Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9713 invoked from network); 21 May 2000 10:22:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by bells.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 21 May 2000 10:22:06 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12tSab-00069M-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 21 May 2000 11:04:05 +0100 Received: from ulexite.lion-access.net ([212.19.217.2]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12tSaa-00069H-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 21 May 2000 11:04:04 +0100 Received: from w8k3f0 (1Cust30.tnt11.rtm1.nl.uu.net [212.136.251.30]) by ulexite.lion-access.net (I-Lab) with SMTP id 242F1FB064 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 09:02:40 -0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000201bfc30b$fe010700$1efb88d4@w8k3f0> From: "Dick Rollema" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000a01bfc249$66334360$72d499d4@w8k3f0> <001c01bfc256$5c0e99e0$dc799fd4@f9.net.uk> Subject: LF: Puckeridge test 3 Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:02:37 +0200 Organization: Freeler MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: >From PA0SE Dave, G3YXM wrote: > Dick and all. > > Very puzzling! > I worked Jim straight after you and found exactly the opposite..... 4dB > better on the "small" antenna. We tried the test twice and I continued to > listen, each time it was the same. > Directional? > Which side of the big mast was the little antenna I wonder? > > 73. Dave G3YXM. Dave and All, There is a simple explanation. I was very busy doing the measurements, changing the receiver input from aerial to signal generator and back, reading levels etc. I therefore did not listen carefully to what Jim was sending (experienced telegraphists can do a job and copy CW at the same time but I am far removed from that category). So I assumed that the bigger signal came from the bigger aerial. Rather foolish of course and I apologize for that. So the S8 (-79dBm) signal I reported must have been from the small aerial and the 4dB weaker signal (-83dBm) from the Decca aerial. That is 30dB less than the signal from G3WSC/P operating from Puckeridge on April 16 at 1000 UTC. G3WSC/P at that time reported an aerial current of 9A. In his e-mail of May 18, 15.54, Jim announced he was going to run an aerial current of 0.34A into the Decca aerial. That is a difference of 20log(9/0.34) = 28.5dB; within 1.5dB of my measured values. That confirms I got the two aerials mixed up. Assuming that at the distance of 317km between our locations the inverse distance law is still applicable my measured field strength of 8.6µV/m yields a radiated power by the small aerial of 83mW, close to the 80mW Jim was aiming at. For the Decca aerial I find 33mW. Up to now (0951 UTC I have heard no signal from Jim on 73kHz. 73, Dick, PA0SE This was my earlier report: > To All from PA0SE > > At 0955 today I worked Jim, M0BMU/P at the Puckeridge station. > On the Decca antenna his signal was exactly S8; corresponding to a field > strength of 8.6 microvolt/metre. > On the "amateur antenna" the signal was 4dB weaker. > > I reported the signal exhibited a fast fluctuation in strength with a > frequency of a few hertz. But I later found out it was my signal generator > interfering with Jim's signal. even with the output turned down to zero. >It shows that even a HP606B is not perfectly screened! > > 73, Dick, PA0SE