Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.57.9 with SMTP id e9csp114045igq; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:34:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.20.40 with SMTP id k8mr7522010lae.25.1373135639837; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o7si5164395lao.161.2013.07.06.11.33.58 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:33:59 -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 1UvXHS-0004wJ-SK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:32:22 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UvXHS-0004wA-DJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:32:22 +0100 Received: from smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.22]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UvXHQ-0007rm-Jr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:32:21 +0100 Received: from pc-roelof (ndb.demon.nl [82.161.81.65]) by smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r66IWDxA062610 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:32:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from roelof@ndb.demon.nl) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 20:32:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Roelof Bakker" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.15 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner 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: Hello Pieter-Tjerk, Thank you for your analysis. The mini-whip works as a monopole vertial antenna, however contrary to a normal monopole the gap is not at the bottom, but at the top. The result is that the output is 6 dB higher as the effective height is the height of the mini-whip and not height/2. However this is irrelevant as the output is easily adjusted by adapting the size of PCB antenna. [...] 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 [194.109.24.22 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 2e2f7cbbe9f38dd7bf3fac4fc012e6fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna 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: 3123 Hello Pieter-Tjerk, Thank you for your analysis. The mini-whip works as a monopole vertial antenna, however contrary to a normal monopole the gap is not at the bottom, but at the top. The result is that the output is 6 dB higher as the effective height is the height of the mini-whip and not height/2. However this is irrelevant as the output is easily adjusted by adapting the size of PCB antenna. The feed line is not part of the antenna. I have tested the use of proper common mode chokes at different positions in the feed line. It did not make any difference at all on received signal strength (Noise is a different story, though.) I have also build a mini-whip fed with unshielded CAT5 network cable with rf-isolating transformers at both ends. This arrangement is preferred when grounding the shield of the coax at the bottom of the mast to prevent noise on the shield traveling up to the antenna, is not possible. 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. 73, Roelof bakker, pa0rdt