Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk Delivery-date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:58:10 +0000 Received: by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with spam-scanned (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1F69gn-0004yT-M7 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:58:09 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1F69gn-0004yE-Iu for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:58:09 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1F69ge-0002qK-9W for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:58:00 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1F69gd-0002qB-UH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:57:59 +0000 Received: from post-23.mail.nl.demon.net ([194.159.73.193]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1F6B2B-0003CY-Fl for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:24:34 +0000 Received: from ndb.demon.nl ([82.161.81.65]:15572 helo=pcroelof) by post-23.mail.nl.demon.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1F69g3-0006az-P3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:57:24 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c62b3e$5e9ad550$2201a8c0@pcroelof> From: "Roelof Bakker" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <007001c62a34$97e808b0$2101a8c0@AUG2004> <43E6FD76.4060304@g3ysx.org.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:57:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Subject: Re: LF: {Spam?} Active_antennas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252; 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) Hello Stewart, I have tested this on an open perfectly flat country site. The test site was located on an inland dyke, which itself was 6 metre above the surrounding fields. Raising the antenna gave much more signal. The screening from the surroundings is also a fact. In my suburban city location, signal strength is considerable less (14 dB for the same height) than in an open field location. Fortunately this does not impair reception at all, as s/n is the same. Besides a theoritical point of few, the stronger signals on a higher pole are irrelevant as the main problem with this type of antenna is the massive signal levels produced. Not the lack of it! Best regards, Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt