Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 114FA38000083; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SuAQQ-0005p4-KH for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:51:26 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SuAQQ-0005ov-4T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:51:26 +0100 Received: from nm20-vm0.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([77.238.189.221]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SuAQO-0007Mt-C0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:51:25 +0100 Received: from [77.238.189.231] by nm20.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2012 22:51:23 -0000 Received: from [212.82.108.224] by tm12.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2012 22:51:23 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.bt.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2012 22:51:22 -0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=btopenworld.com Result=Signature OK X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 990040.51126.bm@omp1001.bt.mail.ird.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 6339 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2012 22:51:22 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=NeN22FWd5Vk8XkrNPolNiKZs4cGDOaIBPQvzVwjx/0cprOZh0DPhm5JxXRn5UHbI2g1JkjdKrnJLxZDIXBRkF/jqdfWpu05GB0P25mBnU3rCI7ESPdRqJhNsDqrQdngI4/H/UToxo5ZAIWU99eWbYY1wwh2JrX71g9w44/0Ls6A= ; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btopenworld.com; s=s1024; t=1343256682; bh=shvkFJ18uOFjzd5H16fcj2t4FeQNGf3TkdkCqozXTjo=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=SkMLN34Dh2+wwjF+Pv0A0aKnD3MmI9i1rhAuVpY2msYzKddV9bLNM7bineJa4O6edSV5DI4gdSUH/OpdJ0MaUY18TpVixWBCqXZ7XNHIwQ/HlW14zVMB7Y7quUCZYnmnYm+UxEFsWDCXj7CzLTw+aBn+NkxHbUSvGZa5UbTXyzg= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: cRVPcywVM1ntncEnKO6dY8nP_UShcCfUL9hC7wGz3jY2lwL zTJhGFRMweQk4DSmJSGVUO0WFQAo2hObL5rjz51KJlYE_ikpURHSJx.YKE7u f4CK1WJ.mdPLVJWVFQgmV64B14nOl0UaIv5vwh36_6wxnuu72v6UVLjKCnzy BLfxF.0TDss_hZuEPyHyh0SyS.jNZwxTIQa3Brp5ryr.1DQ5Lz9bKjsf4Dx8 _PzNBfmsO6.v5rNQ3ybK0duu71XpzmEfmdAwQopysHcOcqQuq0NNeftw8f2x zNujn1KsDtC8exMc__g6sJu_JklM6xr7meyxfpHsYHeduwWVTodBb.lcBPfm qal9Sfs..FPK8k8EzvEPm6U2ZvgTMnjCOM0fRRCmp0rU2b2cZgI5ZM59y8dz x7RBD3hzVpzLesHEy3oZLD5gDWJ7oRAMRwU6voFULIjUosbRG X-Yahoo-SMTP: Cxhli3eswBD1ozmtAojhjrja86kWx0Qm9tycD5QR1DKWrOLgjJcXkw-- Received: from JimPC (james.moritz@86.185.202.35 with login) by smtp821.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2012 15:51:22 -0700 PDT Message-ID: From: "James Moritz" To: References: <500EB973.8080005@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <3E9653200305422E8F12BCF9447F314F@JimPC> <500FEC24.9060600@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <500FEC24.9060600@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:51:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Dear Stefan, LF Group, > Well i want that the antenna works as good as possible. If is imagine the > transmitter and battery and all the TX stuff as very compact and floating, > then does the position of the feed point make a difference to the > radiation pattern? For example, i simply use the MFJ analyzer as the TX, > floating in the air. Then i think there should be no difference in the > currents. Or am i wrong? [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [77.238.189.221 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Scan-Signature: f62c7cf8eeb8e5a327b71719e9bffff1 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Pretests for the 630m band dipole Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=response 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:430035744:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m248.1 ; domain : btopenworld.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d6501078af72c0 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Dear Stefan, LF Group, > Well i want that the antenna works as good as possible. If is imagine the > transmitter and battery and all the TX stuff as very compact and floating, > then does the position of the feed point make a difference to the > radiation pattern? For example, i simply use the MFJ analyzer as the TX, > floating in the air. Then i think there should be no difference in the > currents. Or am i wrong? You are not wrong... but the difficulty is that, although the voltage between the two terminals of the antenna feed point will be quite low (assuming the antenna works as a resonant dipole), the voltage and impedance between the feed point and ground will be rather high. This means impedance measurement is likely to be affected by the operator touching the controls, etc., and if you run a significant amount of TX power into the antenna, handling the TX would become quite uncomfortable! >> I am sceptical about how this will actually work in practice. > Why does EZNEC not show "problems" in such an easy antenna configuration? > I don't know for certain, but I suspect NEC does not handle a "real ground" very accurately in regard to its effect on feed-point impedance - in situations like this, where the presence of a poorly conducting ground can be expected to have a major influence on antenna performance, NEC may give misleading results. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU