Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10886 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2000 02:20:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by teachers.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 19 Jan 2000 02:20:23 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12AkbZ-0005jI-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:12:17 +0000 Received: from tk1.ihug.co.nz ([203.29.160.13] helo=smtp1.ihug.co.nz) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12AkbW-0005jD-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:12:15 +0000 Received: from test (p33-max3.chc.ihug.co.nz [207.214.13.96]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA16146 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:11:00 +1300 Message-ID: <017301bf6222$b827f620$0200a8c0@test> From: "Dave Brown" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <85.b1aba0.25b54469@aol.com> Subject: Re: LF: Transatlantic Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:12:47 +1300 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: Tnx to John (KD4IDY) for the useful comment. My point was that given the normal constraints on an amateur antenna LF setup, bigger ain't necessarily better for verticals, when gunning for real DX (2000 km plus) Even a 'large' amateur antenna will still be a small fraction of a wavelength at LF so will have significant high angle takeoff as well as it's more immediately obvious (and useful) ground wave component. Increasing the height will reduce the takeoff angle as you described, but is this necessarily a good thing for amateur LF DX work? Crossing the pond with amateur antennas will require some thinking outside the square and it may be that trying to minimise the number of hops is not the best way to go? Sounds stupid? Yes !! But consider this.. what sort of NDB antenna is in use at Galveston, Texas? The GLS signal is heard quite regularly down here in ZL. OK, they run a bit more transmitter power (2 kW? I think) than the usual NDB but not significantly more than some LF amateur stations and I doubt the tx antenna configuration is much different to the usual top loaded vertical NDB setup. It will have significant high angle radiation which would normally be consided undesirable but I suspect is the main contributor to the signal we hear down here. A typical larger amateur vertical antenna will have to have more than just size to compete when it come to real LF DX, (2000 km plus). High efficiency is paramount and we all know the biggest loss factor by far in any vertical antenna system used for LF is the ground loss. Big towers with poor or even mediocre grounds will fail miserably. I can speak with experience on this having used ex BC band tx masts in both situations for LF experimental transmissions. The one with the far better ground system gave an impressive improvment (2-3 'S' points at 2000 km) over that with the poor ground. Got similar reports from locals( 300km) as well. Perhaps the most interesting thing to consider is the fact that for the last 8 or 9 years, the biggest LF signal out of ZL has consistently been that of Bruce, ZL1WB. His antenna is quite extensive, but it is NOT vertical! He has 3500 feet of wire strung across a gully in a roughly north-south direction and with a 40 watt transmitter gets excellent night-time reception reports in Eastern VK as well as all over ZL. He almost certainly will have a good signal in many areas of the Pacific but there are no listeners there to confirm.(Yet! Maybe we need a few Dxpeditions- any volunteers for a Pacific Island LF listening 'holiday'!!) Another aspect that has been noted already is the problem of LF reception with large antennas. Reception requires a useable sig/noise ratio, and large antennas usually don't perform that well at LF in this regard because of all the QRM and QRN that they tend to pick up. Working VK a year or two ago we had to forget all about reception on the big vertical. We could hear the signals but QRN/QRM made it virtually impossible to copy. Static crashes and electric fence interference were literally pegging the 'S' meter. Switching to a smaller 'random wire' antenna gave R5 sigs with what appeared on an aural basis to be perhaps only an 'S' point drop in signal level but very little QRN. End result- probably a 30 dB improvment in sig/noise. You can probably only begin to appreciate what this means when you have actually tried using a really big antenna for LF reception. So while 'bigger is better' may be the catchcry for some I'll be surprised if they are the ones who actually make it across the pond first. My money will be on those who have efficient (not necessarily big) antennas, located close to or on, the respective coasts, that can as KD4IDY sez, really run the full gallon on transmit, are good operators, and above all, are prepared to keep at it! 73 Dave ZL3FJ