Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.66.155.72 with SMTP id vu8csp11179pab; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 04:33:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.170.162 with SMTP id an2mr2735670lac.3.1372937579993; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 04:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t1si1022143lag.37.2013.07.04.04.32.59 for ; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 04:32:59 -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 1Uuhlk-0003zA-OQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:32:12 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uuhlk-0003yy-Aq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:32:12 +0100 Received: from smtpout4.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.68] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Uuhli-00069c-Fc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:32:11 +0100 Received: from AGB ([95.145.211.173]) by mwinf5d51 with ME id wBY51l00K3l1Vuf03BY5NE; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:32:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:32:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: G2AVJ* asserted that Maxwell had slightly over cooked things and there where no E and H fields , only vector potentials , may be the mini-probe is a near field array , as its certainly not big enough for any other concept ? [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.68 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: c9d6a1e47761f7ec7375ac340bef30d0 Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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: 3116 G2AVJ* asserted that Maxwell had slightly over cooked things and there where no E and H fields , only vector potentials , may be the mini-probe is a near field array , as its certainly not big enough for any other concept ? As for big Ae's .that's really only down to location, in open space , then a 1 mile wire Ae will produce some very low s/n levels , in a urban setting , nothing but volts of noise , its true a small probe can be located in a low noise position , but this is the geometry of the noise distribution , not the Ae itself 73 -G.. * Silent Key now -------------------------------------------------- From: "Stefan Schäfer" Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:33 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna > Wow, thanks. > This can lead to a lively discussion :-) > > I think there are some misunderstandings by VK1OD. He states that Roelof > says that: "noise is mainly magnetic". But Roelof means the local noise > and not the far field noise, e.g. from thunderstorms. That is the > difference! The local noise H fields pass the walls rather than the E > fields, in many constellations like urban areas. > Furthermore there can be a significant advantage in the obtainable SNR > compared to a "big" antenna because that small whip antenna can be lifted > easily by several meters above ground, without having a high wind load. A > big antenna with a feed point at ground level and a few meters near the > house may catch a lot of local noise. > > For me, here on the institutes roof, the small whip antenna > (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/MF/LFMFprobe.JPG) achieved > MUCH better results than the 70m long wire > (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/LF/IUP%20Antenne_resize.jpg)... > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > Am 03.07.2013 01:02, schrieb Dimitrios Tsifakis: >> Hello group, >> >> here is a web page written by Owen, VK1OD with an analysis of how >> PA0RDT's Miniwhip antenna works: >> >> http://vk1od.net/antenna/PA0RDT-MiniWhip/index.htm >> >> You may find this interesting. >> >> 73, Dimitris VK1SV >> >