Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought
From: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:16:11 +0100
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=vRkzFaTsVC2Q69AeEP+t0A1pp+WpLlykRTmFtqUUkjg=; b=ELPsXorxu7B2q/Qxylf++vXqcQ9zFP+l7MdOdS1JxS5eX7IF9+RhNs6xu80ZyooQnp ZH7v29hB5H9E4hqV6rqff7TD67tzt+2Jhk2mrPtQMjVTV7KzjPwEbWd7rEPIqD6UEdK4 XzCarGm+i1OXoEuQbk7lEzYBpwrT04HMPHQDSeAtsVszyShr4TcYl6bT8Odxt2SIdFUz 6GwUtiDYJbnzWmLpA4q+NwTERG2caXUHLKe7cPZuodloHDSSKUApEkXrzVDLQtab4s2p +9f5eNMkprx+AhcZnbzKqAXPsLT7kLDMSnUp4z6VY0clgVq5AyCTn5bToU0IQuy6DQ7f 6uhg==
In-reply-to: <99F1F2B22A504C2E817619D82E59C59B@Clemens0811>
References: <CAA8k23TogtdhVt5L4N8h2X8mZQeqTnPR1VPydFpYQrHnTG3ojQ@mail.gmail.com> <C6107F3FF0014066ADA6D0452B156B95@Clemens0811> <1156BF06E81A40ED928F77349725D23D@gnat> <CAA8k23Tu18yeOS81epzmC00wLwqec4-KQJb1r+piRr3HrkEdtg@mail.gmail.com> <99F1F2B22A504C2E817619D82E59C59B@Clemens0811>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Yes, but we're nearly always talking small antennas here,  where Rrad is more like a few milli-ohms and the overall extra loss  resistance totally dominates

Andy


On 15 August 2015 at 18:28, Clemens Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Andy,

>6dB more, not 3dB
>Height squared

I believe it's neither 3dB nor 6dB increase for ERP.
What is squared by doubling the effective height is is Rrad.
The increase in ERP is by far not so high and depends much on Rloss (ground and matching).
Example:
Rrad = 50 Ohm; Rloss = 50 Ohm => efficiency = 0.5
Quadruple Rrad to 200 Ohm then efficiency = 0.8 => 2dB more.
Other Rloss values give completeley different numbers for efficiency.

73
Clemens
DL4RAJ


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Talbot
>Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:38 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Folded monopole - Food for thought
>
>6dB more, not 3dB
>Height squared
>
>'jnt
>
>
>On 14 August 2015 at 22:31, Alan Melia
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>       The problem with a monopole at LF is that the effective
>height is only half (approx) the physical height. For an
>inverted L where the top length is at least twice the height,
>the effective height is close to the physical height .....so
>3dB more ERP. It may not matter so much on 160m (I used a
>16foot centre loaded "tank-whip" at one time :-))  )  but where
>
>



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