Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: "T" versus "L"aerial
From: "g3ldo" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:31:13 -0000
References: <000001c3d009$acf7a620$c7e47f50@Smisan>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: <[email protected]>

Mike, PC4M said
-----------------------------------
Does the computer calculate the earth losses in the return path from the
aerial system to the transmitter? If it would then the earth losses in a T
should have been significantly less then the L alternative. There are two
separate return currents
(parallel resistance) and each with a smaller physical length (lower
R-earth)  in a T system resulting in more ERP if compared to an L system.
-----------------------------------

In the early days of LF experimenting we all thought Ts and Ls from
available LF commercial knowledge. It soon became apparent that for a
suburban QTH the shape of the antenna was unimportant. The trick seemed to
be to put up as much wire covering the greatest area and as high as
possible.
John, G4JVC had a long wire running the length of the garden, 3m high at the
feed end and 12m high at the other. With this antenna and a TS-850 he was
able to hear a lot of DX that we couldn't (he was the first to hear OH5TN).
All very electrically small antennas have the same half doughnut shaped 3-D
polar diagram on a computer model. Ground parameters have a huge effect on
small LF antenna performances so I guess they must compute return path
losses.

Regards,
Peter, G3LDO

e-mail <[email protected]>








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>