Message-ID: <39241C34.9886E9E9@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:37:08 +0000
From: "g3kev" <g3kev@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Puckeridge Decca station - Big & small antennas
References: <28528.200005171129@gemini> <3.0.1.16.20000518103317.2eff836a@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>


Rik Strobbe wrote:

> On 17/05/00 G3KEV wrote:
> >To my knowledge no one in the past has disputed that a large and small
> >vertical would have the same radiation PATTERN. What has been said is
> >that the intensity of the signal radiated from a large vertical is
> >greater than a short one. On receive the signal voltage collected by a
> >large vertical is greater than the small vertical.
>
> On 17/01/00 G3KEV wrote :
> >There is a big difference in the radiation pattern and angle of take off
> >between a high vertical antenna and a very low antenna given the same rf
> >power to the antenna. 1 Watt erp from a dummy

Dummy load is the significant part of this statement because some low antennas
including  yours are but dummy loads. I am happy that you are saving a file of
my observations. I kill all messages when read, otherwise I would need Tril a
bytes of disk space to file all the message that I receive on email, mostly
complimentary about my expriments and achievements on LF. There is the odd
disagreement like yourself but I do understand the other mans point of view
and do not get upset. Try and improve your signal Rik so that I can hear you
properly and not have to use LAZY MANS CW.

73 de G3KEV


>

> load or low horizontal wire
> >is hardly the same as 1 Watt erp from a vertical antenna at 120 ft.
>
> Did I miss(understand) something ?
>
> 73, Rik  ON7YD