Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24554 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 16:02:51 -0000 Received: from marstons.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.223) by mailstore with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 16:02:51 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: (qmail 26373 invoked by uid 10001); 21 Oct 2002 17:06:34 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by marstons.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 17:06:34 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 183eyo-00040I-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:00:34 +0100 Received: from [212.125.75.12] (helo=mail4.messagelabs.com) by post.thorcom.com with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 183eyo-000400-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:00:34 +0100 X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 30113 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 15:59:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ukfw1.ge.boc.com) (193.131.2.157) by server-7.tower-4.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 15:59:59 -0000 Received: from z-160-100-160-136.est.ibm.com ([160.100.160.136]) by ukfw1.ge.boc.com; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:59:58 +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 TP3FKPQ1; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:03:14 +0100 Received: by EXC_WIL04 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:59:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Ashlock,William" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:59:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Subject: RE: LF: RE: Re: Re: Ant Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0tests=EXCHANGE_SERVER,INVALID_MSGID,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, SPAM_PHRASE_02_03version=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Steve, >> 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. >Is that in comparison with no top loading at all, or purely horizontal top >loading? Purely horizontal (or near horizontal) top hats. This test compared different droop angles of circular top hats, everything else kept constant. 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