DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=btinternet.com;
  h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status;
  b=v7r5XbxXTxoUfyKlTO8V/N59YBg3A3R94TPXkxiivpw/uxRPQuMGBLUyiGna4T47jn19lw9YDDuKAaPip6p7oxg+GgC4w7K2HQKhDO8/hscgRZAgHHRj8SKnQLzs1tOO5cMZdiix/Zb94+/PrbW7lIR3dS+SHzCbTiVuHYvw7RQ=  ;
Message-ID: <00a801cb6a63$76b1ee30$4001a8c0@lark>
From: "Alan Melia" <alan.melia@btinternet.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4CB4C5CC.4000505@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <007901cb6a59$edd98400$4001a8c0@lark> <4CB4E0A3.9090103@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:11:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Questions and resonating tests and measurements on a 700m wire antenna at 137 kHz
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-15"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hi Stefan yes that could be a problem. I have a gut feeling that being=
 short
(in a vertical sense) they will be almost isotropic. You may need to=
 get
someone to drive around at about 5km to check that out.  The size rela=
tive
to a wavelength might confound this idea.

All good stuff and L(otsa) F(un)
Alan G3NYK

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer" <schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Questions and resonating tests and measurements=
 on a
700m wire antenna at 137 kHz


Thank you Alan for your reply.

One more difficulty could be the different radiation pattern of the tw=
o
configurations. So the signal difference at a specific location must=
 be
seen with care. If  the signal decreases by say 6...10 dB at different
RX stations (in N, S, W, E) one could get a doubtless information whic=
h
configuration is better. But probably the results will not be so clear=
 ;-)

73, Stefan

Am 13.10.2010 00:02, schrieb Alan Melia:
> Hi Stefan. I believe this antenna is through trees and foliage. This=
 may
> mean the measurements maybe not what you think they are. The voltage=
 on
the
> grounded end configuration will probably be lower. this may mean tha=
t you
> have less of the power going though the tree foliage. In the ungroun=
ded
> state you have a lot more of your power leaking away from the foliag=
e
before
> it gets to the end. It might be that this shunt path lowers the appa=
rent
> resistance. The only way to test the efficiencies of the two
configurations
> is to get a relaible comparative field strength measurement. It prob=
ably
> doesnt really matter if the receiver is not accurately calibrated pr=
ovided
> you can get a a reading of the dBs difference. This doesnt affect th=
e
> resonance tests you have done to determine how to get the most curre=
nt
> flowing in the wire.I dont think you can sensibly calculate ERP in=
 this
> sytem. Of course the length is now a significant portion of a wavele=
ngth
(~
> 3/8th ) so this has implications too.
>
> Interesting experiment I await the recieve measurements with interes=
t.
>
> Alan G3NYK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Sch=E4fer"<schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
> To:<rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:32 PM
> Subject: LF: Questions and resonating tests and measurements on a 70=
0m
wire
> antenna at 137 kHz
>
>
> Dear LF,
>
> Today i have done some measurements on my "earth antenna" at 137 kHz=
.
> The antenna was used as a ground loop antenna (far end grounded) and=
 as
> a inv-L antenna (far end ungrounded).
>
> Winthin the last days the antenna was optimised. Now the first 250m=
 are
> about 8 m above ground (average). The wire was replaced by a olive-g=
reen
> military wire (steel-copper-silver, UV resistant insulation) which=
 makes
> the antenna rather invisible. The rest of the antenna is still in a
> height of about 4m (average). I assume these 4m height difference co=
uld
> make a significant difference in the efficiency on LF (not so much=
 on
VLF).
>
> The H Bridge PA was used for the tests. This PA can fed the antenna=
 from
> 10 Hz (!) to 200 kHz as seen today. The applied power (DC input) in=
 the
> tests was about 25 W. A 5 pole low pass filter was applied on the PA
output.
>
> First i wanted to measure u(t), i(t) and the phase by an oscilloscop=
e
> but this is not really running sufficient when supplied by the gener=
ator
> (trigger and display problems). So i choose the LF tuning meter (ON7=
YDs
> website) which i built in 2003.
>
> When configuring the wire (abt 700m length and abt 600m electrode
> spacing) as a ground loop antenna, it is resonated with a series L=
 (not
> C!) of about 800 =B5H. Then, its Z =3D 840 Ohm. No matter what the=
 radiation
> resistance is. Field strength measurements on my LF grabber make
> probably no sense due to the low distance. I have to compare both
> configurations in a further test, maybe this weekend.
>
> After disconnecting the ground rods at the far end the antenna (now
> inv-L config) was resonated by using a L of just 250 =B5H (estimatio=
n).
> The Impedance Z was then measured to be 440 Ohm! (U=3D73,3 V * I=3D1=
66mA).
>
> What does these values tell us? I have not yet completely understand=
 the
> whole dependency i think. _So i am looking forward to your ideas and
> comments!
>
> _It seems as if the losses have been reduced in the inv-L case. But=
 what
> about the radiation resistance? How can we compare those different
> antenna types?
> The ground losses on VLF and down to 10 Hz (quasi DC) are about 700=
 Ohm,
> today. Since the antenna is _not_ short against lambda (i.e. it is=
 even
> longer than lambda/4), the antenna acts not like a pure loop and not=
 as
> a usual back garden LF antenna. Additionally, the ground losses are=
 very
> high here! The ground electrode on the fed point could be about 350=
 Ohm,
> so 50% of the total loop losses on VLF. But, theoretically, the
> radiation resistance could be some Ohms (?) due to the antenna lengt=
h.
> If it will become longer (...lambda/2), the ground electrodes curren=
t
> decreases, and so the losses? Quite difficult and interesting, isn't=
 it?
>
> My idea is just to do further tests, hoping to be copied at many LF
> stations, since this is the final goal :-) A simulation seems to be=
 very
> difficult, due to the many unknown parameters...
>
> I want to find what is the best configuration (loop or inv-L) and i=
 want
> to increase the antenna to 1000 m length! :-) Then i will build a tu=
ner
> with fixed components. This will be an easy job since the voltages=
 and
> currents are moderate! :-) The impedance should be transformed to 50=
 Ohm
> (sincei have a 25m long RG58 cable to the class E TX that should be=
 used
> later) and i hope i can improve the RX for that antenna.
>
>
> 73, Stefan/DK7FC
>
>
>
>
>