Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+RE\:\s+Folded\s+monopole\s+\-\s+Food\s+for\s+thought\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+RE\:\s+Folded\s+monopole\s+\-\s+Food\s+for\s+thought\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: "Alan Melia" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:31:14 +0100; The problem with a monopole at LF is that the effective height is only half (approx) the physical height. For an inverted L where the top length is at least twice the height, the effective height is; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00122.html (14,386 bytes)
2. Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:38:03 +0100; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00123.html (11,378 bytes)
3. Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: "Alan Melia" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:00:40 +0100; Even better! :-)) Its an age thing Andy ! Alan -- Original Message -- From: [email protected] Andy Talbot To: [email protected] [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 14, 201; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00124.html (12,256 bytes)
4. Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: "Tom Tishken KD4WOV's blackberry device" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:23:42 +0000; Question: what would the efficiency of a helical antenna be compared to a inverted L? 4 bamboo poles with a wire wound in a big helical let's say 20 feet across? Just a thought. De kd4wov Tom EL98 gr; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00125.html (15,681 bytes)
5. Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: "Alan Melia" <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:10:25 +0100; The equations are in Rik Strobe's site http://www.strobbe.eu/on7yd/136ant/#Helical He quotes 1.9dB over a straight vertical of the same height compared with 6dB (thanks Andy) for the inverted L. BUT; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00126.html (16,675 bytes)
6. RE: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: "Clemens Paul" <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:28:45 +0100; Hi Andy, I believe it's neither 3dB nor 6dB increase for ERP. What is squared by doubling the effective height is is Rrad. The increase in ERP is by far not so high and depends much on Rloss (ground; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00130.html (11,666 bytes)
7. RE: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: Rik Strobbe <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:54:56 +0000; HI Clemens, but on LF Rrad <<< Rloss, in that case it is very close to 6dB. And often adding a topload wire will decrease Rloss (footprint theory), so the actue gain will often be more than 6dB. 73,; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00131.html (12,820 bytes)
8. Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:16:11 +0100; I believe it's neither 3dB nor 6dB increase for ERP. What is squared by doubling the effective height is is Rrad. The increase in ERP is by far not so high and depends much on Rloss (ground and matc; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00133.html (13,227 bytes)
9. RE: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought (score: 1): Author: "Clemens Paul" <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:44:21 +0100; Hi Rik and Andy, yes you are completely right. That's the point I've overlooked. 73 Clemens DL4RAJ; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2015-08/msg00139.html (13,722 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]