Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5424 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 15:12:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 15:12:35 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 134PXV-0006b6-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:02:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from bob.dera.gov.uk ([192.5.29.90]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 134PXT-0006b1-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:02:07 +0100 Received: by bob.dera.gov.uk; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA01254; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:06:27 +0100 (BST) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 1285 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 15:56:35 -0000 Received: from gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk (172.16.9.10) by baton.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 15:56:35 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: by gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk; id PAA28010; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:55:39 GMT Received: from unknown(10.71.64.31) by gauntlet.mail.dera.gov.uk via smap (3.2) id xma027963; Tue, 20 Jun 00 15:55:14 GMT Received: from frn-gold-1.dera.gov.uk (unverified) by mailguard.dera.gov.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:08:16 +0100 Received: by frn-gold-1.dera.gov.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:00:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3617AC3245C2D1118A840000F805359C01AB8CCD@pdw-mercury-1.dera.gov.uk> From: "Talbot Andrew" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: RE: CFA Antenna: miraculous? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:00:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: The real question is, why was the quarter wave antenna worse, not why was the CFA so good. A 1/4 monopole can approach 100% efficiency and can be 3dB up on a dipole when erected properly - in which case any other single element antenna cannot have any MORE gain. As Egypt is surrounded by sand, doesn't it look like a ground conductivity issue destroying the efficiency of the conventional radiator. As the CFA is less dependant on a ground for termination of the Reactive fields it could just possibly be better in these circumstances. All the CFAs built and tested at higher freqs have never been as good as the dipoles or similar they were supposed to replace. In fact usually 6dB or more worse Andy G4JNT > ---------- > From: M & S[SMTP:sovergne@club-internet.fr] > Reply To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: 2000-06-20 14:48 > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: LF: CFA Antenna: miraculous? > > Information of interest: > > What is different about the CFA? As an example, a CFA only 21 feet > (6.5 > m) tall, located at Tanta in the center of Egypt, provides AM > broadcast > service at 1.16 MHz (258 Meters) to millions of people from Cairo > north > to the coast. Certified measurements provide evidence that this small > CFA produces a radiated signal almost 6 dB stronger than the previous > 1/4 wavelength vertical broadcast tower which was 211 feet (65 Meters) > tall. To express the performance a different way >> with the tall > tower, > a 100,000 watt transmitter was required for the desired coverage. With > the miniature CFA the same coverage was attained with the transmitter > power reduced to 30,000 watts. > > As seen on: > http://www.antennex.com/ > > 73, Mark, F6JSZ > http://perso.club-internet.fr/sovergne > -- The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s). For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful.