To: | [email protected] |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: VLF: 5,2 km distance on 8,97 kHz with an earth antenna |
From: | Roger Lapthorn <[email protected]> |
Date: | Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:27:00 +0100 |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Aunp7zK0r/zsyN/KyQdvjlYSt9+TebU61k8APhejNpY=; b=GGoWlaeLm/x48gLGswWWgEW8BAiLhJFF3OiQRqrTk6W3zxQTSZDWuOMvrUBo5lniEM zo7XDqxvFY93ahr8EAD1JYvBLGqy/J55jYeY6qxxWlNtjTdLE1PNypkiQn09xAu9uQJY y6o7G/1U0HN53ztXbiNFywZmdX9Rvbs9CCoak= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=sSYuqoO+G8ge3/1OxBosvZvi9O1xF9i/MDhDAYEsN//8wecF+JGcZm1mCph06/VgDB lL0AU/TYzl8izOHJ89AFemsWVDyqGFcmH1wu/S8Sd8EWXS10jIAPadNY3TcMmu9aaVMe IbhS9ufmnpC8jYgWeSsTg+NhoghaXCdAlzEEE= |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
In-reply-to: | <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1C66@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> |
References: | <[email protected]> <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C5107CB12AB@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be> <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C5107CB12AD@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1C66@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Good luck with the next tests Stefan. Yes I agree that a poor conductivity soil/rock should give the largest "loop in the ground" (and best range) and that low contact resistance at each earth point will allow you to maximise the current into the ground loop. I wonder if any electromagnetic theorists here would be able to estimate the radiated power of such an earth mode "antenna"? Such structures (on a larger scale) were used at 76Hz for the USA's Project Sanguine to communicate with their nuclear submarines at great depths. At 8.97kHz the electrode spacing could be 176 times shorter. Also, we are not trying to counter many dBs attenuation in seawater, nor span the entire globe. Also, with slow QRSS we can wait for our signal to appear and use extremely narrow bandwidths. So, what I'm wondering is what do the maths say might be possible regarding radiated signals from such structures? 73s Roger G3XBM 2010/6/26 Stefan Schäfer <[email protected]> Tnx Roger, -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088 |
Previous by Date: | AW: VLF: 5,2 km distance on 8,97 kHz with an earth antenna, Stefan Schäfer |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: AW: VLF: 5,2 km distance on 8,97 kHz with an earth antenna, Mike-WE0H |
Previous by Thread: | AW: VLF: 5,2 km distance on 8,97 kHz with an earth antenna, Stefan Schäfer |
Next by Thread: | Re: AW: VLF: 5,2 km distance on 8,97 kHz with an earth antenna, Mike-WE0H |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |