he estimates everything AFTER the event. I know based on my experience operating at various times in the sunspot cycle and my knowledge of propagation. There are now quite good propagation programs that based on propagation indices and flux numbers, can give rough idea where is the bulk of propagating going. Extreme antennas can do one better, propagate where software doesn't think you can. Radio waves follow paths dictated by trigonometry and geometry and are entirely independent of the idiosyncrasies of radio antennas. ---- Reg. Very fuzzy trig and geometry, it is not polished mirrors out there, it is fuzzy bunch of ion-clouds like "hamburgers" that do their thing massaging the signals. By using antennas that have stearable pattern, vertically and horizontally one can take advantage of various modes of propagation. So it takes natenna "idiot syncracies" to dictate where the signal goes, and how it will propagate, conditions permitting. See my article on "conducting" way back in CQ Magazine http://members.aol.com/ve3bmv/bmvpropagation.htm Yuri, K3BU, VE3BMV |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
That pesky 7238 kHz CW signal | Homebrew | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna | |||
signal to noise ratio drops on connecting the antenna | Homebrew | |||
signal to noise ratio drops on connecting the antenna | Homebrew |