X-GM-THRID: 1207003870988988079 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 358fcf62e2ad0752f2f0afe0ed800f7f62adfbbb Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.127.17 with SMTP id z17cs8540wrc; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.85.9 with SMTP id n9mr3320019nfl; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id l38si600562nfc.2006.06.24.04.58.03; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:58:04 -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 1Fu6jV-0007Mb-79 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:55:25 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Fu6jU-0007MS-QO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:55:24 +0100 Received: from smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.139]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fu6jR-0007Ky-IH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:55:24 +0100 Received: (qmail 90635 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2006 11:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO LAPTOP) (peter.martinez@btinternet.com@81.159.158.22 with login) by smtp802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 2006 11:54:16 -0000 Message-ID: <003a01c69784$eb0972a0$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> From: "Peter Martinez" 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> <001a01c6977b$5e8cdfa0$787a7ad5@w4o8m9> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:54:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.153 Subject: LF: Re: Top-fed LF antenna idea Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original 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: 5303 >From G3PLX: I am sure Jim is right to say "it's not quite true..". As I suggested in my reply to Brian, if a lot of the field lines just 'short-circuit' back to the top of the tower, then there isn't going to be much contribution from these. But I think it's possible to believe that if we have a small monopole sitting in the middle of a square ground area which is the size of the top of the tower-block, initially at ground-level, and we then raise it by jacking-up the tower underneath it, our transmitted signal will increase as we do so. It's well-known that you can work a lot further by taking a 2m handheld up a tower, but if you only think of surface-wave propagation theory, you would say that there wasn't any point in doing the same with a 136kHz 'hand-held'. If we can accept that the old Post Office work on the field-strength from ships is reliable (it's the height above the sea that counts, not the height above the transmitter), and we understand the mechanisms involved, we may gain quite a lot by taking, not just a small vertical monopole but any sort of metal object which can be deployed clear of the structure, to the top of something tall. 73 Peter