Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp81478igc; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 09:47:52 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.241.228 with SMTP id wl4mr21270485wjc.2.1391363272143; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:47:52 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v4si8624865wjz.106.2014.02.02.09.47.51 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:47:52 -0800 (PST) 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; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@btinternet.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WA0U3-000091-83 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:05:27 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WA0U2-00008s-RM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:05:26 +0000 Received: from smtpout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.124]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1WA0U1-0006er-5V for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:05:25 +0000 Received: from gnat (81.129.180.91) by smtpout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.100.99.10223) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 52DD40D600C4530C for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 17:05:22 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1391360724; bh=NVpgWqvggCTUjEvwQDvHLw1t1taR/THdFDuyPaORYs0=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=s+p25PdwjhUp73QVIYhfKC+gHj/IjGZA1naU99LdXg5du2l7zVdTt6S2i4q6wTcKmqhAg5jNTUDSrG5kPzDz0gRVK8lK7ASpd3hcmKbtsCSItXoR0HSuRkRP3SaTCLPme7cypavAYSEv2aK6M/MhqCcp2UotKpHcIrYDVG/Ka88= Message-ID: <42C2BED6D70B43FBB892BBDE76480D2E@gnat> From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <52ED1260.1020404@freenet.de> <52EE21FE.4050500@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 14:00:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) 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: Oh yes but I think what you are doing here is merely improving the contact to the ground, which is a small part of the loss. At these wavelength this becomes less important than the conductivity below the atenna and out to the remote, high voltage point (hence biggest proportion of the displacement current)of the antenna.(see theappendix of Peter Dodd's "Low Frequency Experimenters Handbook") Again my measurements show that increased antenna capacity by increasing the top wire loading is more advantageous, provided this couples to the ground and not lossy "environment". I am unable to test this over frozen ground. [...] Content analysis details: (1.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.20.0.124 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours before Received: date 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 046f068074e745d5c60ca47deee9b503 Subject: Re: LF: Ant current Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response 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=2.3 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK 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 Oh yes but I think what you are doing here is merely improving the contac= t=20 to the ground, which is a small part of the loss. At these wavelength thi= s=20 becomes less important than the conductivity below the atenna and out to = the=20 remote, high voltage point (hence biggest proportion of the displacement=20 current)of the antenna.(see theappendix of Peter Dodd's "Low Frequency=20 Experimenters Handbook") Again my measurements show that increased antenn= a=20 capacity by increasing the top wire loading is more advantageous, provide= d=20 this couples to the ground and not lossy "environment". I am unable to te= st=20 this over frozen ground. Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Stefan Sch=C3=A4fer" To: Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 10:46 AM Subject: Re: LF: Ant current > Hello Wolf, > > Am 01.02.2014 16:27, schrieb wolf_dl4yhf: >> I remember a suggestion in 'Rothammel's Antennenbuch' to enrich the so= il=20 >> with copper sufate (!) which I certainly don't recommend. > > Oh yes, copper sulfate is not to be recommended. Quicksilver should wor= k=20 > much better ;-) I think 100 liters is fine for a first test ;-) > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC >=20