[Lowfer] WEOH signal plots

[John Davis]

>So that is the hint to throw together my other Epson exciter and get the
>flattop running at the same time.

What a perceptive lad.  :-)

In reality, I was speaking hypothetically, because I have no idea whether
Lyle has the means to do this same sort of capture with two frequencies
simultaneously.  That could be the sticking point.  But it would surely be
interesting to watch!

John D


>I don't know the exact frequency the other
>Epson is sitting on but it was ordered to put out a signal after the
divider
>at 185.302kc. I bet it will be close to the other one anyhow. I just hope
it
>isn't too close to another Lowfer's signal or on top of Steve's friendly
>birdie on the ARGO screen. I will get building tomorrow night as long as
the
>GF doesn't have my evening planned out already. At any rate, there is no
>reason why I couldn't have it built by this coming weekend.
>
>Mike>WE0H
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lowfer-admin@mailman.qth.net [mailto:lowfer-admin@mailman.qth.net]
>On Behalf Of John Davis
>Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:37 PM
>To: lowfer@mailman.qth.net
>Subject: Re: [Lowfer] WEOH signal plots
>
>>A radio signal lives a complex life huh???
>
>
>That's a good way to put it.
>
>It's a most interesting experiment you and Lyle are conducting.  One
>consistent feature of the traces stands out rather well so far, and that is
>that the N-S receive loop and the vertical receive antenna both go up in
>level and come down in level together with much greater time correlation
>than either of them relative to the E-W receive loop.  This is pretty much
>to be expected.  But the most interesting things to me are that the N-W
loop
>consistently shows wider variations between the maximum and minimum levels
>than the vertical, and greater fluctuations *during* maxima and minima than
>the vertical.
>
>It suggests that with the loop, the horizontally polarized component of the
>received signal interacts with the vertically polarized component, which I
>suppose is also to be expected.  One might therefore predict that there
will
>be less variation between the N-S loop and the vertical during the daytime,
>because the polarization shifts and tilts arising from ionospheric
>reflection won't be as prominent in daylight.  (Maybe, anyway.  At higher
>latitudes in winter, skywave doesn't entirely vanish.  Single-hop may be
>fairly prominent.)
>
>Now, even if skywave is not a significant factor tomorrow, the surface wave
>will acquire tilt in transit too, resulting in some slight horizontal
>component at the receive loop.  But if skywave is not an appreciable
factor,
>one might still expect the variations between N-S loop and vertical to be
>less than the nighttime case, because that degree of tilt will be
relatively
>constant.
>
>What I really wish we could see, though, is a comparison with loop and
>vertical being used simultaneously at BOTH ends of the path, on closely
>adjacent frequencies.  That would be most instructive to watch.
>
>John D
>
>
>
>