Pathloss User Forums  

Go Back   Pathloss User Forums > Pathloss Forums > Pathloss Users Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:19 PM
JoelW JoelW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13
Default Longley-Rice vs Pathloss diffraction algorithm

I just compared a challenging UHF path in Pathloss with the same path in Radio Mobile. Pathloss showed it as being a good path, with about a -81 dBm Rx level. Radio Mobile instead showed a -100 dBm level. Radio Mobile uses the Longley-Rice algorithm, no choices. Pathloss by default uses the "Pathloss" algorithm.

The difference between these two is dramatic, enough so that if I were to recommend this path (trusting Pathloss) I'll guess that my customer would be very unhappy with me. There's a 200 foot tall hill about 80% of the way along the path that sticks up like a sore thumb and is the cause of the trouble.

Two questions:

- Does anybody have a good reason for why the two calculations would provide such dramatically different results? (19 dB!!)

- Should I be running all my paths using two or three algorithms, and then using the worst-case result? How do I decide which to go with?

Yes, I have read the brief discussion on this topic in the Pathloss manual. It's so short that it's clearly meant for people who are already path study experts. What I need is some good clear discussion on the topic. (that hopefully won't require me to lock my office door for 6 months and study the topic at a PhD level)

Joel

Last edited by JoelW; 07-22-2008 at 06:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-23-2008, 05:14 AM
ImranSabir ImranSabir is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 48
Default

On obstructed paths, the Longley-Rice irregular terrain algorithm estimates the loss using the weighted average of the smooth earth loss and the loss of a double knife edge. The weighting factor is based on empirical data and considers the following parameters:


terrain roughness effective antenna heights
frequency horizon angles

For smooth paths, the loss approaches the smooth earth value. For very rough paths the loss approaches the double knife edge value. The Pathloss automatic diffraction algorithm defaults to irregular terrain when the path cannot be characterized as a single or multiple isolated obstacle(s).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-24-2008, 10:44 AM
Lars H-L Lars H-L is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Which diffraction method/algorithm to use depends on the path in question. From the sparse information you give, it seems to me that you should use the isolated obstacle algorithm. This method accounts for the rounding (profile radius) of the obstructing hill, which can be set independently.

If you need a reliable (final) value for the diffraction loss and its variability a field radio test may be the only way.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-18-2008, 05:32 PM
JoelW JoelW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13
Default All well and good, BUT...

Unfortunately I spend much of my time doing other work. I'm not a PhD candidate, nor do I have a day or a week to spend on each and every path. Typically I actually spend an hour or less on each path.

This makes it very difficult to be spending much time performing complex analyses of the terrain. That's why I bought the software, and I was really hoping it would be capable of performing a reasonably accurate analysis after it studied the terrain. What else is it for, after all? Is Path Loss just an expensive HP calculator?

If anyone knows of a website or document which discusses the various algorithm choices in layman's terms I would greatly appreciate hearing about it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.