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;
Message-ID: <51DD437A.20200@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:20:26 +0100
From: pat <g4gvw@aol.com>
Organization: G4GVW
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
CC: "marcocadeddu@tin.it" <marcocadeddu@tin.it>
References: <13fc83ae7fa.marcocadeddu@tin.it>
In-Reply-To: <13fc83ae7fa.marcocadeddu@tin.it>
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338151dd437c6789
X-AOL-IP: 92.8.80.39
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:  Hi Marco, One might argue that anything may be made to radiate
    if fed with enough power. The nature of the "field" so created then becomes
    the debating or debateable point! Knowledge for its own sake is surely as
    valid as for any other reason! It is all philosophy! [...] 
 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
                             [205.188.109.194 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (g4gvw[at]aol.com)
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD        Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
X-Scan-Signature: 3d0ae5b4ae8b74dc4bf5c1dbe3fef430
Subject: Re: R: Re: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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: 3456

Hi Marco,

One might argue that anything may be made to radiate if fed with enough 
power. The nature of the "field" so created then becomes the debating or 
debateable point!

Knowledge for its own sake is surely as valid as for any other reason! 
It is all philosophy!

73


On 10/07/13 11:57, marcocadeddu@tin.it wrote:
> Hornets cannot fly!
> I find interesting and intriguing the discussion: understand how
> things works is of course very important and leave to other to state if
> this has to come before or after experimentation.
> My first approach to MW was dictated from hirony.. how can such thing
> work? After almost 2 years of use I still have doubts of interactions
> between all the wire on my roof and the MW itself but finally is a gear
> that makes some work. Under some circumstance better than standard wire
> antennas, in other cases worse but today almost all my LF/MF receptions
> are made with a MW.
> The idea that the E probe is similar to a cap plate against the
> universe can explain some aspects if not all.
> What about the same idea applied to a TX antenna? (antennas should be
> reversible items..)
>
> 73 de Marco IK1HSS
>
> ----Messaggio originale----
> Da: g4gvw@aol.com
> Data: 10-lug-2013 11.51
> A: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Cc: "edgar"<edgarjtwining@virginbroadband.com.au>
> Ogg: Re: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD&#39;s analysis of the MiniWhip antenna
>
> I don't know if my previous posts arrived but I still prefer to think
> that a "small" antenna is one plate of a capacitor and the rest of the
> universe is the other. This then enables the spacecraft antenna to
> work.
> The universe is not a great big empty space!
>
> 73 de Pat
>
>
>
> On 10/07/13 08:58, edgar wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
73 de pat g4gvw
es gd dx
qth nr Felixstowe
East Coast UK