Marshall Island and Amelia Earhart's SOS transmissions-sending again

I learned a long time ago not to define whats important to others.

Your turn to learn that.

73
Chip W1YW

 

[

This thread has a deja vu quality to it...

Yep!

Suitsat from 2006..where I predicted (correctly) failure within hours of deployment....then I got blamed for it.

Just as amazing in the responses...

Seems I do have a knowledge base....here's my invention on the cover of the latest Microwave Journal...

Someone told me to go play with my fractal antennas...

Yehhhhhh.....uhhuhhhhhh...


73
Chip W1YW

 

It's very difficult to prove a negative. Especially when there is a positive existence theorem:

With a high solar cycle I can receive beacons from around the world at very low power, and people regularly make contacts with QRP levels and lousy antennas under those conditions. So, the harmonic theory is plausible.

Obviously what actually happened is unknowable.

 

I don't understand why people have to result to name calling and insults just because they don't agree with someone. This whole thread is embarrassing.

 

Has the law of physics changed? Please explain as maybe I missed some startling new discovery!

 

Not trying to insult. Just pointing it out. But I am still out on it. At least, I think you have a sense of humor.

 

No, you want to portray me as some arrogant nasty guy, and then reinforce that myth with a nasty comeback.

Nah.

 

The ERP is very low because the antenna is essentially horizontal and only a few feet ofheight above sea water--at least in the assumed crash in 1937.

This makes the antenna essentially an NVIS antenna which is directional straight up.

F propagation requires very low angles of radiation for intercontinental skip. This antenna did exactly the opposite of that.

Some people assume that beacons--say on 10m--indicate plausible prop with low power, that presumably justify the scenario being discussed. But those beacons have moderate ERP's because they use high antennas, or verticals, with fairly low angles of radiation.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Re: W1yw, There is always one in the crowd...really get a life.
This is very cool and for you to come in and throw mud on a project like this.....

Everybody reading this..Please dont even pay any attention to this person, we all know one in our own area and you just ignore them...Im not waisting any more of my energy on it and neither should you....
Greg KF4JGU

 

No, i don't think you are "some arrogant nasty guy,". You are an intelligent man who for some reason believes that what goes on in another sovereign nation is the FCC's business.
I just have not figured out why yet. If it is anybody's business it is the M.I's business.
Hey maybe you could find out if the Marshal Island's government has issued a license for this operation. What say you?
One question tho'...if I sign with WN2C/KHAQQ is that legal? Anybody?

 

Greg,

My life is fine and full, and richy rewarding. Thanks for your concern about my well being.

Part 97 has three parts to its mission, and one is to 'enhance the radio art'. If we allow myths and nonsense to replace reason and knowledge, then we will have failed in our privilege as licensees, and taken the amateur radio service backwards, much as has happened with CB.

Several of us here have expressed and detailed concerns about the validity of this activity, based upon our knowledge and experience in these matters. We don't all agree. But so what? Its fun to learn from each other.

I am OK with your opinion, but I am not OK with allowing nonsense to replace testable scenarios and facts.

Think about this...from someone, like it or not, with quite a bit of wisdom and experience, and frankly quite a bit of tact with younger people...

73
Chip W1YW

 

No, you still have it wrong.

If you ID with KHAQQ you are illegally doing so unless the FCC has issued that callsign for use in 2016, and authorized you to use it..

It is under international agreement that callsign prefixes are assigned and each assigned country has control of consequences for unauthorized use.

Why don't you know this?

 

One cannot exclude the possibility of successful reception based on presumptions of low angle antennas being required.

Actually the angle of incidence required for a particular path depends on the ionospheric conditions at the time. In general a lower angle is better for long distance but that does not preclude higher angles at solar max when f0f2 is high.

If the path is over salt water as these were then the losses are lower on each hop so higher angles with more hops can be tolerated. Signals can also occasionally travel within the ionosphere with low loss for quite some distance before refracting back toward ground.

 

So, given the NVIS antenna, exactly how many F2 hops did you have in mind? Can you model this effect?

Sounds like you want to make long delayed echoes;-)