Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp24575igc; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:50:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.181.8.66 with SMTP id di2mr2846916wid.43.1391269858184; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:50:58 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ec3si1415115wib.28.2014.02.01.07.50.57 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:50:58 -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 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1W9bxi-0000Ba-QR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:54:26 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1W9bxi-0000BQ-A2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:54:26 +0000 Received: from mout0.freenet.de ([195.4.92.90]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1W9bxg-000206-R9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:54:25 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.141] (helo=mjail1.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9bxf-0003dG-T6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:54:23 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1]:34256 helo=mjail1.freenet.de) by mjail1.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9bxf-0004kb-P9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:54:23 +0100 Received: from mx18.freenet.de ([195.4.92.28]:47212) by mjail1.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9bva-0004gE-Lq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:52:14 +0100 Received: from blfd-d9bf6cb0.pool.mediaways.net ([217.191.108.176]:2074 helo=[192.168.178.21]) by mx18.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.80.1 #4) id 1W9bva-0003yU-B3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:52:14 +0100 Message-ID: <52ED0A1B.6030406@freenet.de> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:52:11 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Originated-At: 217.191.108.176!2074 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 Chris, By coincidence, I just had to re-adjust the antenna for exactly that reason: The conductivity of water is better, but the 'tangens delta' (loss factor) of water as dielectric is much worse than that of ice. So the water "robs" energy in presence of an E-field, which the ice does not. Thus the losses around the antenna go up. Depends a lot of the greenery around the antenna. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [195.4.92.90 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dl4yhf[at]freenet.de) -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 0a4643e586472c13187d293ec5d096c2 Subject: Re: LF: Ant current 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 Hi Chris, By coincidence, I just had to re-adjust the antenna for exactly that reason: The conductivity of water is better, but the 'tangens delta' (loss factor) of water as dielectric is much worse than that of ice. So the water "robs" energy in presence of an E-field, which the ice does not. Thus the losses around the antenna go up. Depends a lot of the greenery around the antenna. Cheers, Wolf DL4YHF . Am 01.02.2014 15:51, schrieb C. Groeger: > Hi all > How can one explain that ant current rises when soil is frozen? > > Conductivity of water should be much higher than that of ice. > > So earth resistance would be higher and the current should drop when soil is frozen... > > 73, df5qg > > > Christian Groeger