Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6798 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1999 11:47:19 +0100 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 16 Sep 1999 11:47:19 +0100 Received: (qmail 21774 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1999 10:45:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 16 Sep 1999 10:45:11 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11RYtp-0004OK-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:36:21 +0100 Received: from mserv1c.u-net.net ([195.102.240.33]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11RYto-0004OF-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:36:20 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from rsgb.u-net.com ([195.102.80.225] helo=rsgb.org.uk) by mserv1c.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #34) id 11RZmk-0000ld-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:33:06 +0000 Received: from miked by rsgb.org.uk with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:22:39 +0100 From: "Mike Dennison" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Organization: Radio Society of Great Britain To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:22:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: LF: LF-antenna with top load In-reply-to: <000d01beff9e$9ff064c0$3596b38f@w8k3f0> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Return-Path: miked@mail.rsgbhq Message-ID: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: PA0SE wrote: > As there has been some discussion on the merits of different kinds of top > loading I have performed some computer simulation, using the Antenna > Optimizer program by Brian Beezley, K6STI, which is similar to EZNEC. > > 1. No top load > Efficiency: 10.8% > 2. One horizontal top load wire of 5 m Efficiency: 12.5% > > 4. One horizontal top loading wire of 10 m Efficiency: 11.9% > 6. One horizontal top loading wire of 20 m > Efficiency: 10.0% Dick, There's something wrong here isn't there?. You have a reducing efficiency for increasing top load length. Surely that can't be right. Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT) http://www.dennison.demon.co.uk/activity.htm