MIME-Version: 1.0
From: hajo.brandt.dj1zb@t-online.de
References:<57a24ca70806131827p690673d0kb0b8c0d76d85fddc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:<57a24ca70806131827p690673d0kb0b8c0d76d85fddc@mail.gmail.com>
To:  <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: 14 Jun 2008 15:56 GMT
Message-ID: <1K7Y7g-1RYRXM0@fwd31.t-online.de>
Subject: Re: LF: Finbar's Compact 500kHz Vertical
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative;
 Boundary="__Next_1213459000_Part59__"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


--__Next_1213459000_Part59__
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
 Charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit

Dear all,

ok about this neat aerial. I have also heard GI4DPE quite often and had
a crossband qso 600m/80m with him. 

But is "neat" really the best way? This question causes me to put a
question here on the server which I already have in my mind for a rather
long time:

According to my experiments on untuned (and broadband) receiving aerials
for MF SKYWAVE RECEPTION in eastern Bavaria I have got the impression
that a (capacitive) MF aerial should be as high as possible (not
regarding loop aerials, they may be located close to the ground, for
them the loop area only counts).

Of course not everybody may be in a position to realize a MF aerial 30
meters high, as G3KEV has done, with whom I had two crossband contacts.
But in general I feel that antenna height should not be disregarded.
Even with equal ERP sky waves may develop better from higher aerials.

HW?

73 Ha-Jo, DJ1ZB 


  "Warren Ziegler" <wd2xgj@gmail.com> schrieb: 
A very neat small antenna for 500kHz!

http://www.kc3ol.dynip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344


-- 
73 Warren K2ORS
WD2XGJ 
WD2XSH/23
WE2XEB/2
WE2XGR/1


 

--__Next_1213459000_Part59__
Content-Type: Text/HTML;
 Charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PIC"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"  "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;  charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>T-Online eMail</title>
</head>
<!-- <div background-color: #ffffff; background-repeat:repeat;
margin-left:0cm; margin-right:0cm"> -->
<body   link="#000000" vlink="#000000" alink="#000080" topmargin=0  leftmargin=0 marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"><font face="Times New  Roman" size=3 color=#000000><FONT   face="Courier New">Dear all,<BR><BR>ok about this neat aerial. I have
also heard 
GI4DPE quite often and had a crossband qso 600m/80m with him.
<BR><BR>But is 
"neat" really the best way? This question causes me to put a question
here on 
the server which I already have in my mind for a rather long 
time:<BR><BR>According to my experiments on untuned (and broadband)
receiving 
aerials for MF SKYWAVE RECEPTION in eastern Bavaria I&nbsp;have got the

impression that a (capacitive)&nbsp;MF aerial should be as high as
possible (not 
regarding loop aerials, they may be located close to the ground, for
them the 
loop area only counts).<BR><BR>Of course not everybody may be in a
position to 
realize a MF&nbsp;aerial 30 meters high, as G3KEV has done, with whom I
had two 
crossband contacts. But in general I feel that antenna height should not
be 
disregarded. Even with equal ERP sky waves may develop better from
higher 
aerials.<BR><BR>HW?<BR><BR>73 Ha-Jo,
DJ1ZB&nbsp;<BR><BR></FONT><BR>&nbsp;</font>
"Warren Ziegler" &lt;wd2xgj@gmail.com&gt; schrieb:
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:  5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
A very neat small antenna for 500kHz!<br><br><a  href="http://www.kc3ol.dynip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344">http://www.kc3ol.dynip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344</a><br><br><br>--
<br>73 Warren K2ORS<br> WD2XGJ <br> WD2XSH/23<br>
 WE2XEB/2<br> WE2XGR/1<br><br> 

</blockquote>

<font face="Times New Roman" size=3 color=#000000>&nbsp;</font></body>
</div>
</html>

--__Next_1213459000_Part59__--