Message-ID: <4A193360.9010508@btconnect.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:45:36 +0100
From: Richard Newstead <g3cwi@btconnect.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4A181EEC.5050600@btconnect.com> <9670125E608A4D63AE541048B2177A02@JimPC> <001a01c9dc5e$b6bbb040$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <001a01c9dc5e$b6bbb040$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: First Portable Trip
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


mal hamilton wrote:
> Jim
> I did not say an inv L virtually lying on the ground as in Richards 
> case(1 METRE ABOVE GROUND), this is more like a beverage antenna.
This is all very interesting. I have spent an hour in a darkened room 
contemplating suitable antennas (well not quite). Comments from experts 
welcome:

1) T antenna. Am I right in thinking that in the classical T 
configuration, the horizontal part of the aerial is only there to add 
capacity - i.e. it makes no contribution to the groundwave? If so, I 
assume that I can use very thin wire for the T?

2) In the more likely configuration with "horizontal" wires actually 
acting as an inverted V can I still use very thin wire without reducing 
performance?

3) Is there any benefit to be gained by having an inductor at the top of 
the vertical section of the T? If so, will the loss of the inductor be 
relevant if the part of the antenna above it (the T wires) don't 
contribute to useful radiation?

73

Richard
G3CWI