LF,

I'll begin now starting the experiment. QRV in 3...4= hours...

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 07.01.2011 21:37, sc= hrieb Stefan Schäfer:

Daer LF group,

Due to the WX foreca= st i decided to start my activity tomorrow. It will be just on LF, no VLF= activity this time. Perhaps the wind is too strong so i can only use the= 100m kite with its 500 kp strong braid. The 300m kite has a 280 kp braid= which might be to weak but maybe i'm crazy enough to use it anyway. The= 300m kite is allowed to be used only in daylight. So, in the night= i have to go down to 100m anyway.

Apart from doing QSOs (hopefully) my goals are reaching the 4X1RF grabber in DFCW-3 and= the JA7NI grabber in DFCW-60 or 90. Furthermore i remember an almo= st-QSO with Ed / RU6LA. Would be nice if this could be completed.= I'll start in the afternoon, maybe 11 UTC, without to much stress. But i= plan to stay long, so hopefully a contact to USA and maybe even Argentini= a could be possible? Maybe even a trace at VE7TIL? LF-Dreaming!!!
BT= W i am interested in local QSOs as well, not only DX is of interest!!
Since my LF converter isn't finished i have to use the DDS VFO= for LF which is slightly drifting in a QRSS-60 window but i'll be in cont= act with DF6NM who can tell me the drift and offset ;-)

If all= works well, my CW QRG will be 136.8 kHz, DFCW-3 137.7 kHz and DFCW-60/90= 136.177 kHz(+- 3 Hz). My receivers are the 706, the K2 (with a GW4ALG 30m= -converter) and the new /p RX that is under test... During transmitting DF= CW-3 i will receive in DFCW-3 and 10.

My /p RX is still not op= timised but at least i got a QSO with RA3YO in DFCW3/8 last year and a CW= contact to M0BMU and G3KEV. I'll have my CW key there and hope for some= nice contacts!

Any reports are much appreciated! :-)
Best 73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 06.01.2011 22:33, schrieb James= Moritz:
Dear Stefan, LF Group,

_Questions:_ Is my calculation reasonably useful? Would YOU ad= d that
coil in a height of 100m above GND?

I have found with NEC simulations that they give you a reasonable= idea of the impedance, but not a precise value. Especially for the resist= ance, where there are many unknowns - NEC really only sets a lower limit.=

On the basis of the calculations, I would first try without= the coil, then if results are as expected, I would try it with the coil.= Otherwise there are too many variables to make sense of the experiment -= if the coil goes up and the impedance is totally different from the calcu= lation, is it because of the coil, the antenna, or the calculation?
=

I tend to let it be since the improvement isn't that mu= ch and the effort
is high. Furthermore the coil losses could be hig= her since i have to use
a thin wire to keep the weight small...

Yes - the 136k coils I have made with Q > 300 have been rather= big, either with RF Litz wire or thick solid wire.

Hope to= see some signals at the weekend,

Cheers, Jim Moritz
= 73 de M0BMU