Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6283 invoked from network); 19 May 2000 22:58:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by bells.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 19 May 2000 22:58:58 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12svdb-00019t-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:52:59 +0100 Received: from tk1.ihug.co.nz ([203.29.160.13] helo=smtp1.ihug.co.nz) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12svdZ-00019o-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:52:57 +0100 Received: from tractorb (p51-max11.chc.ihug.co.nz [209.79.136.243]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA23725 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 10:52:51 +1200 Message-ID: <00cb01bfc1e4$d4aee840$c4804dd1@tractorb> From: "Dave Brown" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <16548447.958758107528.JavaMail.imail@bubbles.excite.com> Subject: Re: LF: Re: Puckeridge Decca station - Big & small antennas Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 10:51:53 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: > Perhaps I missed it, but I would be very interested to know why the umbrella > ribs are extended so far----- Hi John I have been in the habit of keeping some of the more interesting posts on this reflector as there is no message archive but I don't seem to have kept the one in question.( And it is possible I followed a link elsewhere to get the information) As I recall it was a modification of the original structure as a result of storm damage, the structure 'as is' being a more maintainable compromise. I think the down wires were originally supported around mid? mast height on horizontal struts that projected radially outwards quite some distance from the mast axis. Whoever posted the original info may be able to provide more information. As a top loading exercise the setup 'as is' looks to be far from optimum but the efficiency is obviously still fairly good. Again, some figures were quoted a while back for the setup 'as is', but I can't recall them. My suggestion of 8 down wires was based on Derek's comments but there may be 10. It's obviously in that order and I would be very interested to see what happens if the bottom ends were all temporarily strapped back onto the insulated tower legs. Don't have my 'extract' from Watt handy but seem to recall that optimum top loading for a short vertical was where the 'droop' was no lower at the outer ends than around 70% of the mast height. A few other constraints as well, but you get the general idea. The 'as is' structure at Puckeridge is not a conventional top loaded structure though, and thats why it is of interest as there may be some useful lessons there for us all. Be interested in the derivation of your formula John. 73 Dave, ZL3FJ