Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23226 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1999 23:48:17 +0100 Received: from magnet.plus.net.uk (HELO magnet.force9.net) (195.166.128.26) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 16 Sep 1999 23:48:17 +0100 Received: (qmail 22982 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1999 22:52:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnet.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 16 Sep 1999 22:52:31 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11Rk3V-0001Uh-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:31:05 +0100 Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.80]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11Rk3U-0001Uc-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:31:04 +0100 Received: from [212.140.6.170] (helo=default) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Rk3M-0006un-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:30:57 +0100 Message-ID: <004701bf0092$9bd02d40$6801063e@default> From: "Alan Melia" To: "rsgb_lf_group" Subject: LF: Dick & Peter's simulations Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:22:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi thanks for a fascinating and instructive discussion, it is surprising at first just how close Peter and Dick's results are. I suppose on reflection the methodology is the same in both programs, one might expect similar answers. It probably says more about the accuracy, rounding errors and such, in the calculations. I must admit I like simulations, even if they don't yield the right (practical) answers, they do give you a good handle on the 'way things move'. I started a long time ago simulating dopant diffusion in transistors on a hand cranked calculator. The accuracy was about +/- 100% because as it turned out,the diffusion parameters were not known accurately enough. If I'd been a bit cleverer at maths I wouldn't have needed to use the numerical approach....but it was a lot more interesting seeing the numbers, and getting a 'feel' for their significance. I am now waiting to hear the practical side of the 'T' antenna story!! One thing that seems to leap out from Dick's figures is that there is not a lot to be gained by spacing multiple wires by more than 0.5 m. Interestingly the improvement in going for 4 top wires of 5m is the same as 2 of 10m (about 50%). The percentage gain is the same at either 10m or 20m height. So its the total length of wire you can support in the sky nearly horizontal that is important. Confirming the descriptions of antennas that note the total length of wire used. I have wondered whether using a antenna system like Steve (GW4ALG) has, it would be of any benefit to build a small capacity load with very light stiff wire ('piano' wire) say 2m in diameter with a few spokes. (Would this be the same as a single 6m flat top?) As it is at a voltage point the resistance of the wire won't matter too much and it would probably also act as an 'anti corona' device as well. Of course this thin stiff wire would not yield as high a capacitance to ground. I could see Steve having difficulty controlling something like this in a wind though. As I read ( and probably extrapolate incorrectly) Dick's results, the effect of this small a 'capacity hat' on top of a 20m vertical should produce an increase in Rs of 60%!! That's assuming Steve doesn't already use a metalised balloon! If it works this might be on as a top-load for the verticals made with those thin whippy fibreglass tubes. On a slightly different tack, the effects of nearby trees adding loss has been described. Has anyone any idea how far away one needs to be to reduce the effect the a manageable level. I assume it is a near field effect so will fall of fairly rapidly with increased spacing? For instance I have 5m fruit trees under the proposed 13m high top. Is that a problem or do I need to do some radical 'pruning' this winter. I presume the vertical section should be at least its own height away from buildings, masts etc. but is a smaller spacing workable? I suppose these questions have been answered before, but I dont mind standing up as the dunce and asking the silly questions again. These are the sort of questions the simulations won't answer but our rapidly increasing fund of practical experience soon will. Great Stuff....cheers de Alan G3NYK Alan.Melia@btinternet.com