Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5163 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 18:57:12 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from netmail01.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.219) by mailstore with SMTP; 26 May 2003 18:57:12 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 13043 invoked by uid 10001); 26 May 2003 18:57:12 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail01.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 26 May 2003 18:57:12 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 19KN7i-0005c1-Dv for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 19:55:06 +0100 Received: from [138.32.33.140] (helo=mailman2.ppco.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19KN7d-0005bs-OD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 19:55:01 +0100 Received: from bvltrendl.conoco.net (trend3.ppco.com [172.19.28.43]) by mailman2.ppco.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h4QIswMw025060 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:55:00 -0500 Received: from 138.32.31.56 by bvltrendl.conoco.net (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 26 May 2003 13:54:58 -0500 Received: from bvlnotes07.ppco.com (bvlnotes07.ppco.com [138.32.54.38]) by mail1.ppco.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4QIsou13399 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:54:58 -0500 (CDT) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Laurence J Howell" Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:55:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BVLNOTES07/CIT/Phillips Petroleum/us(Release 5.0.7 |March 21, 2001) at 05/26/2003 01:54:58 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: LF: Top loading - to short or not to short? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0tests=noneversion=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 Im still struggling with a 110 foot dying spruce tree and wonder if Ill every get the wire up it before it snaps in these high winds. Spruce trees are dying/have died in large numbers in S central alaska. Beetle carrying virus. In looking at my LF Inverted L, and specifically the 3 wire top loading wires - I've a couple of questions... 1. I see a recommendation that the vertical part of the Inv L aerial wire(s) should be a single wire (ZL recommendation), or if not then three or how many wires should converge to a single point at the bottom. Why is a single wire recommended over a multiple? Em thinking losses into nearby objects? Wouldn't a multiple vertical wire feed increase "good non lossy" C and increase Ra? 2. Ive seen a large amount of schematics both for commercial and ham top loading.of T and L's ...Say for a three wire top loading spaced 1m apart - should the wires at the far/near end all be shorted together or left open? Does this affect the total cap either way, or is it just for electrical "circuit" stability?? Does it make any difference if they are shorted at any point along the top?? Is there a recommendation which proves open versus short is better ? Mine are open all the way and Im using a converging 3 wire vertical wire feed... I see shorted at the ends, shorted half way, open ended solutions from my peers here... Im trying to rationalize that the end of the loading wires are at Zero Current (no different circulating/local currents between the wires?).. and it may not be an impedance thing but may help reduce high voltages as the surface area at the end is now a lot larger...and may reduce corona. Most commercial T's for NDB short out at the far ends..and I do see single and multiple wire converging vertical wires, so I guess they are all right But a lot of the drawings ref materials show them open! Arghh. Any experiences welcomed... Laurence KL1X -