Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32728 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2004 23:28:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan02.plus.net) (212.159.14.236) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Jan 2004 23:28:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 10945 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2004 23:28:51 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from ptb-mxcore02.plus.net (212.159.14.216) by ptb-mxscan02.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Jan 2004 23:28:50 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1AcCFG-0002ji-PD for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:28:50 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AcCEw-0003aq-Sh for rs_out@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:28:30 +0000 Received: from [195.224.180.233] (helo=olympus.pncl.co.uk) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AcCEu-0003ah-9w for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:28:28 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: k7t Received: from k7t (51.25.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.net [194.153.25.51]) by olympus.pncl.co.uk (8.12.9/8.12.7) with SMTP id i01NRrqP025354 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:27:54 GMT X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (k7t) Message-ID: <000601c3d0bf$136198c0$331999c2@k7t> From: "Walter Blanchard" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000001c3d009$acf7a620$c7e47f50@Smisan> <000001c3d0bd$774df560$75c428c3@erica> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:28:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 4.5) Subject: LF: Ground Losses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 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: rs_out@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SPAMFiltered: yes X-Spam-Rating: 2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "g3ldo" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 10:31 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial > In the early days of LF experimenting we all thought Ts and Ls from > available LF commercial knowledge. It soon became apparent that for a > suburban QTH the shape of the antenna was unimportant. The trick seemed to > be to put up as much wire covering the greatest area and as high as > possible. > John, G4JVC had a long wire running the length of the garden, 3m high at the > feed end and 12m high at the other. With this antenna and a TS-850 he was > able to hear a lot of DX that we couldn't (he was the first to hear OH5TN). > All very electrically small antennas have the same half doughnut shaped 3-D > polar diagram on a computer model. Ground parameters have a huge effect on > small LF antenna performances so I guess they must compute return path > losses. The one I use - Antenna Model - asks whether you want to take ground losses into account and if so what conductivity figure to use. Walter G3JKV. --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/03