Message-ID: <4D72CE63.5000703@talktalk.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:59:31 +0000
From: "qrss@talktalk.net" <qrss@talktalk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <AANLkTimy87NkJ3VXf4qeQ3NMehA_6HzAe6mHBJ6M_Sts@mail.gmail.com><4D72471D.30904@talktalk.net><AANLkTincU_L7bHAKNmqLWuOmmMv114MY0=FAjKCyP=0m@mail.gmail.com><4D72695E.3090100@talktalk.net><AANLkTikd83tysKokWzpisRYBQuYc2q0-chzhn1B3EfmP@mail.gmail.com><4D7291BD.8080301@talktalk.net> <AANLkTi=GLAyB-fmKj-LvVDERpx5M-qy1P6GriAPOCVij@mail.gmail.com> <C70B23C4493F48CB8D9A21AB9CA9E69A@JimPC>
In-Reply-To: <C70B23C4493F48CB8D9A21AB9CA9E69A@JimPC>
Subject: Re: LF: Sub 9kHz antenna tests.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Jim

Thanks for that, I knew we could depend on an analysis from you.

You confirm my thoughts and findings, I went for a step tuned, low loss  
loop, I get 20dB gain around >1kHz wide on tuning to 9kHz and can't see 
a need for a pre amp. With a self resonance around 600kHz it should be 
quite useful.
My sound card is clean flat and quiet, I do appreciate the need for a 
pre amp to overcome a noisy one. I am trying out a 4 turn coupling loop 
I don't know what impedance this is giving me but it is a better match 
for a 4 to1 isolating transformer to the sound card than a 1 to 1 
transformer and seems to work well.

Using this method there is no need for any filtering of lower or higher 
frequencies, one disadvantage being the rejection of MSK transmissions 
for frequency locking when the loop orientation nulls out the one you 
are using.

Given some fine WX I will do some more test outside, essential to get 
away from the computers and crud from mains appliances I find.

73 Eddie G3ZJO


On 05/03/2011 22:47, James Moritz wrote:
> Dear Eddie, Gary, LF Group,
>
> The loop is tuned, but is very low Q, and has more of a low-pass 
> response really. It was done this way partly in order to obtain a wide 
> bandwidth around 9kHz, which allows effective use of noise blanking or 
> clipping (implemented using the DSP facilities of Spec Lab) to reduce 
> the impact of QRN impulses. It also avoids the need for re-tuning, 
> which is very convenient. At the same time, it provides a decent 
> amount of attenuation of signals above the VLF range, which would 
> otherwise tend to overload either the preamp or the sound card input. 
> The frequency response is defined by the loop inductance, the shunt 
> capacitor at the input, and the input resistance of the preamp stage 
> (about 300ohms, due to the series/shunt negative feedback). The low Q 
> means the loop voltage is small, so a fairly low-noise preamp is 
> needed. The band noise has always been >10dB above the internal preamp 
> noise in practice, so this is satisfactory. The overall gain of the 
> preamp is about 60dB at 9kHz, and this was chosen as a compromise - it 
> is large enough so that the band noise swamps the internal noise and 
> QRM in the sound card input, but small enough so that the utilities 
> and QRN do not overload the sound card.
>
> You can get much higher signal voltage out of the same loop antenna by 
> changing it to a high Q resonant design. I guess with the relatively 
> high impedance load of the sound card input (several kohm), you might 
> get a Q between 10 and 100. This would give a voltage gain of 20 - 
> 40dB, more if you made a really low-loss loop and optimised a tapping 
> point for the sound card input connection. But the bandwidth would 
> also be greatly reduced, probably to only a few hundred Hz or less, 
> and this is a bad thing. The narrow bandwidth "stretches" the QRN 
> impulses making clipping / blanking less effective. Also, accurate 
> tuning is then required.
>
> I suppose one motive for having such a high Q loop would be to 
> eliminate the preamp. This might work, depending on how noisy the 
> sound card codec chip and the PC it is attached to are. My experience 
> has been that this varies a lot between different PCs and frequencies, 
> and which audio input you use. E.g. the laptop I usually use has a 
> "Mic" input with considerably higher gain than the "line" input. But 
> for some reason, the SNR is worse even though the signal level is 
> higher when using this mic input. Also, the input noise level may vary 
> depending on the source impedance of the antenna connected to the 
> input. Since the preamp components only cost pennies, and allow you to 
> get ample SNR as well as several dB improvement through the use of 
> noise clipping and "no-tune" operation, this seems a better and 
> simpler solution.
>
> When comparing noise levels, it is important to check what the noise 
> actually is, especially since PCs and associated stuff are potentially 
> powerful noise sources. Listening to the output around 9kHz using the 
> SpecLab VLF SDR function is useful - you are hoping to hear the band 
> QRN and probably assorted mains-borne noises, rather than a lot of 
> digital hash from the PC.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>