Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 764203800009C; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QoKZe-0006Jw-PR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:24:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QoKZe-0006Jn-CF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:24:18 +0100 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <g3kevmal@talktalk.net>) id 1QoKZc-000655-Tf for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:24:18 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am8BAAhOOE5cHYoY/2dsb2JhbABCiQKPEESPEXiBOwUBAQUIAQEDEDkCLAEBAwUCAQMRBAEBAQklFAEECBIGFggGEwoBAgIBAYddv1GGQgSHK5U7hno X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,307,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="5010724" Received: from host-92-29-138-24.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.29.138.24]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 02 Aug 2011 20:24:10 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01cc5149$c192d630$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> References: <001601cc5147$61942b50$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <CAMFjj70bR2-tV4JjkVDAG4HbQsr-0JAvnuhQpRGNAVQO-AnqSQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:24:10 +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,none Subject: Re: LF: Poor antennas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: 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-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:470065216:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604c4e384f155247 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Warren I do not have a problem. I can see es hear them all but I am disappointed how weak my signal looks on some of the EU grabbers compared to yester years and some cannot hear me when I call for a QSO. Likewise they cannot hear/see each other except they are vy local to one another. BUT I do not use Probes OR Small loops. I use what one would call normal LF/MF antennas. de Mal/G3KEV ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ziegler" <wd2xgj@gmail.com> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:13 PM Subject: Re: LF: Poor antennas Mal, Don't discount the increased interference from switching power supplies, plasma televisions, PLTs and the like. Everyone is battling a higher noise floor these days. My suggestion: get a sail boat and operate from it! -- 73 Warren K2ORS WD2XGJ WD2XSH/23 WE2XEB/2 WE2XGR/1 On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM, mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> wrote: > LF > It now takes hundreds of watts to be observed or heard around EU on 137 Khz > whereas some years back less than 200 watts achieved a good result like a > QSO on CW. The 130 watt Ropex used by many resulted in many CW QSO'S, > In those days most Amateurs were using normal antennas like loaded inv L > systems or some sort of vertical for both RX es TX. > At present the trend seems to be probe or small loop antennas and these do > not seem to produce enough signal capture to the RX. > The DX that I have worked in the past all had large antenna systems. > These are my observations, maybe others have another theory. > de mal/g3kev >