Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12497 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 08:26:39 -0000 Received: from netmail02.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.221) by mailstore with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 08:26:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 17430 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 08:26:38 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 08:26:37 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 18Ovzh-0005vc-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:25:25 +0000 Received: from [62.253.162.42] (helo=mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Ovzg-0005vT-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:25:24 +0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([80.4.106.77]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20021219082524.YFRB14589.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer> for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:25:24 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c2a738$53353bc0$4d6a0450@oemcomputer> From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021209143359.02c73748@pb623250.kuleuven.be> <007a01c2a60a$30204460$4132f7c2@a7j7r2> <000701c2a618$b0d266c0$0c00a8c0@home> <000d01c2a61f$b1ab8480$0500a8c0@charter.net> <001701c2a63a$0b655720$0500a8c0@charter.net> <006c01c2a68b$343a5be0$4c2465d5@oemcomputer> <002001c2a6f2$46e367c0$d2c828c3@erica> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:26:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Re: Jason/antennas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01, USER_AGENT_OEversion=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group G3LDO wrote: > Also tried a change in the antenna configuration. Mike, G3XDV, found that > connecting the wires at the far end of his capacity top reduced the antenna > current. My antenna has always had the ends of the capacity top connected at > the far end so I tried disconnecting them. I also tried spacing them further > apart to 2m. The result - it didn't make the slightest difference that I > could measure! No. Sorry if I was unclear. I have three top wires, 18m long, running parallel and spaced 0.5m apart. The wires have always been joined at the far end, and this helps reduce the corona losses. I also had them joined at the feed end, next to the elevated loading coil at the top of the vertical section. What I did was to disconnect the join at the feed end, so that the coil fed just the centre wire. The current then went along this centre wire to the join at the far end, and returned along the two outer wires. This is what increased the resonant frequency when I would have expected the extra L in the top wires to decrease the frequency. I have concluded that the shorting wire close to the coil was probably having a capacitive effect on the coil and reducing the overall frequency. Whether the top wires are electrically in parallel or series seems to make no difference at all. Mike, G3XDV http://www.lf.thersgb.net =================