Return to KLUBNL.PL main page
| To: | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: LF: Re: Re: First Portable Trip |
| From: | Richard Newstead <[email protected]> |
| Date: | Sun, 24 May 2009 12:45:36 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <001a01c9dc5e$b6bbb040$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> |
| References: | <[email protected]> <9670125E608A4D63AE541048B2177A02@JimPC> <001a01c9dc5e$b6bbb040$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> |
| Reply-to: | [email protected] |
| Sender: | [email protected] |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
mal hamilton wrote: This is all very interesting. I have spent an hour in a darkened room contemplating suitable antennas (well not quite). Comments from experts welcome:JimI did not say an inv L virtually lying on the ground as in Richards case(1 METRE ABOVE GROUND), this is more like a beverage antenna. 1) T antenna. Am I right in thinking that in the classical T configuration, the horizontal part of the aerial is only there to add capacity - i.e. it makes no contribution to the groundwave? If so, I assume that I can use very thin wire for the T? 2) In the more likely configuration with "horizontal" wires actually acting as an inverted V can I still use very thin wire without reducing performance? 3) Is there any benefit to be gained by having an inductor at the top of the vertical section of the T? If so, will the loss of the inductor be relevant if the part of the antenna above it (the T wires) don't contribute to useful radiation? 73 Richard G3CWI |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: LF: SAQ transmitting now, F4DTL |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | LF: Re: Re: CQ DX 500k, mal hamilton |
| Previous by Thread: | LF: Re: Re: First Portable Trip, mal hamilton |
| Next by Thread: | LF: Re: First Portable Trip, James Moritz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |