Hi Dave, NO the top load does reduce the ground resistance ,it also improves the radiation resistance as you suggest, but this is a minor improvement compared to the quite dramatic effect of top load
HIGH NOON !!!!!!!!! Aim high, they can only say NO or scale it down, but they are unlikely to suggest GO UP. incentive large is limited to 20 watts erp, but thats only because 20 watts was all that w
Too many diversions Dave with others bridges, gdo's etc. Keep it simple and keep everything 50 or 70 ohms and that way it is easy to match tx impedance to antenna. Avoid articles in comics !! G3KEV
Interesting comments... I agree that specifying power in terms of ERP is not really that suitable for amateur operation and a licence specified as power output, as per all the usual amateur bands, is
Hi All, I once vowed never to get involved in any e-mail pig pong wars but I wanted to add my tuppence worth. Laurie I agree with you and Mal. We need a stipulation of power that is easily measurable
Laurie, I agree 100%. Here in the U.S., the 500kHz experimental license WD2XSH is limited to 20 watts erp, but thats only because 20 watts was all that was requested. The group felt (wrongly, I belie
The problem with an erp limit as low as 0.1W is that there is no incentive to develop better antennas. We can easily develop enough power to drive even the most inefficient of antennas. Not like 136
I am not quite sure what you are saying Laurie. I gather you are using lots of top load to your antenna which results in the radiation resistance increasing to a more realistic level than the 1 ohm o
I get about 30 ohms resistance on 136 and about 15 ohms on 500. So I dont need It would be interesting to get some more values on groundloss (or better environmental losses) on 500 kHz. Even better 1
I am very encouraged by the response to my comments on our erp limit. Regarding ground loss, the best way to reduce this is not to bury wire in the ground but to put it in the air ! 1 metre of wire i
