Author Topic: Ionosphere radio communication.  (Read 17517 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2015, 04:56:17 PM »
I am also a radio ham, currently inactive. I used to work the 10m band some years ago, regularly working contacts in Hawaii and the western States of the USA, particularly Arizona, California, Nevada and Colorado. Many of these contacts were members of 10-10 International, although I never was.

The lower bands, 15m and 20m were a lot easier to work, but 10m was a challenge because the skip was a lot less frequent being so close to fc (which varied according to atmospheric conditions and location). 10m propagation was also quite dependent on solar activity. You could try for weeks and get nothing and then all of a sudden the band would open up and "go mad" for a few days.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 05:38:31 PM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2015, 10:31:35 PM »
Charge density is electrons per cubic centimeter? Other than that I understood all you stated above
What actually matters is Total Electron Content - TEC. That's the total number of free electrons you encounter as you penetrate the plasma. In this case, the plasma is the earth's ionosphere.

There are actually multiple ionospheric layers created by multiple mechanisms, and some are more relevant than others at a given frequency. For example, the D layer is formed by solar UV at relatively low altitudes, 60-90 km. The recombination rate is high (electrons and ions easily find each other) so it disappears at night. It is significant mainly below 5 MHz or so and it absorbs more than it reflects, and this is why distant AM broadcast stations (0.54 - 1.7 MHz) disappear during the daytime. The 80 meter (3.5-4.0 MHz) and 160 meter (1.8-2.0 MHz) ham bands are also usually closed during the daytime, with local propagation only.

The F layer(s) at 150-500 km are the most important layers for long-distance "skywave" propagation. The air at those altitudes is so thin (the ISS flies in this region) that when ion/electron pairs form, they last a long time before recombining. They persist through the night, reflecting low frequency signals but letting high frequency signals escape to space.

Whether a signal reflects or goes through depends on both the critical frequency and the incidence angle. A signal might be reflected if it hits the ionosphere at a shallow angle but penetrate at a high angle. You can observe this phenomenon optically by going to the bottom of a swimming pool and looking up at the surface. At high angles you can see right through the surface, but at shallow angles (below the Brewster angle) the surface looks like a mirror.

This sets a Maximum Usable Frequency (MUF) for communication with some particular station. This explains the "skip" effect: you can only hear stations beyond a given distance because nearer signals hit the ionosphere at a high angle and go right through into space instead of being reflected. This is a very common (routine) phenomenon on the ham bands from 20 through 10 meters; very often you can only hear one side of a conversation. 20 meters is usually open to someplace on earth 24 hours/day, making it the most popular band for "DX" (working distant stations). The higher bands are often closed at night, with local propagation only, because the sun doesn't maintain sufficient ionization density in the F layers. Hams get very adept at picking frequency bands, usually a high frequency (short wavelength) during the daytime and a low one (long wavelength) at night.

Luke is quite right that at extremely high frequencies (above visible light) the atmosphere attenuates signals before they even get to the ionosphere. Most UV is absorbed by ozone and/or oxygen, and X- and gamma rays are absorbed entirely. It seems counter-intuitive that radiation famous for penetrating solid objects would be stopped by mere air, but it's true. Radio interacts only with free electrons, but ionizing radiation (anything shorter than mid-UV) will knock any electrons it finds loose even if they're bound to atoms. That takes energy from the radiation.

This is why lead is good shielding; it's not the mass per se but the high electron density that goes with it. Air has a sea level density of about a kilogram per cubic meter, and that can really add up. This is how nuclear weapons produce fireballs near the surface; most of their energy comes out as soft X-rays that are absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, heating it to incandescence.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 10:33:32 PM by ka9q »

Offline Gazpar

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2015, 11:05:49 PM »
Nice read.
Quote
This is why lead is good shielding; it's not the mass per se but the high electron density that goes with it
Is there a reason why aluminium was used as shielding in apollo? Lead has 82 electrons compared to 13 electrons from aluminium. I have read from clavius that high energy protons where easily shielded against but what about cosmic rays or x-rays in outer space and I dont think a material with few electrons could protect the astronaut from such a ionizing radiation.

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2015, 06:54:40 AM »
Nice read.
Quote
This is why lead is good shielding; it's not the mass per se but the high electron density that goes with it
Is there a reason why aluminium was used as shielding in apollo? Lead has 82 electrons compared to 13 electrons from aluminium. I have read from clavius that high energy protons where easily shielded against but what about cosmic rays or x-rays in outer space and I dont think a material with few electrons could protect the astronaut from such a ionizing radiation.

