X-GM-THRID: 1207056677399076536 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: c962e8ada9d3a630b8d4e714861d0c7aded93320 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.127.17 with SMTP id z17cs8258wrc; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.4.17 with SMTP id g17mr3290532nfi; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id l21si3470126nfc.2006.06.24.03.57.27; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Fu5hk-0007Bz-Qp for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:49:32 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Fu5hk-0007Bq-7D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:49:32 +0100 Received: from smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.204]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fu5hh-00076U-0M for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:49:32 +0100 Received: (qmail 16670 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2006 10:48:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO w4o8m9) (james.moritz@btopenworld.com@213.122.122.120 with login) by smtp814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 2006 10:48:22 -0000 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.1.394 [268.9.3/374]); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:45:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c6977b$5e8cdfa0$787a7ad5@w4o8m9> From: "James Moritz" To: References: <521.130bed0.31cc71fb@aol.com> <002301c69690$4cd321c0$5ac428c3@captbrian> <200606231019250198.1433C814@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <005f01c696a6$b55dd1c0$5ac428c3@captbrian> <449C03E7.9010007@wanadoo.fr> <002001c696e3$74317a20$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <00a701c696f5$5231ff00$5ac428c3@captbrian> <001101c69757$d0da6380$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:45:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-1.820,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.376 Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: Top-fed LF antenna idea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5154 Dear Peter, LF Group, I can assume the > current is flowing down the tower because there's simply nowhere else it can > go. If a meter at the base of the whip registers 1 amp then that's 1 amp > flowing down the whole height of the tower. I can then just measure the > height of the tower above the surrounding terrain, derive the radiation > resistance (using the full height, not half of it), and estimate the erp > from that. I don't think this is quite true. If you consider a small vertical in the middle of a large flat roof, most of the electric flux lines emerging from the vertical element will terminate on the "ground plane" formed by the roof - thus most of the antenna current will be circulating between the roof and the antenna. A small proportion of the flux will miss the roof and extend to the "real" ground around the building, so some current will flow from the real ground vertically up the building, but only a small proportion. of the total antenna current. However, if the antenna-plus-building is electrically short, and the vertical element is small compared to the building height, this small current will make a disproportionately large contribution to the overall radiation resistance, so still result in a large increase in ERP. Even if the antenna consists of a tall, thin, grounded mast with a small vertical driven element on top, a lot of the field would exist between the driven element and the top part of the mast, so the current would be much higher at the top of the mast than the bottom. But some of the field would reach ground level, so there would be a contribution from the whole mast as before. To optimise the LF building-antenna, you would want to arrange things so the largest possible fraction of the antenna current flowed through the whole height of the building, in other words so that the largest part of the electric flux extended between the antenna element and the ground surrounding the building. This would mean having the antenna element sticking out as high and/or as far from the sides of the building as possible. This is really the same objective as top-loading a monopole antenna. So David's sloping wire transatlantic antenna is probably a good approach - one would want to make the wires as long and high up as possible, as usual. I would certainly agree with Peter that the CFA, EH and their ilk are in many cases simply acting as devices for loading up the building or mast on which they are mounted. Because these are fairly high-Q devices, with presumably large voltages and circulating currents, and with the square-law relation between short antenna height and ERP for a given current, it wouldn't take much current "escaping" from the antenna for the mast/building to be the major contributor to the radiation. My experience some years ago at work with HF measuring loop antennas revealed that almost any feeder cable or preamp power lead several metres long attached to the antenna could make 10dB or more difference to the received signal, even if the cable was just lying on the ground. It was neccessary to add lots of clamp-on lossy ferrite cores and take care with layout to keep this sort of effect to a reasonable level. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU