Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.57.9 with SMTP id e9csp104553igq; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 06:18:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.51.99 with SMTP id j3mr7251964lbo.82.1373116681815; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m8si4960090lbs.30.2013.07.06.06.18.01 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:18:01 -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 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UvSLz-00041k-Ni for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:16:43 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UvSLz-00041b-9q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:16:43 +0100 Received: from mx4.utsp.utwente.nl ([130.89.2.32] helo=mxpool.utwente.nl) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UvSLx-0006xl-Lh for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:16:42 +0100 Received: from ewi1614.ewi.utwente.nl (utwks06146.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.13.213]) by mxpool.utwente.nl (8.13.8) with ESMTP id r66DGev2030205 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 15:16:40 +0200 Received: by ewi1614.ewi.utwente.nl (Postfix, from userid 17643373) id A15623C40C3A; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 15:16:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 15:16:40 +0200 From: Pieter-Tjerk de Boer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> Mail-Followup-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) 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: Hello all, I tend to think about the mini-whip on LF and MF in terms of an (almost) static electric field. Then it essentially measures the electric field's _potential difference_ between a point somewhere up in the air, namely where the mini-whip's metal plate is located, and ground. The ground reference is brought up to the mini-whip's electronics either via the metal pole on which it is mounted, or (the outside of) the coaxial cable. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 5f132ffce194fb93f2267a462d849f2b Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3118 Hello all, I tend to think about the mini-whip on LF and MF in terms of an (almost) static electric field. Then it essentially measures the electric field's _potential difference_ between a point somewhere up in the air, namely where the mini-whip's metal plate is located, and ground. The ground reference is brought up to the mini-whip's electronics either via the metal pole on which it is mounted, or (the outside of) the coaxial cable. This explains Roelof's observation (see below) that it doesn't matter whether he mounts the mini-whip on a vertical pole, or on a horizontal pole out of a window (but in the same position). In both cases, it measures the same potential difference, although in the latter case the ground connection is longer, namely taking the detour via the horizontal pole and whatever is inside the house. Presumably, Roelof's house is small compared to the 399.5 kHz wavelength, so this detour shouldn't matter. This view also at least approximately matches VK1OD's NEC4 calculation, in the sense that he finds an output voltage which is of the order of the field strength times the antenna height. A weak point in this reasoning is the fact that since the entire pole (or outside of the coaxial cable) is at ground potential, it distorts the electric field around it. So the mini-whip's plate is not at the same potential as it would be without the ground connection reaching out to it. I still intend to try to calculate how much this distortion is. Of course, this whole reasoning breaks down at higher frequencies, where the height of the pole is not small compared to the wavelength; then one cannot simply assume anymore that the entire pole is at ground potential. 73, Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 07:47:33PM +0200, Roelof Bakker wrote: > Hello Jay, > > > I don't think so. > > I have carried out a test with a vertical feed line and a horizontal > feed line on a pole pushed out an upstairs windows. In both cases > the antenna was in the same position and showed equal signal levels > from the groundwave of ONO-399.5 at 59 km. > > 73, > Roelof, pa0rdt >