Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp10023igl; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.11.162 with SMTP id r2mr14429519lbb.41.1373443239893; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o7si11371305lao.161.2013.07.10.01.00.38 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:00:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UwpIm-0005RO-EP for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:59:04 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UwpIm-0005RF-0E for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:59:04 +0100 Received: from smtp2.virginbroadband.com.au ([123.200.191.52] helo=smtp.virginbroadband.com.au) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UwpIj-0004IJ-3i for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:59:02 +0100 Received: from [123.200.240.6] (unknown [123.200.240.6]) by smtp.virginbroadband.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A55900A9F for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:58:49 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <51DD1434.2030300@virginbroadband.com.au> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:58:44 +1000 From: edgar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" References: <51D975FA.60008@virginbroadband.com.au> In-Reply-To: <51D975FA.60008@virginbroadband.com.au> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <51D975FA.60008@virginbroadband.com.au> X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 123.200.191.52 (smtp2.virginbroadband.com.au) used invalid HELO/EHLO smtp.virginbroadband.com.au - verification failed X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) 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: I sent this message two days ago and I did not see it arrive. Although the subject is now out of context, I would like some comment on my question. Regards, Edgar Moonah, Tasmania. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [123.200.191.52 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: 34d483c57c7a6bf26c25db3c8765d5fc Subject: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010507090001090002010709" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 46 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010507090001090002010709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I sent this message two days ago and I did not see it arrive. Although the subject is now out of context, I would like some comment on my question. Regards, Edgar Moonah, Tasmania. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:06:50 +1000 From: edgar To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Hi Pieter-Tjerk, If that is the case, and all the parts are at the same potential, how does a space craft, radio controlled model aeroplane get their signals? Surely every conductor in the unit will have a difference in potential due to being in a electromagnetic field. Even in the legs of the FET. Although the potential will be extremely small. Surely it is only necessary to have a change of the Vgs voltage of the FET. So the geometry of the antenna has to be made to allow this to occur. Regards, Edgar Moonah, Tasmania. --------------010507090001090002010709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I sent this message two days ago and I did not see it arrive.

Although the subject is now out of context, I would like some comment on my question.

Regards, Edgar
Moonah, Tasmania.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:06:50 +1000
From: edgar <edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org 


Hi Pieter-Tjerk,

If that is the case, and all the parts are at the same potential, how 
does a space craft, radio controlled model aeroplane

get their signals?

Surely every conductor in the unit will have a difference in potential 
due to being in a electromagnetic field.

Even in the legs of the FET. Although the potential will be extremely small.

Surely it is only necessary to have a change of the Vgs voltage of the FET.

So the geometry of the antenna has to be made to allow this to occur.

Regards, Edgar
Moonah, Tasmania.


--------------010507090001090002010709--