Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 12:58:04 -0400
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) smtp.mail=[email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected]
Delivered-to: [email protected]
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1373043485; bh=FtNx8owgJGz2THFmk0Myjkw1YtowlkToS5NBa72AwCc=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=p1fSdCV0us2x2Zg0aMmdF9OCrc8A2ZGmgjsCmkXoLZWAaGS4fCJovOHJjqyLfA8UL IdRHTdztklnhG1YHtyYdpmpNZmvlkL69X/uMnpBNPt3l3+FSqQ5kQwrhsFyrE5WMR/ sJPLj+4ZBd7V5Bz0Nhjp6U0SOq0CD4bHa9tR26CeQo0VEyJG6tIrOPXMMDs3F2mKT/ cbmrO8Gx4wW/y3yePW/oSRSqr4xdoeXC5c4nlLzerfSgNw7Q0b4m0s1KVjcfHnfr6n 3AWlxYMoGmBpCP+5tdw7LDhDxnq3j1Z3FifRXndQjBgHjR/E0AZZhAgEM6lF2b6Oy5 7Xj1aBWiacqjQ==
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Marco

The problem is that we're trying to prevent the feedline from appearing at the INPUT of the e probe where the impedance is in the megohms. To be effective, the choke would need to exhibit 10's of megohms 'choking' impedance ... not very likely in the real world.

If one is not convinced that the portion of feedline above ground level is part of the antenna, I'd suggest mounting the mini whip on a ground screen at ground level and checking signal strengths.

Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2


----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 11:13 AM
Subject: R: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna


Hello LF,

I'm happy to join the discussion although I'm probably the least
qualified..

The insulation, with a suitable choke, of the antenna from
the feed line is sure a test which can help to determine if in the Mini
Whip of Roelof or any other active antenna  the feed line is really a
parte of the antenna.
This was an easy and ultimate test for magic antennas like EH etc.
In this case I don't guess it can make a difference due to low
impedance of the amplifier output which should match the coax and
further the rx input (under such circumstances the feed line should not
radiate or receive but an easy test should give the answer).

An other interesting point, according my experience, is the effect of
"structures" nearby MiniWhip: my MiniWhip is placed about 10m from the
roof (close to a metal mast) and about 1.5 m on one side there is the
feed point of a 160m doublet and a 80m doublet, onthe other side there
is the top hat of the 136/472 TX antenna. The signal level at my rx
(about 50m coax run after the antennas) changes according the MiniWhip
is the only cable connected at the receiver input, or when the MF/LF
antenna is also connected switching from MF to LF on the tx antenna
affects the received signal..

73, Marco IK1HSS
----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email protected]
Data: 5-lug-2013 16.19
A: <[email protected]>
Ogg: Re: LF: VK1OD&#39;s analysis of the MiniWhip antenna

Roelof

Without adequate isolation between the feedline and e probe unit
itself, the x meters of vertical
feedline above ground level is part of the antenna.

Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2


----- Original Message ----- From: "Roelof Bakker" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: LF: VK1OD's analysis of the MiniWhip antenna


Hello all,

Further to this discussion, I have done the ultimate test to
demonstrate  that an active whip
antenna with a 1 meter long whip behaves as a  capacitance at LF.

For the test I used the ground wave carrier of semi local NDB ONO at
399.5  kHz.
As it is the only station at that frequency the carrier level is
very  stable at daytime.
The distance is 59 km, which excludes probably all skywave
propagation.

The antenna was mounted vertical and the carrier of ONO produced a
signal  level of -69.1 dBm as
received with a PERSEUS SDR.

Next the antenna was mounted horizontal at the same height as the
bottom  of the vertical mount.
This produce a signal level of -72.0 dBm.

I reasoned that the mean height of the 1 meter long antenna when
mounted  vertical is 50 cm
higher. So the antenna was then mounted horizontal 50 cm  higher from
its previous position. This
produced a signal level of -69.9  dBm, close to the value measured
when mounted vertical.

The main point however, is that a horizontal polarized antenna should
NOT  receive a vertical
polarized ground wave signal at (almost) the same  strength.

So at LF, there is nothing gained in using a whip instead of a small
piece  of copper clad PCB.

Comments are much appreciated!

Best regards,
Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt










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