X-GM-THRID: 1214450345502311494 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: c06c7f7da175cfea5b302104bee522fedb443d64 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.250.20 with SMTP id x20cs906336qbh; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.29.2 with SMTP id g2mr11480639nfj; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id b1si1847183nfe.2006.09.13.16.28.22; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:28:23 -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) DomainKey-Status: bad (test mode) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1GNe70-0007sB-Mg for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:25:46 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1GNe70-0007s2-0e for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:25:46 +0100 Received: from smtp811.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([217.146.188.71]) by relay2.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GNe6u-0002Aw-RK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:25:45 +0100 Received: (qmail 26004 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2006 23:25:35 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=mWO/wweYtEgOFZP8mXGx1sFDDN3D0YnZTGHa3xwSpeSNlfq2QnTkih6sTmWpIfYcyDXFwvbQNjtj6FjhVxIQR82CK1hpFrsc9I7OyD/cA/HnOezSFO+zqa4iyul3gjCpZxH/RlPJX4686PtEryVUtJV71oHnEuPoYj0Ed/aP9dE= ; Received: from unknown (HELO lark) (alan.melia@btinternet.com@213.122.75.63 with login) by smtp811.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2006 23:25:34 -0000 Message-ID: <001d01c6d78b$ea6a5160$0300a8c0@lark> From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <006a01c6d771$a53c3320$20be3b3e@fujitsu> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:25:28 +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: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.641 Subject: LF: Re: the use of long radials 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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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: 4440 Hi Dick, we have been having just such a discussion on the LWCA Lowfer group reflector. There are lots who will tell you that 160m was unbeatable after they did this or that....the problem is LF is not generally scalable as there are many unknown parameters involved besides frequency. My "research" suggests it might......but then again it might not !! I am afriad there is no cookbook formula for this (at least I have not found a working one) You really need to evaluate each location separately.......something that is not easy to do on a DXpedition site, except in preparation for next year !! I am afraid the answer is set up an antenna and a ground spike. Measure it for C and Rloss, then quickly rollout a wire and see if you get any reduction. First roll it out under any top wire, then ground the remote end and try again. this way you can quickly get a feeling for what works and avoid a lot of effort. You do need a simple and reliable LF antenna bridge...... note that noise bridges do not work well at LF. Many noise bridges do not work that well at all, because the designers or makers do my appreciate the problems of balance over the frequency range. You only have to measure a few resistors to determine this. Also you will need about 3v rms feed to the bridge at LF to avoid false nulls from strong nearby BC stations and general noise. See http://www.btinternet.com/~alan.melia/aelossbr.htm#losses for some ideas. Made properly a simple bridge will give sharp deep nulls and repeatable results. Again you do not have the luxury to try it on a Dxpedition but multiple long spaced top wires, strung as high as possibble is the easiest way of reducing loss. Wolf's reference to the "footprint" refers here. One alternative is a very large loop. By that I mean with a circumference of maybe at least 120m and a high as possible. These are low voltage antennas so are not subject to loss by capacitive coupling nearby foliage or buildings. The Yanks feed them via a ferrite transformer and mount them right up in the trees. The ERP of the loop is not as high as a "T" of similar dimensions but it can give a better ERP in some situations. One comment we have agreed on is that for an inverted L or T antenna there is not much point in running "radial" wires much beyond the span of the top wire. If you were to manage 300 to 500m length ground wire you are on your own, we have no data on the effect of a wire beyond the influence of the top load, but a near resonant wire might work well.....but you will have to test it by measurement. Dont be seduced by the 160m ideas, ground skin depth is so much greater than effects can be totally different, but do depend on the parameters of the ground (soil). Good Luck with your LF signals.....though receiving might be the biggest hurdle, I am sure we will hear you. Cheers de Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick To: Sent: 13 September 2006 21:11 Subject: LF: the use of long radials Anyone knows if it makes sence to use some long radials 100-300m long in combination with a spiral-coil toploaded vertical with 4x20m toploading wires. Or is this just wasting time and wire...... Dick, pa4vhf