From: "Graham Phillips" <g3xtz@rgcomms.demon.co.uk>
To: "RSGB L.F. Group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Further signals measured (2nd version)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:58:56 +0100
Message-ID: <01be8e9d$a644f7e0$0100007f@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi Geri, Dave and all LF'ers.

I am following with great interest the debate on our relative signals.
G3YXM / G3XTZ )

As Dave said, my vertical is 20 meters high, but the two 10 meter loading
wires from the top have to slope down at about 45 degrees ( to fit in the
available space ).  I have always thought that the effective loss of height
was a price worth paying to avoid the need for a much higher value of
loading inductance ( and loss ) at the base of the vertical. However, I am
now FORCED into the position of HAVING to find a few more dBs of signal !!!!
I would like to hear what others may think of the options:  (1) eliminate
the top capacity loading, and wind a bigger loading coil.  ( 2 ) Fit a
small, lightweight inductance at the top of the vertical and reduce the
length of the capacity wires. ( 3 )  A combination of both.  ( 4 ) Move.

I would prefer the fourth option, since the local QRM here is curtailing
activity severely, but it is also the most difficult !

73's all, I will watch with interest for ideas, and I will conduct a test to
try the effectiveness of the preferred one.

Graham B. Phillips - G3XTZ.
g3xtz@rgcomms.demon.co.uk