Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Re: Top-fed LF antenna idea

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: Re: Top-fed LF antenna idea
From: "Peter Martinez" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:54:15 -0000
Delivered-to: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]> <002301c69690$4cd321c0$5ac428c3@captbrian> <[email protected]> <005f01c696a6$b55dd1c0$5ac428c3@captbrian> <[email protected]> <002001c696e3$74317a20$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <00a701c696f5$5231ff00$5ac428c3@captbrian> <001101c69757$d0da6380$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <001a01c6977b$5e8cdfa0$787a7ad5@w4o8m9>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From G3PLX:

I am sure Jim is right to say "it's not quite true..". As I suggested in my reply to Brian, if a lot of the field lines just 'short-circuit' back to the top of the tower, then there isn't going to be much contribution from these. But I think it's possible to believe that if we have a small monopole sitting in the middle of a square ground area which is the size of the top of the tower-block, initially at ground-level, and we then raise it by jacking-up the tower underneath it, our transmitted signal will increase as we do so.

It's well-known that you can work a lot further by taking a 2m handheld up a tower, but if you only think of surface-wave propagation theory, you would say that there wasn't any point in doing the same with a 136kHz 'hand-held'. If we can accept that the old Post Office work on the field-strength from ships is reliable (it's the height above the sea that counts, not the height above the transmitter), and we understand the mechanisms involved, we may gain quite a lot by taking, not just a small vertical monopole but any sort of metal object which can be deployed clear of the structure, to the top of something tall.

73
Peter



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