Message-ID: <001501c358f0$32b7af80$75c428c3@bryan2>
From: "captbrian" <captbrian@ukonline.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:17:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: 500m drums of coax  dipole
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Is there the slightest evidence that 136 propagates  (propogates?) by
scatter or reflection.? I assume most of a 2" high dipole radiation goes
straight up to Mars.

Bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: G0MRF@aol.com <G0MRF@aol.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: 02 August 2003 11:47
Subject: LF: 500m drums of coax?


>
>
>> >Are you making a coax dipole for 136?
>> >
>> >73
>> >John Rabson G3PAI
>>
>I've always wondered about dipoles / loops at 136k?
>A 'dipole' just lying on rocky ground where the water table is many metres
>below the surface could be quite effective. The angle of radiation would be
poor
>but the efficiency may not be as bad as first suppossed. One advantage of a
>big antenna on the ground is that it can't fall down and, for the local
>planning committe, it's less than 9 feet high.
>
>Some time ago I tried to simulate this by making a dipole for 21MHz and had
a
>number of QSOs through it while gradually lowering it's height and
retrimming
>as I went. I managed to work Romania were I sent "Ant dipole  5cm agl".  I
>have no idea what the Romanian though of this madness and he didn't stay
around
>long to find out.
>Incidentally, at about 2 inches off the ground the antenna was resonant at
>about 20% less than it's normal 'free space length'. Never did find a big
field
>to try it on 136k.
>
>73
>
>David  G0MRF
>