Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.57.9 with SMTP id e9csp156861igq; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 17:59:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.28.66 with SMTP id z2mr9320794lag.5.1373245180557; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w6si6998545lad.149.2013.07.07.17.59.39 for ; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:59:40 -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 1Uvzmi-00034u-9b for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 01:58:32 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uvzmh-00034l-Th for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 01:58:31 +0100 Received: from nina.ucs.mun.ca ([134.153.232.76]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Uvzmf-0003jC-SM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 01:58:30 +0100 Received: from plato.ucs.mun.ca (plato.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.232.153]) by nina.ucs.mun.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id r680wRLb022509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:28:27 -0230 Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:28:27 -0230 (NDT) From: jcraig@mun.ca X-X-Sender: jcraig@plato.ucs.mun.ca To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <51DA03CE.6020508@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: References: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> <7D6B8CBB38964C9C82487F5D0F3648FC@FMVXD1232> <20130707203537.GA30691@cs.utwente.nl> <51DA00C8.6000600@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA0212.8020808@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA03CE.6020508@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MUN-Disclaimer: http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/elect_communications_disclaimer_2012.php 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: Dear Group, Today I listened to my Op32 transmissions at a remote site with a miniwhip/preamp/FT817 with internal batteries. There was 1.5 m of coax on the miniwhip. Some qualitative results: The higher the mw, the stronger the signal. The signal was weak when the mw and rig were at the same height, but there was still a signal when the mw was below the rig. The sigs were weakest when the mw was on the ground. I think mw is responding to the field at the height of the whip (capacitive coupling) and the potential differencew between this and the capacitance to ground of rig and feedline. Does this make any sense? [...] Content analysis details: (-0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: e90dcb17768c7e768f13e0721cc1c0c7 Subject: Re: LF: Re: MiniWhip antenna Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_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: 2839 Dear Group, Today I listened to my Op32 transmissions at a remote site with a miniwhip/preamp/FT817 with internal batteries. There was 1.5 m of coax on the miniwhip. Some qualitative results: The higher the mw, the stronger the signal. The signal was weak when the mw and rig were at the same height, but there was still a signal when the mw was below the rig. The sigs were weakest when the mw was on the ground. I think mw is responding to the field at the height of the whip (capacitive coupling) and the potential differencew between this and the capacitance to ground of rig and feedline. Does this make any sense? The TX is on 137.555 kHz OP32 0.5W erp from the tower. A 100w dummy load connected to the 100m wire gets quite hot in short order! 73 Joe VO1NA This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php