Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp33537igl; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:22:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.26.40 with SMTP id i8mr13988937lag.22.1373473366963; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id uq6si12463653lbc.39.2013.07.10.09.22.45 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:22:46 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Uwx5P-0006on-GH for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:17:47 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uwx5O-0006oe-NM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:17:46 +0100 Received: from omr-m05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.79]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Uwx5L-0006E0-Ks for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:17:45 +0100 Received: from mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.68]) by omr-m05.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 5B8D870083701; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.68] (host-92-8-80-39.as43234.net [92.8.80.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 24281E000099; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51DD8920.1000802@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:17:36 +0100 From: pat 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: jrusgrove@comcast.net References: <51D975FA.60008@virginbroadband.com.au> <51DD1434.2030300@virginbroadband.com.au> <51DD2EB1.80303@aol.com> <001b01ce7d65$9c448c30$6d01a8c0@DELL4> In-Reply-To: <001b01ce7d65$9c448c30$6d01a8c0@DELL4> x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1373473060; bh=tmvgPDTWh8SgqQMc5V64kQeL1tAdvONbhIVFXLAsgJY=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RD6UUH/VjgxY0J8WMOs+9xkUJX2A0+1UvuwrtmZVF8HCk+Hyf07LCVA8DhlRuyz8x V93xzMswBrUR+REiH9FukwXcdYVJtsP6VvEB4J8QGFwvjzz9Oa47d7aAqBAB+ZrVTL U7NdetPGnTNsbLNVb8ZHdBtJ6YKxfJLi7EUQp3IY= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:439346528:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294451dd892166bc 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 Jay, That still leaves us with the anomaly that in the context we are discussing here viz. 'LF', the "spacecraft" might be an awfully small piece of real estate compared to the wavelengths we are dealing with :>) It's the proverbial "isotropic" source problem isn't it? [...] 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 [64.12.143.79 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 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 3f96c9ff152a6a60cc2344b4cc7e7dd2 Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090500020507030500070409" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 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: 1851 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090500020507030500070409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jay, That still leaves us with the anomaly that in the context we are discussing here viz. 'LF', the "spacecraft" might be an awfully small piece of real estate compared to the wavelengths we are dealing with :>) It's the proverbial "isotropic" source problem isn't it? 73 On 10/07/13 13:04, jrusgrove@comcast.net wrote: > Pat > Don't believe they are 'loading up' the spacecraft itself against the > universe ;~). Antennas take the form of monopoles (spacecraft is the > 'groundplane'), dipoles, quad helix etc. > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* pat > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > > *Cc:* edgar > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD'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 >> 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 > -- 73 de pat g4gvw es gd dx qth nr Felixstowe East Coast UK --------------090500020507030500070409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Jay,

That still leaves us with the anomaly that in the context we are discussing here viz. 'LF', the "spacecraft" might be an awfully small piece of real estate compared to the wavelengths we are dealing with :>)
It's the proverbial "isotropic" source problem isn't it?

73


On 10/07/13 13:04, jrusgrove@comcast.net wrote:
Pat
 
Don't believe they are 'loading up' the spacecraft itself against the universe ;~). Antennas take the form of monopoles (spacecraft is the 'groundplane'), dipoles, quad helix etc.
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2 
----- Original Message -----
From: pat
Cc: edgar
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD'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


-- 
73 de pat g4gvw
es gd dx
qth nr Felixstowe
East Coast UK
--------------090500020507030500070409--