Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12167 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2004 17:21:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan02.plus.net) (212.159.14.236) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 3 Jan 2004 17:21:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 49047 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2004 17:21:59 -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; 3 Jan 2004 17:21:57 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1AcpTJ-000CYw-7g for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:21:57 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AcpT3-0007oe-2F for rs_out@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:21:41 +0000 Received: from [212.135.6.11] (helo=smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AcpT2-0007oV-Jz for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:21:40 +0000 Received: from tnt-5-3.easynet.co.uk ([195.40.200.3] helo=captbrian) by smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 1AcpT1-000FEo-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:21:39 +0000 X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (captbrian) Message-ID: <006401c3d21e$16191420$03c828c3@captbrian> From: "captbrian" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <6.0.1.1.2.20031229161651.027e8660@POP3.freeler.nl> <000001c3d009$acf7a620$c7e47f50@Smisan> <6.0.1.1.2.20040103121138.0280f960@POP3.freeler.nl> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:09:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial 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 Then the simulation must surely be wrong.! I spent a long time reading a 160/80 m antenna book by ON4 ?? before realising that the performance of various antenna configurations confidently reported as if they actually existed, were in fact only the result of computer simulations. We must beware of believing implicitly the result of a computer-simulated result which flies in the face of all reason. That you can get vertically radiated horizontally polarised radiation for _nothing_ using the simulation program has to tell you something about its limitations . Both the book and the programs are very good indicators but not _absolute truths_ Bryan G3GVB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Rollema" To: Sent: 03 January 2004 11:30 Subject: RE: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial > > > Bu the point raised by Bob, ZL2CA, was that the current in the single wire > topload of the "L" would generate a horizontally polarised field. In the > "T" the currents in the two topload wires flow in opposite directions so > the horizontally polarised fields caused by these currents would at least > partially cancel each other. > The horizontally polarised field is radiated as a sky wave and the power in > it detracts from that in the vertically polarised field of the ground wave. > If the above reasoning were correct it could be expected that the "T" would > produce a stronger ground wave than the "L" because less power disappears > in the horizontally polarised sky wave. > ****The simulation has shown that this is not the case.**** >