Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25606 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2000 02:04:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by redlabel.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 22 Apr 2000 02:04:42 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12ipAv-00031o-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:57:37 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.5]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12ipAu-00031i-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:57:36 +0100 Received: from WarmSpgs@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id l.71.26b9524 (4331) for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:56:46 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 From: WarmSpgs@aol.com Message-ID: <71.26b9524.263260de@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:56:46 EDT Subject: Re: LF: Re: Puckeridge mast. To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 102 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: In a message dated 4/21/00 9:57:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, d.w.rollema@freeler.nl writes: << Interesting that this way of maintaining the capacitance was adopted instead of simply putting an extra capacitor in parallel with the aerial. Can it be that the cost of the extra wires plus insulators plus anchors for the insulators was lower than the price of a capacitor? >> I suspect this was to keep RF current in the aerial itself as high as possible. If they had simply maintained resonance by adding a capacitor across the terminals, the current in the capacitor would not have contributed directly to radiation. 73, John KD4IDY