Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.57.9 with SMTP id e9csp145355igq; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 09:53:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.15.34.77 with SMTP id d53mr20933048eev.95.1373215984564; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 1si13516160eei.309.2013.07.07.09.53.03 for ; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UvrgM-00011O-TQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:19:26 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UvrgM-00011F-DG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:19:26 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UvrgK-0002Ta-Qm for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:19:25 +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 r67GJOcH017148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:19:24 +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 r67GJO60027841 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:19:24 +0200 Message-ID: <51D99506.5080509@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 18:19:18 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= 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: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) 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: Am 06.07.2013 20:32, schrieb Roelof Bakker: > [...]However this is irrelevant as the output is easily adjusted by > adapting the size of PCB antenna. That sounds so easy but unfortunately we have to fight with DCF-39 here :-( There are certain countries where it IS so easy :-) [...] Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 5c335215f1b3de26d890ee84d49616ce Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3132 Am 06.07.2013 20:32, schrieb Roelof Bakker: > [...]However this is irrelevant as the output is easily adjusted by > adapting the size of PCB antenna. That sounds so easy but unfortunately we have to fight with DCF-39 here :-( There are certain countries where it IS so easy :-) > > The feed line is not part of the antenna. What is then the counterpoise of the whip? The second plate of the capacitor? Where does the potential difference come from? It must be the metallic structure connected to ground (GND in the circuitry) and connected feed line, either coax or twisted pair or what ever. > One test I still intend to do is to feed the antenna with a 9V battery > and use fiber optic to transport the rf to the shack. I am using a non > conductive fiber glass pole and my guess is that the antenna still > will work. I agree. But it will have a counterpoise too, e.g. the plates inside the 9V battery. If the whip electrode connected to the FET is a tin can and the complete circuitry including the battery is inside that box, only a small hole to feed out the fiber optic cable, then the voltage or signal will be 0 (or just noise). 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > 73, > Roelof bakker, pa0rdt