Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9015 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2004 10:31:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 17 Nov 2004 10:31:01 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CUNMi-000947-7I for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:48:46 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.2] (helo=ptb-mxcore02.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CUNMh-000943-RF for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:48:43 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1CUN5W-000GeD-IH for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:30:58 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1CUN58-0006lj-J6 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:30:34 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1CUN58-0006la-69 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:30:34 +0000 Received: from grunt2.ihug.co.nz ([203.109.254.42]) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CUN51-0007XF-6E for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:30:34 +0000 Received: from 203-118-166-55.adsl.ihug.co.nz ([192.168.0.121]) [203.118.166.55] by grunt2.ihug.co.nz with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CUN4u-0006mn-00; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:30:20 +1300 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.289 [265.3.1]); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:30:50 +1300 Message-ID: <00d401c4cc90$8203f1b0$7900a8c0@athlon1200> From: "Dave Brown" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:30:50 +1300 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 203.109.254.42 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ihug.co.nz X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no, Subject: LF: Re: Loading Coils Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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 X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Chris Most of your losses will normally be in your ground system - not the loading coil. Amateur LF vertical antenna systems of necessity have severely constrained (size/efficiency) ground systems. So contributions from any half-decent loading coil will be way down, compared to the ground system losses. Dave, ZL3FJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "OSBORN, Chris" To: "LF Group (E-mail)" Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: LF: Loading Coils > > > > Hello LF Group > > Many thanks for all comments and advice - most interesting. > > I drilled out the wooden dowels on the loading coil and replaced > them with lengths of 15 mm plastic water pipe. > I was unable to obtain plastic rod at short notice and my XYL > wouldn't let me have her knitting needles ! > The pipe was not really rigid enough and bent slightly but was > sufficient to prove the experiment. > With this new arrangement I obtained my personal best Q of about > 250.. > > Placing the new coil in the aerial circuit made a slight improvement > to the aerial current - from about 1.2 A to 1.5 A > I would have thought that as most of the losses were in the coil a > bigger current improvement would have been achieved. > > I share my office with some young electronics engineers and was > surprised that they know very little about RF inductors or Q factor. > It must be a dying art ! > > My next improvement will be to raise the 'droopy' end of my aerial, > presently at a height of about 5 metres > Unfortunately two neighbours' telephone wires pass over my garden > where the mast was to be situated. > Any suggestions - should I go over the wires or keep well clear of > them and cut a length off the aerial ? > Presumably I can't get the phone company to move their wires !! > > 73 Chris G3XIZ > > This email is for the intended addressee only. > If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, > disseminate or otherwise deal with it. > Please notify the sender by return email. > The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of > EADS Astrium Limited. > Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any > contract or obligation. > > EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 > Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 > 2AS, England > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.3.1 - Release Date: > 15/11/2004 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.3.1 - Release Date: 15/11/2004