Message-ID: <421D4840.70603@chello.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:21:36 +0100
From: PE1E <PE1E@chello.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <E1D47lB-0006Z6-6n@post.thorcom.com> <421D2E37.3010900@chello.nl>
In-Reply-To: <421D2E37.3010900@chello.nl>
Subject: LF: Beginners questions.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Dick, PA0SE, has given a lecture on LF for our Amsterdam Division of our 
national Dutch Ham Organisation  VERON ( " Dutch RSGB " ).
He made me pretty enthusiastic and I decided to give it a try to become 
QRV on 136 Khz.

My condo is 100' a.s.l. and I could try to drop a vertical wire of 100' 
thru a ( straight  ) pvc (rain) drain pipe.
Could this idea do an acceptable job ?
If so, how should I connect to earth ?
( If I learned my lesson well - from Dick - a good earth is at least as 
important as a - relatively - good antenna ).
Any other antenna suggestion for my ( top floor ) condo at 100' a.s.l. ?
BTW : I am forbidden to span a longwire on top of the building :-(

My first step was to buy a ( professional, be it vintage, all solid 
state ) LF receiver today.
And that's where my second question is about..

It is a Telefunken  ELK 639 with LF as from 9.8 Khz until 570 Khz in 5 
bands.
It has all options except the 100 Khz spectrum monitor ( but I could use 
my separate 10 Hz BW spectrum analyzer; besides, Dick showed that that 
on 136 Khz the computer waterfall programs are commonly used ).

I made some preliminary tests ( with a calibrated signal generator  ) 
and I am delighted with the RX's performances.
It has a superb sensivity at very steep bandpass skirts.
With all mechanical filters cascaded on smallest BW's  gives :  500 Hz 
off tune is > -85dB ( which is considerably within specs cf the manual ).
I could hardly believe this result.
For that reason I reproduced the tests with another signal generator ( 
HP 3336B which is even a calibrated level generator  ) and I get ~ the 
same results.
During his lecture, Dick PA0SE, mentioned the nuisance of severe 
interference of DCF?? ( and other stations ) and I guess that, for that 
reason, steep filter skirts are foremost on 136 Khz.
However, is this result sufficient for escaping the commercial neigbour 
stations interferences ( near our band edges ) Dick was talking about ?

I wonder if any list member uses or has been using this Telefunken ELK 
639 as well.
I am eager to learn about the possible experiences on this one.
E.g. : is its stability sufficient for the very narrow QRSS QSO's ?
Should I ( try to ) lock the LO's to my frequency reference ?
If this does make sense, I could ( try to ) lock my Schomandl ( with 
very low phase noise ) or HP 3336B to my e-11 HP frequency standard, 
thus ensuring ( more than - sic - ) sufficient frequency stability ).

Any comment and/or suggestion on the use of the ELK 639 for 136 Khz is 
most welcome.
Any other advices as well.

Thanks.
Peter, PE1E.