[Lowfer] WM too bright!

[Laurence KL1X]

Ill put a real time moose-o-meter on the web site, and an equivalent 
Imaginary one too...J becomes M.
Im imagining that real Moose are mostly C and too little L  (ie,  I C moose, 
or 2 L with the moose)

Auroral cam is something beyond me. We do get more than a little light 
pollution from the airport which I think think would spoil most shots.

joking or mathematics apart my insurgents do change the total electrical 
combination, and dependant on my temp and tuning can actually increase the 
aerial current (moose gain). Having two or more moose either laying down or 
walking fighting adjacent to the vertical can cause large variations in 
tuning - they are BIGGG and nasty tempered this time of year.

Im still looking for an answer of why we get so much reduced losses when  
the ground/trees freezes and temps get down below 0F . If my calcs are 
correct my total Resistance for the beacon array is now around 10 ohms, even 
with the "reduced" earth Mat. Is this purely a dilectric change in the local 
earth return...wouldnt the top few feet of the "conductive" part of the 
earth return (ac?) become worse - or is it that now the radio wave has 
increased virtual height as the top of the soil is less lossy and  the 
signal is penetrating more deeply into the soil? Im on glaicial till of of 
sand and clay with medium/poor conductivy/perm at LF. I know already  that 
the signal already pushes many meters down at this freq..

These questions and more...

Laurence
wd2xdw 137,77355 D120 CW6



>From: "John Davis" <longwave@mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: lowfer@mailman.qth.net
>To: <lowfer@mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: Re: [Lowfer] WM too bright!
>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:47:20 -0500
>
> >> and a realtime moose-o-meter could provide clues as to how well you
> >> might be radiating on any given day.  :-)
> >
> >Calibrated in Bullwinkles per square meter, of course.
> >
>
>Oh my.  Time to dust off our math textbooks, as that will involve complex
>numbers.
>
>As you recall, our hero's full name was Bullwinkle J Moose.  By invoking 
>the
>j-operator, we therefore must take into account both the real and imaginary
>components of all the moose in Laurence's yard.
>
>Presumably, if there are only real moose present [the (X+0J) 
>Bullwinkles/m^2
>condition] then only loss resistance will be affected.  However, if any of
>the moose are at least partly imaginary, then we would see
>(X+YJ)Bullwinkles/m^2, which, by the jayward transformation, will also
>reflect a reactive component, thus detuning the antenna itself.
>
>Conclusion:  Imaginary moose are likely to affect transmitted signal levels
>more than real moose alone.  Thus, some of the hitherto unexplained sudden
>changes in LowFER antenna performance may be accounted for by imaginary
>moose in the victim's vicinity.  Further support is lent to this theory by
>the fact that most operators whose antennae have suddenly changed 
>efficiency
>have, in fact, not been able to see any real moose in their neighborhoods.
>
>John D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>From the Lowfer mailing list
>Send messages to: Lowfer@mailman.qth.net
>To sub/unsub visit: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)