Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.57.9 with SMTP id e9csp63555igq; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.150.201 with SMTP id uk9mr5673250lbb.61.1373034042666; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mp7si3316472lbb.72.2013.07.05.07.20.41 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@comcast.net Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Uv6rR-00007i-Le for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:19:45 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uv6rR-00007Z-54 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:19:45 +0100 Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.64]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Uv6rP-000347-0j for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:19:43 +0100 Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wdxA1l0071ZXKqc57eKhuF; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:19:41 +0000 Received: from DELL4 ([71.234.119.9]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id weKg1l00Y0CFS1j3heKg0c; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:19:41 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> From: To: References: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:19:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1373033981; bh=tTNM5JGip6Cy8/zS+DcdmAO4IuQaM55tozl8Pmc++1E=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=Y6nT2CvAKXoGl1mBGmtEHLjnuUuo8xd04y/jbhES9cQho9qy65BA5slRD08VbTKks DBq8yZas92pWMMU79zqMhNUJZDNACWJyRJaK5dXEjrmTFXkEe/VQPv4BAJT1FLzRfQ pP4BAJZGyIXqt+SdMhIFMqgGiZUWqFCQSJfaf7BKNJtzCCp4hku+77dr6eoQlPvx+Z xxXkv154Pqbl0v8GyVek1soBBZOkU1nu75p2BwyO2KFdq4FE4HhwpNu2p8Xzg2UaIl BFtcXSTRZyvTGgkRx4SsZRCRL1s4asqXV33NDIlpHBud4Gu8gCtEUaf4GMyfjmMmF+ ObsudBdFxQaOA== X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Roelof Without adequate isolation between the feedline and e probe unit itself, the x meters of vertical feedline above ground level is part of the antenna. Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.62.64 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.1 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_4379D AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_4379D X-Scan-Signature: 3b8620872b19e25fb6f4dfaf1256edc3 Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-15"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3140 Roelof Without adequate isolation between the feedline and e probe unit itself, the x meters of vertical feedline above ground level is part of the antenna. Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roelof Bakker" To: Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 9:09 AM Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna > Hello all, > > Further to this discussion, I have done the ultimate test to demonstrate that an active whip > antenna with a 1 meter long whip behaves as a capacitance at LF. > > For the test I used the ground wave carrier of semi local NDB ONO at 399.5 kHz. > As it is the only station at that frequency the carrier level is very stable at daytime. > The distance is 59 km, which excludes probably all skywave propagation. > > The antenna was mounted vertical and the carrier of ONO produced a signal level of -69.1 dBm as > received with a PERSEUS SDR. > > Next the antenna was mounted horizontal at the same height as the bottom of the vertical mount. > This produce a signal level of -72.0 dBm. > > I reasoned that the mean height of the 1 meter long antenna when mounted vertical is 50 cm > higher. So the antenna was then mounted horizontal 50 cm higher from its previous position. This > produced a signal level of -69.9 dBm, close to the value measured when mounted vertical. > > The main point however, is that a horizontal polarized antenna should NOT receive a vertical > polarized ground wave signal at (almost) the same strength. > > So at LF, there is nothing gained in using a whip instead of a small piece of copper clad PCB. > > Comments are much appreciated! > > Best regards, > Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt >