Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20010118165806.2d6f743a@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:58:06
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Dipole antenna at LF
In-reply-to: <3A66F6F9.12573.101AF15@localhost>
References: <65AECDF1F89AD411900400508BFC869F0D7529@pdw-mail-1.dera.gov.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hello Mike,

When I got it correct you ran a long (fence) wire as a monopole against
ground.
I believe that a dipole could have a very different behaviour. With a
monopole use the ground as counterweight so the 'return current' has to
come via the (lossy) ground, while for a dipole this is not the case.
But I would go for a much longer length than the 100m Andy suggests, best
would be a fullsize dipole if you have the space and about 1km of wire.
Suggestion : look out for an abandoned phone line.

73, Rik  ON7YD

At 14:00 18/01/01 -0000, G3XDV wrote:
>I tried something like this in GW in the early days of 73khz but it 
>was very poor. Rock may be a poor conductor but it still appears to 
>absorb most of the RF. And it wasn't just that my antenna was 
>horizontal as in fact it went up a steep hillside at some 30 degrees. I 
>tried it again when trying to work MI0AYZ as a deperate attempt 
>when my kite failed to fly - it was still poor. Worked fine on receive, 
>though.
>
>Depressing as it may be, Marconi got it right 100 years ago and we 
>have failed to improve on his findings. There must be another magic 
>antenna out there somewhere but that isn't it.