Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp43601igl; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:43:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.15.86.65 with SMTP id h41mr36817465eez.147.1373485399585; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o46si25899736eef.125.2013.07.10.12.43.18 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:43:19 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UwzWO-0007Rk-1J for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:53:48 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UwzWN-0007Rb-F0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:53:47 +0100 Received: from omr-m08.mx.aol.com ([64.12.222.129]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UwzWL-0006iH-KD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:53:46 +0100 Received: from mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.68]) by omr-m08.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 93CD27008B71D for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.68] (host-92-8-80-39.as43234.net [92.8.80.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 1E736E0000E9 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51DDADB2.5090905@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:53:38 +0100 From: pat Organization: G4GVW User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51D975FA.60008@virginbroadband.com.au> <51DD1434.2030300@virginbroadband.com.au> <20130710173020.GA22574@cs.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <20130710173020.GA22574@cs.utwente.nl> x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1373482422; bh=RuaF5bmmZBr1MkGHfTt8SpmfL/Sqy73AtjvhodfsVBY=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fpmz0zZJ48L0NFn6r5YQpFE5E62twjsS/bExZ/neFMBqn9TkXMBZ0QnQsVFNi+WoB 77+hdzqpQi4uf0gEBDpbKkCEIU5qxW9AvF+7SEs9hJzQwOTW7q2K+h1mZA/nrNtdUx wkke+PU9fUvsZYdTrKrBhvJZynououLuK9x0pQ2A= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:387302688:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294451ddadb55793 X-AOL-IP: 92.8.80.39 X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) 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: Of course, it also holds to be true that the "rest of the universe" that is the "other plate" of my capacitor is also the "other plate" of everyone else's similar capacitor and is the common circuit element to which we are all referenced! [...] Content analysis details: (-0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [64.12.222.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (g4gvw[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: e6de17d69e46ff4ea8db042ef2cd7e46 Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: 1854 Of course, it also holds to be true that the "rest of the universe" that is the "other plate" of my capacitor is also the "other plate" of everyone else's similar capacitor and is the common circuit element to which we are all referenced! 73 On 10/07/13 18:30, Pieter-Tjerk de Boer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:58:44PM +1000, edgar wrote: > >> Surely every conductor in the unit will have a difference in potential >> due to being in a electromagnetic field. >> Even in the legs of the FET. Although the potential will be extremely small. > Yes, of course that's correct. > > I should have written that with a fiber optic cable instead of the coaxial > cable, all circuit elements are coupled to the field at _almost_ the same > place, and thus are at _almost_ the same potential, and thus _almost_ no > signal will come out: very much less than with the coax still in place. > > B.t.w., some mini-whips are built using a metal can as the probe, with > the entire electronics inside the can; such an arrangement would get > quite close to zero output when the coax is replaced by the fiber optics. > > Anyway, it was originally claimed that the functioning of the mini-whip > does not depend on the coaxial cable; I just intended to explain why I > think it does. > > 73, Pieter-Tjerk, PA3FWM > > -- 73 de pat g4gvw es gd dx qth nr Felixstowe East Coast UK