Message-ID: <001901c340bb$c4c7db40$2de9fc3e@l8p8y6>
From: "hamilton mal" <g3kev.ham@virgin.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030702094351.00aa7d90@gemini.herts.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:46:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: SAQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Moritz" <j.r.moritz@herts.ac.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: LF: SAQ


> At 18:28 01/07/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >In ref to Ian's comment about receiving SAQ. I would be surprised if I
> >could not copy this signal on 17.2 khz because of my antenna system. I
> >resonated my 90m loop for the event whereas others probably used odd bits
> >of wire and hoped for the best!!!!! Perhaps they will tell us if this is
> >incorrect.
> >I also have a proper LF RX Hagenuk EE 430 10 - 30000 Khz plus two
> >Pegelmessers W & G and Siemens dedicated for LF activities. I also have
> >space diversity facilites using at present 2 antennas, the 90 m loop and
> >the vertical array, both resonated at the frequency required.
>
> The SAQ signal is of the order of 100s 0f uV/m over much of Europe - so it
> is quite a strong signal, and can still be received if the antenna and RX
> are far from optimum. The usual limiting factor is the high noise level in
> this frequency range - for more distant stations, QRN can reach 100uV/m or
> more in CW bandwidth at this time of year. Local interference is a more
> severe limitation at times - for some reason, my washing machine generates
> the equivalent of several mV/m of noise in the mains wiring around the
> house, so has to be switched off during SAQ broadcasts. If you read the
> various reports, QRM and QRN were the factors preventing reception, not
> antenna/receiver performance - it would seem the vast majority of people
> who tried were able to receive at least parts of the broadcasts.
Jim
If this is the case why was I the only one to copy the entire message as far
as I know. I was getting the same QRN etc that you mention. You forgot to
mention the X factor Operator expertise, that helps as well as the proper
tools for the job like a suitable RX and antennas.
Working under excellent conditions you are correct, anything will work, like
the proverbial wet string, but on HF/LF where propogation and environmental
conditions are more often not good,  then to achieve the object only those
with the best installations succeed. Its all hard dedicated work but
satisfying in the end.
G3KEV


>
> On Sunday, I got good reception on my electro-mechanical RX, using the
> usual 40m inverted L wire. This has "gain" of -20dB between the antenna
and
> the headphones, but the QRN was clearly audible in the background under
the
> signal. I also used a 2m x 2m un-tuned loop and preamp, and a tuned
ferrite
> rod antenna, with perfectly good results from conventional receivers. In
> the past, I have used various odd bits of wire, down to about 2m long -
> provided these are tuned somewhere near resonance, ample signal is
> obtained. Longer bits of wire don't even need to be resonant, allthough
> some sort of low-pas filtering is very desireable. Active whips should
also
> work fine - provided you don't live in Brookmans Park! Just about anything
> capable of detecting a few 10's of uV at 17.2kHz, and rejecting adjacent
> frequencies can be used as a receiver - try listening to the excellent
> recording KK7KA made with a loop antenna and a sound-card.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>