[Lowfer] WM too bright!

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:56:52 -0600

I believe what someone told me last winter that the tree sap is down in the
roots and the trees are more dry and frozen hence less absorption. I see my
verticals signal goes up dramatically when the temp is below 32F and even
more so when it goes below zero. If the temp goes above 32F the verticals
signal goes down almost half of what it was at the below 32F point.

Mike>WE0H

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Laurence KL1X
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] WM too bright!

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" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
 _______________________________________________