Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp35467igl; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.185.176 with SMTP id fd16mr7001268wic.20.1373837813571; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e3si3917729wik.6.2013.07.14.14.36.52 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:36:53 -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 1UyTWk-0005Pg-LQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 22:08:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UyTWk-0005PX-82 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 22:08:18 +0100 Received: from mx5.utsp.utwente.nl ([130.89.2.33] helo=mxpool.utwente.nl) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UyTWh-0002Io-5u for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 22:08:15 +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 r6EL8E5S025295 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:08:14 +0200 Received: by ewi1614.ewi.utwente.nl (Postfix, from userid 17643373) id 586473C40903; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:08:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:08:14 +0200 From: Pieter-Tjerk de Boer To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <20130714210814.GC6192@cs.utwente.nl> Mail-Followup-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51DF43E7.8080300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51E147E2.8080302@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <002701ce7ff5$714bc830$53e35890$@nifty.com> <51E1DDDF.3020904@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <001501ce8098$51e6af20$f5b40d60$@nifty.com> <51E2B2D5.5090805@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <001c01ce80a7$03d1add0$0b750970$@nif!ty.com> <51E2D3D1.4020400@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51E2D3D1.4020400@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mxpool.utwente.nl id r6EL8E5S025295 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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: On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 06:37:37PM +0200, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > I just came back from a field experiment, using the short active > dipole which is resonated to 475 kHz (4.7 mH and 10 mH fixed > inductors in parallel plus a few pF (<10) for fine adjustment), with > fiber optic cable. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 739d4fb39bd02fc5a2de5437a39bb056 Subject: Re: LF: Re: MiniWhip antenna, fiber optic /p tests Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2838 On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 06:37:37PM +0200, Stefan Sch=E4fer wrote: > I just came back from a field experiment, using the short active > dipole which is resonated to 475 kHz (4.7 mH and 10 mH fixed > inductors in parallel plus a few pF (<10) for fine adjustment), with > fiber optic cable. > As i said, i have to repeat the test because a few of the > measurements were to close to the soundcards ADC limit and caused > nonlinearity... I think these results already make a lot of sense. Without ground, your antenna is a short dipole, measuring the potential difference between two points about a meter besides (horizontal) or above (vertical) each other. Clearly, your signal is vertically polarized, and badly received when the antenna is horizontal. When you ground the lower end of the _vertical_ dipole, the signal increases a bit (2 dB, apparently), because you then measure the potential difference between the top half of your dipole and the ground; at the same field strength (V/m), the larger vertical distance gives a larger potential difference. When you ground one end of the _horizontal_ dipole, your antenna becomes _vertically_ polarized: it measures the potential difference between a piece of metal (namely the not-grounded half of your dipole) a few meters above the ground, and the ground itself. (The other half of the dipole is now grounded and will of course distort the field a bit.) Since the antenna is now vertically polarised, you get good reception again. 73, Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM