Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk Delivery-date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:49:22 +0000 Received: by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with spam-scanned (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1F5hSL-0006PV-U7 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:49:22 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1F5hSL-0006PI-Q7 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:49:21 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1F5hSC-0001pU-QC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:49:12 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1F5hSC-0001pL-EL for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:49:12 +0000 Received: from olympus.pncl.co.uk ([195.224.180.233] helo=olive.pncl.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1F5inG-0007ie-SF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:15:18 +0000 Received: from AUG2004 (81-6-246-23.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [81.6.246.23]) (authenticated bits=0) by olive.pncl.co.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k15AnsPm011007 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:49:54 GMT Message-ID: <001901c62a41$ae6c45d0$2101a8c0@AUG2004> From: "Walter Blanchard" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <007001c62a34$97e808b0$2101a8c0@AUG2004> <200602051131570102.0488A03E@smtp.wanadoo.fr> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:48:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Pinnacle-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Pinnacle-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: blanch@pncl.co.uk Subject: {Spam?} Re: LF: {Spam?} Active_antennas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SpamFiltered: by PlusNet MXCore (v2.00) John, "Height gain" at LF/MF is caused by quite a different mechanism from the "height gain" at VHF. VHF observations are irrelevant, I'm afraid. Walter G3JKV. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John RABSON" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:31 AM Subject: Re: LF: {Spam?} Active_antennas > G8DSU has been doing some measurements on height gain at UHF and is also > interested in active antennas at LF for cave radio purposes. I will copy > this to him because I'm not sure whether he is currently reading this > list. > > John G3PAI > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 05/02/2006 at 09:14 Walter Blanchard wrote: > >>The theory behind the "height gain" observed using small LF active >>antennas at different heights has to do with compression of the near-earth >>LF potential gradient caused by the grounded "mast" holding the antenna. >>The essential bit is that there is a grounded connection between the >>antenna and receiver, which may be just the outer of the co-ax cable. It >>would be an interesting experiment to repeat the "height gain" experiment >>without any connection to ground. This could be done by building an active >>antenna with a little transmitter to re-radiate the received LF signal (on >>2.4 GHz?) and poking it up using a fibreglass mast. If the theory is right >>then there wouldn't be any height gain. Might do it myself sometime but >>anyone else interested? >> >> Walter G3JKV. > > > > > >