Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp5140igl; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.219.198 with SMTP id pq6mr27906886wjc.58.1373758737001; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o10si2941323wix.46.2013.07.13.16.38.56 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:38:56 -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 1Uy8lE-00015W-DB for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:57:52 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uy8lD-00015N-TC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:57:51 +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 1Uy8lC-0008Hy-A7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:57:50 +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 r6DMvnIx002139 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:57:49 +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 r6DMvngL026478 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:57:49 +0200 Message-ID: <51E1DB68.80007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:57:44 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?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: <51DF33E4.7030101@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <20130713103545.GA13777@cs.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <20130713103545.GA13777@cs.utwente.nl> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: Hi Pieter-Tjerk, Am 13.07.2013 12:35, schrieb Pieter-Tjerk de Boer: > [...] > It is physically impossible for the probe to cross multiple equipotential > lines. > Yes, sure. My explanation was not complete. Of course the plate is at one potential, just as the grounded pole. So the equipotential lines in the sketch will go a different way when the probe is placed on the top of the pole. I meant that the optimal position of the probe must be there, where the density of the equipotential lines (and so the E field strength) is as high as possible, so that the capacity against the far field is as high as possible and the capacity to the grounded pole is as low as possible, so that the capacitive divider is optimized. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 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] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: e90dcb17768c7e768f13e0721cc1c0c7 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: 1848 Hi Pieter-Tjerk, Am 13.07.2013 12:35, schrieb Pieter-Tjerk de Boer: > [...] > It is physically impossible for the probe to cross multiple equipotential > lines. > Yes, sure. My explanation was not complete. Of course the plate is at one potential, just as the grounded pole. So the equipotential lines in the sketch will go a different way when the probe is placed on the top of the pole. I meant that the optimal position of the probe must be there, where the density of the equipotential lines (and so the E field strength) is as high as possible, so that the capacity against the far field is as high as possible and the capacity to the grounded pole is as low as possible, so that the capacitive divider is optimized. This was my comparison to the transmit antenna as well. It will not help just to increase the capacity (just to need less L so the coil losses are reduced) when the E field lines are nearly exclusively and directly run to ground (like in a fixed grounded capacitor across the coil). This describes the capacity between probe and ground... 73, Stefan/DK7FC