Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27390 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2003 15:37:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from netmail01.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.219) by mailstore with SMTP; 15 Apr 2003 15:37:00 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 4750 invoked by uid 10001); 15 Apr 2003 15:37:00 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail01.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2003 15:37:00 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 195STd-0008Aw-U9 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:36:05 +0100 Received: from [212.164.44.2] (helo=astral.omskcity.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 195STQ-0008An-Np for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:35:54 +0100 Received: from fitec.omskcity.com (mu01.dialup2.infomsk.ru [212.164.44.113]) by astral.omskcity.com (8.x.x) with SMTP id WAA3e9c25784d7a for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:30:00 +0700 (OSS) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:33:42 +0000 (GMT) From: "Alexander S. Yurkov" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-reply-to: <000501c302ce$ba7a4680$75d1fc3e@ian> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: LF: The Mystery of the Missing Amps.. Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-24.4 required=5.0tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINEversion=2.53 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Hi Ian and Group. On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Ian Kyle wrote: > Some of you will have noticed that I have been venting my frustrations about > the title subject on the reflector recently and that I mentioned an > interesting anomaly in the earthing arrangement, so over the weekend out > came the deerstalker, cape and meerschaum and the investigation commenced. > The anomaly is this; after finishing reworking a number of things as > detailed in an earlier posting, the there was a sensible increase in antenna > current of about 30 - 40%, so I set about tidying things up round the > 'dogbox'. Then to my astonishment the next test produced a further increase, > the resultant increase totalling about 75% and the BK could be driven right > into saturation. Obviously something had changed, but I had not consciously > altered any of the settings. I do not know realy why is this. But may be (???) it is somthing similar to my theoretical result reported here about year ago. If cable is elevated from the ground significaly more then cable diameter it can employ as elevated conterpoise. About year ago I derive formulas wich show elevated conterpoise is much better then conection to the ground or burred conterpoise. Conection to the ground in shack may be isolated on RF by some inductance. Or ground in shack is screened by some metal construction (in this case conection to the ground seems not increase losses). Certanly this should be tested in some experimentaly way. Any way ANY additional connection to the ground NOT evidently decreases loss. Seems loss can increase in some cases. 73 de RA9MB/Alex http://www.qsl.net/ra9mb