Envelope-to: dave@picks.force9.co.uk Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:39:23 +0000 Received: by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with spam-scanned (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1Ezdko-0002td-No for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:39:23 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1Ezdko-0002sp-Fl for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:39:22 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1EzdjZ-00051v-Fz for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:38:05 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1EzdjZ-00051m-3r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:38:05 +0000 Received: from cmsout01.mbox.net ([165.212.64.31]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1EzeyK-0000qr-Iu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:57:42 +0000 Received: from cmsout01.mbox.net (cmsout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.31]) by cmsout01.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F13780E5 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:37:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from uadvg131.cms.usa.net [165.212.11.131] by cmsout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.27I); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:37:37 GMT X-USANET-Source: 165.212.11.131 IN dibene@usa.net uadvg131.cms.usa.net X-USANET-MsgId: XID560kasRll1758X01 Received: from [192.168.0.6] [151.46.164.217] by uadvg131.cms.usa.net (ASMTP/dibene@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.27E) with ESMTP id 413kasRlj0112M31; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:37:35 GMT X-USANET-Auth: 151.46.164.217 AUTH dibene@usa.net [192.168.0.6] Message-ID: <43CFCE5D.5000504@usa.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:37:33 +0100 From: Alberto di Bene User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <016101c61d02$12ceca40$2101a8c0@pcroelof> In-Reply-To: <016101c61d02$12ceca40$2101a8c0@pcroelof> Z-USANET-MsgId: XID413kasRlj0112X31 Subject: LF: Re: Mini Whip and local noise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SpamFiltered: by PlusNet MXCore (v2.00) Roelof Bakker wrote: > In principle both antennas performed equally well in receiving NDB's. If > there was a difference, the active whip gave just a little better result. > > Noise bursts hardly if at all audible on the active whip were very > strong on the active loop. At many times, this also rendered the active loop > useless for phasing purposes. Roelof, have you by any chance compared your active whip with the Amrad E-field probe? Both work on the same principles and it would be interesting to know how do they compare. 73 Alberto I2PHD P.S. Thanks for the PDF file.