Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10135 invoked from network); 25 Oct 1999 01:36:18 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 25 Oct 1999 01:36:18 +0100 Received: (qmail 5455 invoked from network); 25 Oct 1999 00:37:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 25 Oct 1999 00:37:24 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11fXyi-0000Yt-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:27:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.10]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11fXyh-0000XS-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:27:11 +0100 Received: from G0MRF@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id lMXBa14299 (4569) for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:54 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 From: G0MRF@aol.com Message-ID: <0.d7aacac3.2544fd92@aol.com> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:54 EDT Subject: LF: Re: Technical details of CFH (137kHz) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 137 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: In a message dated 10/24/99 7:06:29 GMT Daylight Time, sergeantd@compuserve.com writes: << I have done a quick calculation on a 200m loaded vertical using G4FGQ's program and this shows that such an antenna, assuming 50 ohms earth resistance, would have a radiation resistance of 13 ohms and an efficiency of 14.3%. A top loading umbrella is likely to improve this somewhat (and the earth resistance is likely to be quite a lot lower with a professional earth mat). Given the typical efficiency of antennas most of us can use, and the limitation to 1W erp I suspect this puts things into perspective! >> This is very interesting Dave. In an early slow CW article by Peter Martinez, I remember that he managed to receive signals from G4JNT on 73k which were predicted as 20dB below noise level in normal bandwidths (LF Source book) Some rambling...... If the ERP from the VE on 137 is 20% of 10kW, that equals about 2kW ERP. I can't remember what the best signal to noise is on the signal. Would 10dB be about right? Therefore, for a 3dB received S:N+N, the ERP could be reduced by 7dB = 400 W If it's 10dB above noise in a 250Hz bandwidth, then by using an fft program to reduce the bandwidth by a factor of 400, (which is not unrealistic) would allow us to receive an amateur 1W signal over the same path with a 3dB S:N+N So 250Hz /400 = 0.625mHz equivalent bandwidth. I think that for normal CW it's going to be almost impossible, but for QRS techniques, it looks like a good challenge, which with some appropriate planning, may eventually succeed. The problem for the very slow data rates used by Andy and Peter would be changes in propagation during the transmission. How long is the signal audible at reasonable signal levels each night? and, I wonder if we'll mange to cross the Atlantic before the 2m Op's? 73 David