Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20000522160058.2e9fb5bc@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:00:58
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Horizontal polarisation
In-reply-to: <E12trUY-0001yP-00@post.thorcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hello Dave and the others,

I think that the discussion about antennas with a significant horizontal
part is not 'if' they work (they do work, signals of OH1TN, DJ9IE etc.
prove so), but 'why' or 'how' they work.

The simple 'toploaded vertical' approach seems not correct to me, because
according to improved current distribution the gain (versus a pure vertical
of the same height) can be no more than 6dB. Also beyong a certain lenght
of the topload (of approxemately 5 times the height) there should be very
little gain.

Some possible solutions were already given :
- horizontal polarized component
- larger 'footprint', reducing losses

As this can be a very interesting antenna (for those have the proper space)
it might be worth trying to understand the 'why' and 'how'.

73, Rik  ON7YD

> Dear all.
>
>Being a topband mobileer for many years I am used to using antennas that
>are a tiny fraction of a wavelength. From an experiment I once did to
>try to improve \"sky-wave\" from the whip, I can well believe there will
>be a noticeable difference between a true vertical and an inverted L.
> ...
>73. Dave G3YXM.