Randomized trial enhances long wave propagation prediction in global contexts, suggesting improved accuracy for communication.
The propagation characteristics of very low frequency (VLF, 3–30 kHz) and low frequency (LF, 30–300 kHz) electromagnetic waves in the Earth ionosphere waveguide (EIWG) are critical to long‐distance communication, navigation, and timing. To address limitations of traditional long‐wave propagation models (Long Wavelength Propagation Capability), for example, the static representation of ionospheric parameters, this study presents an optimized scheme incorporating international reference models. By incorporating the International Reference Ionosphere model to yield high‐resolution ionospheric parameters, coupling it with the NRLMSIS model for calculating neutral atmospheric component densities to enable accurate electron collision frequency derivation, and integrating updated geomagnetic parameters from the 13th International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF‐13) model, this approach improves the predictive accuracy of long‐wave propagation models. Validation using measured data from the VTX station for six propagation paths shows that the optimized model enables spatiotemporally continuous modeling of ionospheric electron density and collision frequency and eliminates non‐physical parameter discontinuities in the original model during dawn–dusk transition periods, with the equivalent reflection height exhibiting physically consistent continuous dynamic evolution. During daytime, the correlation coefficient between predicted and measured field strengths improved from −0.505 ∼ 0.566 to 0.638 ∼ 0.964, while the RMSE over the six paths decreased from 2.111 to 1.1537 dB, which indicates a improvement predictive performance. It should be noted, however, that the model's improvement is relatively limited during nighttime. This study presents a more reliable numerical framework for VLF/LF propagation prediction, thereby conferring practical value for engineering applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: