Tropospheric vs Sporadic-E Propagation Loss
For some time, Wireless Waffle has published an FM DX Logbook. This logbook records any DX (distance) reception of FM broadcast stations that have been received, through whatever means (i.e. home FM tuner, car radio, software radio). Though an interesting exercise in itself, a recent update to the page to show the propagation mode which has been used also included some simple calculations to show the number of metres travelled divided by the number of Watts of transmitter power, and an additional calculation working out what the received signal power would be, assuming free space path loss between the transmitting and receiving location.
The use of free space path loss as the propagation model is definitely not applicable for any mode of propagation other than line-of-sight but it proved to be a useful exercise. Based on the frequency and power of the transmitter, and the length of the path, it is possible to determine how strong the received signal would be, if the path was line-of-sight. The results show an interesting trend.
With the exception of a few shorter paths (up to about 150 km), the theoretical signal strengths received from broadcasts received via troposhperic propagation are clustered around -40 dBm (which equates to about 67 dBuV/m). Similarly, the theoretical signal strength of transmissions received via Sporadic-E propagation are clustered around -65 dBm (42 dBuV/m). Note that these are not measured signal strengths, but a calculation of how strong the signals would be if they were being received via a line-of-sight path - which they are not.
A previous Wireless Waffle article identified that around 40dBuV/m is required at a receiver for FM reception. It is almost certainly true, that in the case of both the DX reception via the troposphere, or via Sporadic-E, the actual received signal strength would be similar, as in both cases the signal would need to be strong enough to be successfully received: the necessary signal would be nearer the -65 dBm level than the -40 dBm level. If this is true, then it must also be true that the additional loss caused by a signal travelling via ducts in the troposphere compared to via ionised clouds in the E-layer is around 25 dB, as this is the additional loss which the signal could tolerate and still be received.
This just goes to show how effective Sporadic-E propagation is and why it is (or indeed was) such a problem for VHF television and radio broadcasters during the summer months when it is most prevalent. It also suggests that the path loss via Sporadic-E must be close to the free space value, as if the received signal strength is around 42 dBuV/m based on free space path loss, this is only a couple of dB different to that needed for successful reception and the actual path could not be introducing much in the way of additional attenuation.
The use of free space path loss as the propagation model is definitely not applicable for any mode of propagation other than line-of-sight but it proved to be a useful exercise. Based on the frequency and power of the transmitter, and the length of the path, it is possible to determine how strong the received signal would be, if the path was line-of-sight. The results show an interesting trend.
With the exception of a few shorter paths (up to about 150 km), the theoretical signal strengths received from broadcasts received via troposhperic propagation are clustered around -40 dBm (which equates to about 67 dBuV/m). Similarly, the theoretical signal strength of transmissions received via Sporadic-E propagation are clustered around -65 dBm (42 dBuV/m). Note that these are not measured signal strengths, but a calculation of how strong the signals would be if they were being received via a line-of-sight path - which they are not.
A previous Wireless Waffle article identified that around 40dBuV/m is required at a receiver for FM reception. It is almost certainly true, that in the case of both the DX reception via the troposphere, or via Sporadic-E, the actual received signal strength would be similar, as in both cases the signal would need to be strong enough to be successfully received: the necessary signal would be nearer the -65 dBm level than the -40 dBm level. If this is true, then it must also be true that the additional loss caused by a signal travelling via ducts in the troposphere compared to via ionised clouds in the E-layer is around 25 dB, as this is the additional loss which the signal could tolerate and still be received.
This just goes to show how effective Sporadic-E propagation is and why it is (or indeed was) such a problem for VHF television and radio broadcasters during the summer months when it is most prevalent. It also suggests that the path loss via Sporadic-E must be close to the free space value, as if the received signal strength is around 42 dBuV/m based on free space path loss, this is only a couple of dB different to that needed for successful reception and the actual path could not be introducing much in the way of additional attenuation.
Comments