Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0F4C438000097; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 04:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SlF8r-00039d-8t for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:04:25 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SlF8q-00039U-LE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:04:24 +0100 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SlF8o-0002Nf-HR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:04:23 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAGYD8E9Ok87P/2dsb2JhbABFoGADlXSBCIITBQEBBQgBAQNJAiwBAQMFAgEDBA0EAQEKJRQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAQqHYgMPunuKVWaCfoMcA4gXhTeXaYJf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,505,1336345200"; d="scan'208,217";a="40426018" Received: from host-78-147-206-207.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([78.147.206.207]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 01 Jul 2012 09:04:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01cd5760$1d2a22b0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <4FEF4FAB.2010103@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <628FB34D9D1741F2AB02D0ECEB380F01@64683d74b6134b3> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 08:04:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Someone forgot to mention the 1 K/watt pumped into this antenna, no good for QRP merchants. I tried this method years ago on a hotel flat roof in Hongkong and although I did work a few stations it was a POOR performer compared to the same dipole elevated --- big difference I was running about 100 Watts to the dipole There is no substitute for an Antenna being elevated into the air as high as possible except short range high angle communications is required, then a low dipole has an advantage. [...] Content analysis details: (3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.243 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.3 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.5 FSL_UA FSL_UA 1.3 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 47a967f57bae6380aac0a0062beb1b4e Subject: LF: Re: Re: MF dipole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01CD5760.1CE50360" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE 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-sid: 3039ac1dc1494ff004fb768b X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CD5760.1CE50360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Someone forgot to mention the 1 K/watt pumped into this antenna, no good = for QRP merchants. I tried this method years ago on a hotel flat roof in Hongkong and = although I did work a few stations it was a POOR performer compared to = the same dipole elevated --- big difference I was running about 100 Watts to the dipole There is no substitute for an Antenna being elevated into the air as = high as possible except short range high angle communications is = required, then a low dipole has an advantage. de mal/g3kev =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert Bennett=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: LF: Re: MF dipole That means, for a MF dipole test i would start to try to lay it=20 > on the ground. If this works with reasonable efficiency, so that a = QSO=20 > is possible, it would be a simple solution for a quick /p MF antenna = > that can find its place in a back pack! > Like K3MT's Grasswire antenna?. 73 Robert ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CD5760.1CE50360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Someone forgot to mention the 1 K/watt pumped = into this=20 antenna, no good for QRP merchants.
I tried this method years ago on a hotel flat = roof in=20 Hongkong and although I did work a few stations it was a POOR performer = compared=20 to the same dipole elevated --- big difference
I was running about 100 Watts to=20 the dipole
There is no substitute for an Antenna being = elevated into=20 the air as high as possible except short range high angle communications = is=20 required, then a low dipole has an advantage.
 
 
de mal/g3kev
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Robert Bennett =
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 = 8:40=20 PM
Subject: LF: Re: MF = dipole


 That means, for a MF dipole test i would = start to try=20 to lay it
> on the ground. If this works with reasonable = efficiency, so=20 that a QSO
> is possible, it would be a simple solution for a = quick /p=20 MF antenna
> that can find its place in a back=20 pack!
>

Like K3MT's Grasswire antenna?.

73=20 Robert ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CD5760.1CE50360--