Message-ID: <5AADCEED8E83478593D9391614BFF1A6@gnat>
From: "Alan Melia" <alan.melia@btinternet.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <CAA8k23TogtdhVt5L4N8h2X8mZQeqTnPR1VPydFpYQrHnTG3ojQ@mail.gmail.com>  <C6107F3FF0014066ADA6D0452B156B95@Clemens0811>  <1156BF06E81A40ED928F77349725D23D@gnat> <1509681988-1439591024-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-900333386-@b1.c2.bise6.blackberry>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:10:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

The equations are in Rik Strobe's site 
http://www.strobbe.eu/on7yd/136ant/#Helical
He quotes 1.9dB over a straight vertical of the same height compared with 
6dB (thanks Andy) for the inverted L.  BUT it all depends on your location. 
The outside of the helix ought to be at least its own height distant 
horizontally from the surrounding environment. I suspect it also needs to be 
elevated somewhat above ground .....say by a distace equal at least to its 
diameter. Then it depends on your ground parameters. Toni's aerial worked 
best over hard frozen snow in Switzerland.

The only real way at LF is build one and measure it !!

Alan
G3NYK

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Tishken KD4WOV's blackberry device" <kd4wov@earthlink.net>
To: "RSGB LF group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought


> Question: what would the efficiency of a helical antenna be compared to a 
> inverted L?
>
> 4 bamboo poles with a wire wound in a big helical let's say 20 feet 
> across?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> De kd4wov Tom
> EL98 grand island, Florida
>
> Sent via a mighty BlackBerry BOLD 9000 by AT&T (a NSA listening device)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Alan Melia" <alan.melia@btinternet.com>
> Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:31:14
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> Subject: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought
>
> The problem with a monopole at LF is that the effective height is only 
> half
> (approx) the physical height. For an inverted L where the top length is at
> least twice the height, the effective height is close to the physical 
> height
> .....so 3dB more ERP. It may not matter so much on 160m (I used a 16foot
> centre loaded "tank-whip" at one time :-))  )  but where ERP watts are
> difficult to come by, it IS important.
>
> I believe one of the US "Lowfers" used a "gamma matched tower" but I cant
> remember who now.
>
> One has to be careful with NEC at LF it only models the things that are
> built into it. There is a QEX article this month purely simulation based. 
> It
> will be fine installed in a 2acre field but not for a vertical on a normal
> "back lot" There are two major effects (for LF) it doesnt seem to 
> consider,
> ground strata/skin effect, enviromental losses, and the effect of
> top-capacity.  These are much more dominant at long wavelengths.
>
> Alan
> G3NYK
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Clemens Paul" <cpaul@gmx.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk>
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:20 PM
> Subject: LF: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought
>
>
>> Hello Andy,
>>
>> I seem to remember that NEC modelling done by a real expert in this area,
>> W4RNL (sk), years ago revealed that a 'linear' (ungrounded) monopole of
>> the same height as a folded
>> monopole has a significant higher gain if the height is below 60 degrees
>> (0.17 lambda)
>> (excluding losses in the matching circuitry).
>> But I've never modeled these antennas myself.
>>
>> 73
>> Clemens
>> DL4RAJ
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>>>[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Andy Talbot
>>>Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 5:52 PM
>>>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk
>>>Subject: LF: Folded monopole - Food for thought
>>>
>>>On the RSGBTech group recently G3RZP described his folded
>>>monopole topband antenna.  he runs an insulated wire up the
>>>side of the lattice mast to which it is bonded at the top.
>>>The bottom of this wire becomes the feed point and requires a
>>>matching unit to tune out the residual inductance of the
>>>resulting loop - plus impedance transformation..  The bottom
>>>of the mast is grounded, and connected to a radial mat.
>>>
>>>The advantage of this arrangement is it allows a conventional
>>>mast to be used as a radiator.  The feed is nominally
>>>inductive, being a think squashed loop, but the height of the
>>>mast stays what it would have been if fed conventionally.  An
>>>HF beam and sundry other stuff on the top acts as a capacity hat.
>>>
>>>Disadvantages relate to isolation of cabling for equipment for
>>>other bands' use, and needn't concern us with its use here.
>>>
>>>I wonder if anyone has tried this scheme on MF or LF over the
>>>years/ (I know topband is MF, but you all know what I mean :-)
>>>Being able to feed a short monopole using capacitive tuning
>>>instead of a conventional bulky, complex-to-build adjustable
>>>loading coil must have its advantages.
>>>
>>>It may also make for a quicker to put together portable of
>>>fast up- fast down system, or ad-hoc antennas?
>>>
>>>Some time ago one of the well thought out more rational
>>>arguments about magnetic loop antennas was that when they
>>>become larger than "very very small" , the linear dimension
>>>across the loop then starts to behave as a dipole with
>>>appreciable addition to the true loop operation.    here we
>>>have a loop, but deliberately elongated to enhance the dipole
>>>(or here the monopole) behaviour.
>>>
>>>Consider the ultimate limit, a tall twin feeder, shorted at
>>>the top and fed at the bottom, with one side grounded.
>>>
>>>An idle thought...
>>>
>>>Andy  G4JNT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>