Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9269 invoked from network); 18 May 2000 21:32:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by teachers.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 18 May 2000 21:32:17 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12sXhT-0000By-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 May 2000 22:19:23 +0100 Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.13]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12sXh4-0000Br-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 May 2000 22:19:22 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from [202.27.181.42] by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000518211747.XBFK11938930.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@[202.27.181.42]> for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 09:17:47 +1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <39245DAA.DA8@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:16:26 +1200 From: "vernall" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-XTRA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Puckeridge Experiments References: <6048.200005181247@gemini> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Jim M0BMU, Thanks for the further information on the planned tests. With the spacing between big and small masts that you are intending to use, and with the "big" mast being much shorter than needed for natural resonance, I believe you will have tolerable mutual coupling effects. Resonating the big mast would maximise any on-site coupling when transmitting from the small antenna, and is probably worth testing out to assess interaction. Having the big mast "floating" likely gives least interaction, but again doing a practical test would yield results that narrow down the uncertainties and improve understandings of the punters regarding big/small comparisons. All the best for the day at Puckeridge. 73, Bob ZL2CA