Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Phil Graham" data-source="post: 43046" data-attributes="member: 430">Re: M1d array correctionNot today, sorry. Eventually, probably.I would never suggest that turning down the nearest boxes is going to reduce the local LF level, nor would I suggest that is a viable means for managing the local LF levels. The wavelengths are very long, so the turning down of the bottom array boxes in the name of even HF balance is going to have minimal effect on the overall array performance and may actually result in smoother side lobe behavior.A long array is only (about) half the battle. The real issue is the low frequency azimuth to the array vs. the HF azimuth. A longer array doesn&#039;t fix this issue. Array length only really determines how effective other means of addressing the difference in azimuth will be.No, this is in no way Galileo-specific.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Phil Graham, post: 43046, member: 430"] Re: M1d array correction Not today, sorry. Eventually, probably. I would never suggest that turning down the nearest boxes is going to reduce the local LF level, nor would I suggest that is a viable means for managing the local LF levels. The wavelengths are very long, so the turning down of the bottom array boxes in the name of even HF balance is going to have minimal effect on the overall array performance and may actually result in smoother side lobe behavior. A long array is only (about) half the battle. The real issue is the low frequency azimuth to the array vs. the HF azimuth. A longer array doesn't fix this issue. Array length only really determines how effective other means of addressing the difference in azimuth will be. No, this is in no way Galileo-specific. [/QUOTE]

Verification