Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+LF\s+antennas\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "THOMASVENN" <>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 22:32:55 +0100
Mal, A good 5 8 9 signal here in Huntingdon..IO92WI ./ON 472. 73 de Tom G3RPV -- Original Message -- From: mal hamilton To: rsgb Sent: Saturday, Jun
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2013-06/msg00264.html (9,137 bytes)

2. LF: Re: LF Antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Dodd" <>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:44:32 GMT
G3JKV was right too. Please let us stop this discussion before more internet bandwidth is wasted. Such a discussion will not lead anywhere because of the laws of nature. It was stupid of me to enter
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/1999-03/msg00147.html (12,714 bytes)

3. LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "john sexton" <>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:20:14 -0800 (PST)
Hi Rik, Now I have had time to study your web page on 136 antennas, I have the following comments, which I hope you will find useful. 1. The reason that the antenna current decreases linearly to zero
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00098.html (12,268 bytes)

4. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Rik Strobbe" <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:06:14
Hello John Thanks for your comments. 1. The reason that the antenna current decreases linearly to zero at the end of the antenna, is because sin(x) = x approx for small values of x, and for most amat
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00100.html (16,579 bytes)

5. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:39:36 +0100
Due to its directivity, a short vertical monopole has a gain of 2.6dB over a dipole (4.77dBi versus 2.15dBi for a dipole). Careful! Surely this assumes perfect ground, doesn't it? Even at HF, I think
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00101.html (9,635 bytes)

6. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Rik Strobbe" <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:19:59
Careful! Surely this assumes perfect ground, doesn't it? Even at HF, I think most amateurs would prefer to use a vertical dipole than a ground-plane antenna. Good point. I have been breaking my mind
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00102.html (11,126 bytes)

7. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Dennison" <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:23:30 +0100
ON7YD wrote: Now we take the real-world case and assume a loss of 100 Ohm (environement + coil). If we put 100W into this system we will have an antennacurrent of 1A and radiate 8.2mW (-42dB compared
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00105.html (10,815 bytes)

8. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Rik Strobbe" <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 16:08:31
At 12:09 9/03/00 -0000, G3XDV wrote: Hmmm. Well I think we do have to take earth losses into account twice. This is because it not only affects the ERP because of the effective resistance in series w
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00107.html (12,975 bytes)

9. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: Väinö Lehtoranta <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 16:22:56 +0200
Hi all, Some time ago I wrote a story for SRAL magazine about (LF) progation terminology with a drawing or a sketch showing the proposed radiated components* near the radiating short vertical monopol
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00108.html (11,612 bytes)

10. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:07:15 EST
<< Due to its directivity, a short vertical monopole has a gain of 2.6dB over a dipole (4.77dBi versus 2.15dBi for a dipole). >> This is one point which may deserve some clarification. A real-world i
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00109.html (10,064 bytes)

11. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:28:30 EST
Oops! Between the time I composed my message and the time I finally reconnected in order to send it, Mike and others had already commented on the 2.6dB directivity. However, I believe my observation
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00110.html (9,926 bytes)

12. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "john sexton" <>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Hi Rik, Mirrors don't really reverse left and right any more than they reverse top and bottom, what they really reverse is front and back. The word I think you were looking for is anti-phase. Don't w
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00113.html (9,035 bytes)

13. Re: LF: Re: LF antennas (score: 1)
Author: "vernall" <>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:16:11 +1300
Good point. I have been breaking my mind about that for some while. But it seems to me that we take the inperfect ground into account already with the ground-loss resistance, so do we have to take it
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-03/msg00114.html (11,626 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu