DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=btinternet.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=JLeNq4Vc90GF9+tQzFJ/LIzuim8OCrjGtwiNgUF3GSov5wgTFVZTvJohE68us5kkmfQw2uXrGu4P1eZFoZQ+pAW5OJqFjgXkuWUqniZFgTpexRkVdYgYwmS75u0C0SvzV0egoLVj8eCspRwockIEDAt1auyxPXiDaGvDPpxhWfE=;
Message-ID: <1332950562.3851.YahooMailClassic@web87401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:02:42 +0100 (BST)
From: ALAN MELIA <alan.melia@btinternet.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <CAHAQVWNNCd=kx7dSuhpACzDNNtV40vLJKbt6w7jJ1oAOLxm8Uw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: E-field probe performance
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-47836184-856406856-1332950562=:3851"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


---47836184-856406856-1332950562=:3851
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Roger I think this might be difficult..... as I understand the workings =
of these they are very dependant on their mounting......i.e. the portion of=
 the wavefront they intercept. I suspect dfferent ground and different moun=
ting heights between sites might lead to different sensitivities. Others ma=
y be able to suggest a suitable "test" using a known station as a source at=
 a given time in daytime i.e within the groundwave range. We used to use th=
e signal from DCF39 as a test on 136kHz, which is very reliable in the UK a=
nd was measured by Dick Rollema PA0SE at=A0 number of locations. I think th=
e Fs was about 1mV/m in the UK maybe slightly less. I seem to remember Dick=
 measured 2mV/m in the Netherlands.=20

Alan
G3NYK

--- On Wed, 28/3/12, Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>
Subject: LF: E-field probe performance
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, sub9khz@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 28 March, 2012, 13:43

Several of the VLF grabbers are now using Stefan DK7FC's E-field probe (Tel=
 Aviv, Ipswich, Iceland etc).=A0 I'm wondering if anyone has done a straigh=
t comparison against the PA0RDT design and measured which is better in term=
s of sensitivity and dynamic range?
=0A
73s
Roger G3XBM

--=20
 http://qss2.blogspot.com/
http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/
=0Ahttp://www.g3xbm.co.uk
https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/


=0A=0A
---47836184-856406856-1332950562=:3851
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;">Hi Roger I think this might be difficult.....=
 as I understand the workings of these they are very dependant on their mou=
nting......i.e. the portion of the wavefront they intercept. I suspect dffe=
rent ground and different mounting heights between sites might lead to diff=
erent sensitivities. Others may be able to suggest a suitable "test" using =
a known station as a source at a given time in daytime i.e within the groun=
dwave range. We used to use the signal from DCF39 as a test on 136kHz, whic=
h is very reliable in the UK and was measured by Dick Rollema PA0SE at&nbsp=
; number of locations. I think the Fs was about 1mV/m in the UK maybe sligh=
tly less. I seem to remember Dick measured 2mV/m in the Netherlands. <br><b=
r>Alan<br>G3NYK<br><br>--- On <b>Wed, 28/3/12, Roger Lapthorn <i>&lt;rogerl=
apthorn@gmail.com&gt;</i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2=
px
 solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Ro=
ger Lapthorn &lt;rogerlapthorn@gmail.com&gt;<br>Subject: LF: E-field probe =
performance<br>To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, sub9khz@yahoogroups.com<br=
>Date: Wednesday, 28 March, 2012, 13:43<br><br><div id=3D"yiv1693207513">Se=
veral of the VLF grabbers are now using Stefan DK7FC's E-field probe (Tel A=
viv, Ipswich, Iceland etc).&nbsp; I'm wondering if anyone has done a straig=
ht comparison against the PA0RDT design and measured which is better in ter=
ms of sensitivity and dynamic range?<br>=0A<br>73s<br>Roger G3XBM<br clear=
=3D"all"><br>-- <br><font color=3D"#888888"> </font><font color=3D"#888888"=
><a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://qss2.blogspot.com/">h=
ttp://qss2.blogspot.com/</a><br></font><font color=3D"#888888"><a rel=3D"no=
follow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/">http://g3=
xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/</a></font><br>=0A<font color=3D"#888888"><a rel=3D"no=
follow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://www.g3xbm.co.uk">http://www.g3xbm.=
co.uk</a><br><a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://sites.go=
ogle.com/site/sub9khz/">https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/</a><br><br><=
/font><br>=0A=0A</div></blockquote></td></tr></table>
---47836184-856406856-1332950562=:3851--