Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 22D27380000FA; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QofCi-0000kl-EQ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:26:00 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QofCh-0000kc-ND for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:25:59 +0100 Received: from out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.239]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QofCf-0003mq-7A for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:25:59 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusAAE2DOU5cHYyx/2dsb2JhbABClAUDg36PWXiBOwUBAQUIAQEDSQIsAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKJRQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAYddwTGGQgSCUIRbnDU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,311,1309734000"; d="scan'208,217";a="355845823" Received: from host-92-29-140-177.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.140.177]) by out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 03 Aug 2011 18:25:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001501cc5202$63be4d50$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <002701cc51b2$63e9d880$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 18:20:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Re: POOR ANTENNAS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC5209.F8383C00" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 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-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:441516032:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60ca4e39850c55d3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC5209.F8383C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Direct emails AGREE but Public disclosures seem to have NO Opinion = !!!!!!!!!! What's new !! g3kev ----- Original Message -----=20 From: mal hamilton=20 To: rsgb=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:53 AM Subject: LF: POOR ANTENNAS LF=20 Well it seems some are of the opinion that the problem is not Antennas = but increased environmental noise and Seasonal conditions. Others say that a small antenna for RX es Grabbers is better than = nothing. I disagree with this logic because the displayed signals are = not what one is expecting and at worst the signal is not visible at = all.=20 While environmental noise varies and can be a problem and Seasonal = changes effect signal propagation I still think poor RX antennas are the = main problem. In the past I was able to work OH1TN to the North East and IK5ZPV and = other Italian stns to the South Daily ie all day long as well as night = time on normal CW and average reports were 579 SUMMER as well as winter. = At present with my same antenna and TX, several hundred watts I am not = visible on the majority of EU grabbers DAYTIME even in QRS3 let alone = CW.=20 Using conventional inv L antennas at my QTH I am able to observe on = screen and audio all those that TX on 137 Khz.=20 There are instances were some EU transmissions are not visible on EU = grabbers although I can see/hear and work them from here. My conclusion is that all the technology and effort that has gone into = setting up good Grabbers and Receiver systems is being let down by POOR = ANTENNAS. Some time back I tried a commercial high spec loop antenna/amplifier = and it was inferior by 2 to 3 S points in the optimum direction = compared to my inv L system, therefore receiving a S3 signal on the inv = L would not be visible/audible on the loop and probably the same applies = to the probe type antenna.=20 It has been pointed out by others also that years ago the older = receivers worked better for commercial world wide communications because = in my experience they had proper large antennas ie Rhombics, V - Beams = and Beverages, and Radio Amateurs had similar antennas scaled down in = some cases. There was also an abundance of skilled Radio Operators that = could handle any situation, a scarce commodity today.=20 In todays communications world Amateur Radio has become a convenience = hobby, manipulator of Black Boxes, mobile phones and Internet. Let us have your observations 73 de Mal/G3KEV =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC5209.F8383C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Direct emails AGREE but Public disclosures seem = to have NO=20 Opinion !!!!!!!!!! What's new !!
g3kev
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 mal=20 hamilton
To: rsgb
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, = 2011 8:53=20 AM
Subject: LF: POOR = ANTENNAS

LF
Well it seems some are of the opinion that the = problem=20 is not Antennas but increased environmental noise and Seasonal=20 conditions.
Others say that a small antenna for RX es = Grabbers is=20 better than nothing. I disagree with this logic because the displayed = signals=20 are not what one is expecting and at worst the signal is not  = visible at=20 all.
While environmental noise varies and can be a = problem=20 and Seasonal changes effect signal propagation I still think poor RX = antennas=20 are the main problem.
In the past I was able to work OH1TN to the = North East=20 and IK5ZPV and other Italian stns to the South Daily ie all day long = as well=20 as night time on normal CW and average reports were 579 SUMMER as well = as=20 winter. At present with my same antenna and TX, several hundred watts = I=20 am not visible on the majority of EU = grabbers DAYTIME even in=20 QRS3 let alone CW. 
Using conventional inv L antennas at = my=20 QTH I am able to observe on screen and audio all those that = TX on=20 137 Khz.
There are instances were some EU = transmissions are=20 not visible on EU grabbers although I can see/hear and work them = from=20 here.
My conclusion is that all the technology = and effort=20 that has gone into setting up good Grabbers and Receiver = systems is=20 being let down by POOR ANTENNAS.
Some time back I tried a commercial high spec = loop=20 antenna/amplifier and it was inferior by 2 to 3 S =20 points in the optimum direction compared to my inv L system,=20 therefore receiving a S3 signal on the inv L would not be = visible/audible=20 on the loop and probably the same applies to the probe type = antenna.=20
It has been pointed out by others also = that years=20 ago the older receivers worked better for commercial world wide = communications=20 because in my experience they had proper large antennas ie Rhombics, V = - Beams=20 and Beverages, and Radio Amateurs had similar antennas = scaled down=20 in some cases. There was also an abundance of skilled Radio=20 Operators that could handle any situation, a scarce commodity = today.=20
In todays communications = world Amateur Radio=20 has become a convenience hobby, manipulator of Black Boxes, mobile = phones and=20 Internet.
Let us have your observations
 
73 de Mal/G3KEV
  
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CC5209.F8383C00--