Both for purposes of weight reduction and avoiding inducing too much Bremsstrahlung.

From http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2015, 06:38:04 PM »
I have read from clavius that high energy protons where easily shielded against but what about cosmic rays or x-rays in outer space and I dont think a material with few electrons could protect the astronaut from such a ionizing radiation.

Taking some of these points:

Apollo did not have sufficient shielding to protect against galactic cosmic rays (GCR), but then the dose from such radiation would not be problematic on a short trip. GCR fluctuates with the solar cycle, and at solar maximum GCR tends to be lower. Apollo flew through a solar maximum. GCR becomes a problem on a trip to Mars (or beyond).

X-rays. Indeed there is an X-ray flux from the sun to consider. However, the X-rays produced in solar events are predominately soft X-rays which are readily attenuated by a several cms of air, so not a problem for the Apollo hull. There are X-rays with higher energies to contend with, but their flux levels are extremely low.

The main problem for the astronauts is a Solar Proton Event, or SPE. These events have a distinct definition, and non occurred during an Apollo flight, not that I am aware of, and I have trawled the literature to look for them. In fact I have cross referenced that much literature in a search to prove the CTs are talking BS, it has given me great joy in learning new ideas and concepts.

Solar Proton Events are generated by an event called a shock driven Coronal Mass Ejections (CME). A large proportion of CMEs are harmless and are ejected at speeds comparable to the solar wind. However, once in a while the speed of the CME exceeds a critical value (if I recall 500 km/s), and this results in charge separation through the plasma which creates an enormous electric field. This electric field accelerates protons in the solar plasma and causes massive solar storms. NOAA provides a frequency of such events, and I can assure you, that the astronaut killers do not occur often in each solar cycle. In fact, our CTs are quite adept at citing NOAA data, but miss out some rather telling facts from NOAA that shatter their arguments into splinters. :)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 06:44:20 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Gazpar

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2015, 11:12:24 AM »
I did understand all, thank you for your responses!

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2015, 02:07:37 PM »
Is there a reason why aluminium was used as shielding in apollo? Lead has 82 electrons compared to 13 electrons from aluminium.
High-Z (high atomic weight) materials like lead are good shielding for ionizing electromagnetic radiation (photons), which was the subject of my last message. But as Luke explained, ionizing photons aren't a serious problem in space as they are easily stopped by ordinary structural materials. You only have to be careful when you deliberately open a window to these photons for observation. Skylab astronaut Owen Garriott told me that they had a quartz window for taking pictures of the sun in ultraviolet, and all sorts of alarms would sound if that window was left uncovered when it wasn't in use.

At ~6000K the "surface" of the sun is simply too cold to generate much in the way of far UV or X-rays. Only solar flares generate a lot of hard photons because of the extreme heating (to millions of kelvins) of the ejected material by energy stored in a local magnetic field. Sometimes the far UV/X-rays are strong enough to rapidly and heavily ionize the D layer of the earth's ionosphere, causing an ionospheric radio blackout on the day side of the earth. The same thing happened during nuclear tests in space; fortunately these were banned long ago.

As Luke also explained, the main hazards to astronauts comes from energetic charged particles, not photons. Here it turns out that low-Z materials like aluminum and even hydrogen are better shields, per unit weight, than high-Z materials like lead. The Apollo command module structure was stainless steel and aluminum, and the whole thing was covered with a phenolic resin that contained a lot of carbon and hydrogen. Many of the plans for interplanetary spacecraft use their fuel and water tanks as shielding against solar mass ejection events. These are particularly effective shields because of their high hydrogen content.




Offline VQ

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Ionosphere radio communication.
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2015, 01:04:54 PM »
Is there a reason why aluminium was used as shielding in apollo? Lead has 82 electrons compared to 13 electrons from aluminium. I have read from clavius that high energy protons where easily shielded against but what about cosmic rays or x-rays in outer space and I dont think a material with few electrons could protect the astronaut from such a ionizing radiation.

Note that the spacecraft designers didn't add a layer to the capsule and say, "this is the radiation shielding." They built a capsule structure that would withstand the thermal and physical stresses of launch, spaceflight, and landing; and it had adequate radiation shielding without a dedicated, separate radiation protection system. Aluminum is a far better aerospace construction material than lead, which is soft and melts easily.