Yuri:
I sent you a carefully-worded PRIVATE response to your earlier comments,
with a specific question. While I said nothing that embarrasses me by
your having forwarded my message to the Reflector, you were
inconsiderate to have unilaterally used my PRIVATE response as a
launching point for a chest-beating public tirade against those who use
mathematics or computer simulation as tools in their search for
understanding.
Having read some of your earlier jousts, it was precisely my desire NOT
to provide such a stimulus. As an engineer 34 years past my BEE and 30
years past my MSEE, I long ago learned that ALL tools, properly used,
are valuable, be they mathematical, computational, or empirical. I am
annoyed at having been used as your foil, and I shall refrain from
private discussions with you in the future.
73,
Garry
K3BU@aol.com wrote:
>
> (I am putting this on reflector in order to open the eyes of those who are
> interested:
>
> In a message dated 97-11-12 00:10:59 EST, Garry, NI6T writes:
>
> << Brown does not deny skewing associated with ducting. But his
> simulations, while showing the dramatic dependence of ducting upon the
> geomagnetic field, only show a few degrees of skew.
> I am not denying anyone's observations, but do you know of any
> analytic
> work that justifies, explains, or confirms large skews? >>
>
> Hi Garry,
> I am practical; engineer. If I see something happening I believe it, use it,
> and beat the competition in the contest with it.
> I don't care what Brown or other "scientists" say or explain, or what some
> mickey- mouse software says. (I'd like to meet them, in the contest!) The
> skewed propagation I have seen from 40 down to 160 is in order of up to 30 -
> 45 degrees (azimuth). The only thing I do not know is the possible vertical
> angle of signals entering and exiting the duct. Did not have the chance to
> seriously observe it, had no antennas specifically set up to detect that.
> >From casual experience (operated K3BU in 97 160m CW from Cape Henlopen DE)
> with being forced to run low - 40' Inv Vee - Radials (too windy for balloon),
> I found it easier to get the Eu stations to answer me than I was accustomed
> with balloon vertical. So my suspicion is that we need higher angles. I will
> try to have some high angle TX antenna in CQ WW CW from VE1ZZ place, see if
> it helps. In VE1 I would start hearing Eu around 3 pm they would start
> answering me around 7:30 pm. Jack had only 4 square on TX.
> What's your hangup with "analytic work"? I find that things are
> discovered by experimenters or by accident, and then the guys in white coats
> get wind of it, start studying it, write papers, present them at the
> conference of white coats, get the glory, while the real inventor doesn't
> even get mentioned. I tried to submit my paper on ducting radio propagation
> theory to RadioScience conference in Montreal in 80s, but was turned down.
> What some poor slob ham knows? Us, "scientists" in white coats and
> calculators know better. Right?
> I tell you another "shocking" discovery I made, that is not mentioned
> and doesn't fit bouncing theory ("mirrors" should be working the same way
> both ways): There is in order of 70 - 80 % disagreement between RX and TX
> antenna (which is better at the time). If you have bunch of stacked beams or
> multiple antennas at various heights, try to get reports on transmit and
> correlate them to reports you see on receive. I could not believe what I was
> getting (20m and up)! I used that in the contest, periodicaly I would do a
> check "number 1 - 2 - 3" and keep the better TX antenna on while running
> particular area. RX antenna was switched as needed.
> Same goes for antenna modelling software, I see so many "designs" taken
> so seriously. Everybody with antenna program is designer now. I tell good
> antenna, when it can hear (work) something that the other antenna can't. That
> is the ultimate test, and not what the plot shows. (Computer simulation is a
> handy tool, and I inted to use it, but for a guidance, and not as a gospel.)
> When designing my Razor Beams, I have seen so many variables and
> disagreements with "paper" wisdom, that I opted for experimental route and
> spent 4 months designing antennas on the test range. It sure made the
> difference, gave me 1 to 2 hour jump on W2PV.
> Another important factor in RX vs. TX antenna that is usually overlooked,
> is role of surroundings and terrain. ON TX generally you trying to have
> antenna up and unobstructed to get the max energy at the best momentary angle
> out. On receive you can have surroundings (atmosperic conditions, etc.)
> playing games being something like a lens or a dish, or reflecting plane.
> This provides some focusing and/or rejection. Have you heard stories about
> the guy in the valley hearing better than one on the hill? Or difference
> being on different sides of huge power lines? Or driven in a car and
> listening to marginal station and all of a sudden signal coming up 10 - 20
> dB, and it is only in that particular spot? This is why I suspect that we
> might need high angle TX antenna to get at those one way Eu at the beginning
> of the opening (our sunset).
> The point is, don't believe everything you read, paper can take a lot.
> Get the wires or tubing out and play with them. I am slowly gearing up to
> crack the "puzzles" and would appreciate the reports and observations on my
> signals and other's during the upcoming contests. I will be on 160 this
> season and will try to add some more antennas and noise fighting gadgets to
> my arsenal. Right now recovering from an operation, and pain permitting,
> sprucing up IC781 and TS870 and DSP and phasing gadgets, and....
> Hope this helps to wake up some into reality from the "virtual and calculated
> science". Boy, I love that noise, one way and skewed propagation on 160!
> Active 160 m operators can shed some light on what is happening, make it
> known to newcomers, so they can enjoy the band by knowing more than what we
> did.
> 73 for now
> Yuri Blanarovich
> K3BU, VE3BMV, P40A
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
> Submissions: topband@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
--
Garry Shapiro, NI6T
Visit the Northern California DX Club home page:
http://www.ncdxc.org
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|