the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Tracking Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances through Doppler-shifted AM radio transmissions
Abstract. Six specialized radio receivers were developed to measure the Doppler shift of amplitude modulation (AM) broadcast radio carrier signals due to ionospheric effects. Five were deployed approximately on a circle at a one-hop distance from an 810-kHz clear-channel AM transmitter in Schenectady, New York, and the sixth was located close to the transmitter, providing a reference recording. Clear-channel AM signals from New York City and Connecticut were also received. The experiment confirmed detection of travelling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs) and measurement of their horizontal phase velocities through monitoring variations of the Doppler shift of reflected AM signals imparted by vertical motions of the ionosphere. Comparison of thirteen events with simultaneous global navigation satellite system (GNSS) based TID measurements showed generally good agreement between the two techniques, with differences attributable to differing sensitivities of the techniques to wave altitude and characteristics within a complex wave environment. Detected TIDs had mostly southward phase velocities, and in 4 cases they were associated with auroral disturbances that could plausibly be their sources. A purely automated software technique for event detection and phase velocity measurement was developed and applied to one year of data, revealing that AM Doppler sounding is much more effective when using transmitter signals in the upper part of the AM band (above 1 MHz) and demonstrating that the AM Doppler technique has promise to scale to large numbers of receivers covering continent-wide spatial scales.
- Preprint
(2043 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2383', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2383/egusphere-2024-2383-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2383', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Oct 2024
First off, I wish to apologize to the authors for a very late response.
This investigation presents a study using AM Doppler measurements from 5 stations in the northeast USA and extends the previous work done by Chilote et al., 2015. The methodology that is more general than the more standard 3-station configuration for the velocity and direction of propagation estimates of TIDs. Three methods are applied, but methods following from a previous investigation by Chum et al., 2014 are shown in the tables, along with uncertainty estimates. The events are further compared with GNSS keograms to compare the direction of propagation from GNSS vs. this method using AM Doppler. While there is generally good agreement, there are two events which show significant differences. Some examination of the events versus auroral activity is also presented.
This techniques paper is fundamentally publishable, however after some significant clarifications and revisions. Since the purpose is to discuss some of the methods of estimation used, more work needs to be done in a few areas in particular before the paper will be acceptable for publication. The generalization of TID direction and speed using multiple midpoints is indeed an advancement in terms of the usual 3-point methods describe in many other TID publications. This paper also makes comparisons between HF methods and GNSS, which is a type of comparison that needs to happen more frequently, and to understand the limitations of either method.
Major issues:
1. Three methods are used to estimate the TID velocity and direction. However, I had a very hard time understanding the sine method. I think a figure of some sort could go a long way towards describing what is written out in lines 205. It wasn't clear to me what you were doing here.
2. Why didn't you compare between the methods for TID estimation and present that in table 2? You sort of mention the methods, but only present findings from the Chum et al., 2014 method.Â
3. How were your uncertainties calculated as presented in Table 2? I didn't see anything in the paper regarding this point. The uncertainty estimates are also fairly sizable too. Why is that? In some cases it looks like the uncertainty is makes it really hard to know how fast the TID is actually propagating since the range is significant It is difficult to draw a conclusions from that.
4. I think a limitation of your investigation is that the baselines are fairly short. This should be discussed a little bit more in the text.Â
5. It wasn't clear to me but were there always days of large AE that corresponded to the LSTIDs? Or were there intervals when it was geomagnetically quiet, but you still saw LSTIDs?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2383-RC2
Data sets
Replication data for: "Tracking Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances through Doppler-shifted AM Radio Signals" James LaBelle https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/L3JXIH
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
119 | 74 | 12 | 205 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 119
- PDF: 74
- XML: 12
- Total: 205
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1