Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dk04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 69696380000B6; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QquS2-0000UQ-Mj for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:07:06 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QquS2-0000UH-AE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:07:06 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QquS1-0000V0-R0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:07:06 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p79M74xv008699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:07:04 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id p79M742b026069 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:07:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4E41AECB.90808@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:03:55 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3RlZmFuIFNjaMOkZmVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4E418609.6020500@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <67A6F7BF45BF4A0193A3DCB53000A283@PcMinto> <008401cc56ce$2f1fb2c0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <12C475F3F4C84B818461753F2E8A60A6@PcMinto> In-Reply-To: <12C475F3F4C84B818461753F2E8A60A6@PcMinto> X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: Re: HB9ASB... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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 x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:270677312:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db4084e41afb94c05 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Minto, Am 09.08.2011 22:48, schrieb Minto Witteveen: > You are right w.r.t. the cable being (a significant) part of the > working of the Miniwhip antenna. [...] I don't think so. There should be no difference between a 5m and 10m long cable. I think about a capacitive divider. The probe has about 3 pF, that's one plate of the C. The other one is the cable and metal connected. Once if this part of the C has say >10 * 3 pF, the difference between longer cables become smaller and smaller. I think it is just the S/N that rises due to lower becoming noise and higher signal levels. On a flat field without trees and houses, you have excellent reception even with a 2m pole :-) 73, Stefan