Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96033 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2005 17:13:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 10 Jan 2005 17:13:18 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1Co36E-000FLp-AR for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:13:05 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1Co36D-000FLf-NS for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:13:01 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1Co36P-000LM1-SF for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:13:13 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Co34w-0008JI-Jv for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:11:42 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Co34v-0008J9-6R for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:11:41 +0000 Received: from hestia.herts.ac.uk ([147.197.200.9]) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Co34s-0005sL-OJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:11:41 +0000 Received: from altair ([147.197.200.45] helo=altair.herts.ac.uk) by hestia.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 1Co2p0-0003Nu-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:55:14 +0000 Received: from [147.197.164.230] (helo=RD40002) by altair.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Co2oz-0006j4-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:55:13 +0000 From: "james moritz" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:55:13 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c4f735$272eea90$e6a4c593@RD40002> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c4f727$00356120$6507a8c0@Main> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-UH-MailScanner: No Virus detected X-UH-MailScanner-From: j.r.moritz@herts.ac.uk X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 147.197.200.9 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of herts.ac.uk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none Subject: RE: LF: Re: Pre-amps on LF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Dear LF Group, I think Jan-Martin is right about the PIN diode losses - at LF they will just work as "ordinary" diodes which won't greatly affect their loss - although they will lose their advantages in terms of linearity and ability to handle an RF signal larger than the bias current, so might cause more intermodulation. However, there is the effect of the diode biasing chokes and DC blocking capacitors - these are usually quite small (100uH, 10s of nF), so not really big enough for LF, especially when the signal has to pass through a number of these before reaching the mixer. The mixer itself is also a problem, since it usually has an impedance step-up/unbalanced-balanced transformer at the input, which is only a few turns of wire on a small ferrite core - this will have too little inductance for LF, making the input impedance of the mixer very low and generally compounding the other problems. I'm sure some people have described mods where this transformer is changed to improve LF performance, but I can't think who at the moment. A lot of RXs seem to use a combination of low-pass filter and attenuator for LF/MF reception, presumably to prevent the thing being hopelessly overloaded by MF broadcast stations when a long wire is attached, but not helpful if you are trying to receive weak LF signals. I have also noticed that the internal noise floor tends to increase at LF - I think this might be due to noise sidebands of the synthesiser leaking through the mixer and getting into the 1st IF, since the LO frequency is very close to the IF frequency when receiving a low frequency (the RA1772 actually has a crystal notch filter on the synthesiser output for this reason). It isn't hard to make an RX front end with good performance at LF as well as HF, but the designers of amateur rigs haven't actually tried to do that - they have produced a circuit designed primarily for HF, and LF reception is just tacked on as an afterthought. However, since this isn't their main objective, I suppose one should not expect too much! Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU