X-GM-THRID: 1229941606766351199 X-Gmail-Labels: lowfer,rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.115.73.3 with SMTP id a3cs625380wal; Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:15:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.119.13 with SMTP id w13mr6583869ugm.1172963720753; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:15:20 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si4772353ugf.2007.03.03.15.15.20; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:15:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.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 1HNdP9-0003yp-AO for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:12:43 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1HNdP8-0003yg-CI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:12:42 +0000 Received: from alias1.ihug.co.nz ([203.96.222.11]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HNdP4-0003ew-Vw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:12:42 +0000 Received: from ironport1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.254.19] by alias1.ihug.co.nz with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HNdNh-0002va-00; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:11:13 +1300 Received: from 203-109-220-224.bliink.ihug.co.nz (HELO athlon1200) ([203.109.220.224]) by ironport1.ihug.co.nz with SMTP; 04 Mar 2007 12:39:36 +1300 X-Ironport-Seen: Yes Message-ID: <07d101c75de9$8355a620$7900a8c0@athlon1200> From: "Dave Brown" To: References: <002101c75b37$1e370680$6401a8c0@JAYTERMINAL> <001701c75b40$54bc2740$6901a8c0@AIRPORTTERMINAL> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:13:10 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.040 Subject: LF: Re: Re: [Lowfer] Protecting E probe antennas in near field of LF TX antennas 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: 2694 Thanks for all the comments on this-Jay and the others. Those of you who have a protective relay in service in an E probe-have you any recommendations to make as regards the mechanical layout? Keeping the stray C to a minimum is obviously the main requirement, along with short ground path when the relay is shorting the E probe input. For maximum protection, isolating the probe antenna seems to also be desirable, which is why I was thinking along the lines of the Dow Key relay arrangement with a double sided spring loaded contact. But I guess any relay that has low stray and intercontact capacitance (contacts open) and reliable grounding via a short path (contacts closed) will do the trick. 73 Dave, ZL3FJ