Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26918 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 14:21:42 -0000 Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225) by mailstore with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 14:21:42 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: (qmail 26321 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 14:23:03 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 14:23:03 -0000 X-SQ: A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 183dRB-0003b8-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:21:45 +0100 Received: from [212.125.75.12] (helo=mail4.messagelabs.com) by post.thorcom.com with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 183dRB-0003az-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:21:45 +0100 X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 24316 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 14:21:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ukfw1.ge.boc.com) (193.131.2.157) by server-23.tower-4.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 14:21:26 -0000 Received: from z-160-100-160-136.est.ibm.com ([160.100.160.136]) by ukfw1.ge.boc.com; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:21:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from exc_wil04.edwards.boc.com ([162.118.144.226]) by exc_cra03.edwards.boc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id TP3FKNW8; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:24:42 +0100 Received: by EXC_WIL04 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:21:24 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Ashlock,William" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:21:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Subject: LF: RE: Re: Re: Ant Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0tests=EXCHANGE_SERVER,INVALID_MSGID,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03version=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Hi Geri, >>Do not be tempted to droop the ends of any top wires. >... I challenge that. My umbrella antenna 18m high with 5 pieces of top-load >radials sloping downwards (each about 7 m long) **works fine** It "works fine" to be sure, and it's possible that this is the only physical shape possible for your surroundings, BUT did you verify that there is no loss from drooping the top hat radials Vs not drooping the top hat radials? My experience with many shapes of top hats is that it DOES reduce the radiation measured in the far field. The theoretical explanation I have seen is that the effective height is reduced due to the current foldback. Bill A _____________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.com