Message-ID: <4FC600C8.40903@dsl.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:13:12 +0100
From: Chris Dillon <c.r.dillon@dsl.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4FC39CF3.7020701@legal-medicine.de> <003a01cd3cee$0e74a1a0$1502a8c0@Clemens04> <4FC51191.8060004@legal-medicine.de> <4FC51B11.3010907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <4FC525DA.9040204@legal-medicine.de>
In-Reply-To: <4FC525DA.9040204@legal-medicine.de>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: VLF/LF-Preamp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d600e4fc6014b076d
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Peter
Sorry I missed your earlier posts in the change to Yahoo Groups. I'd 
like to try a balanced probe - are you using the same circuit (with 
INA111) as on the www.vlf.it site or have you modified it?

73 Chris G3WCD





On 29/05/2012 20:39, pws wrote:
> Moin Stefan,
>
> You wrote:
>> ...
>> How sensitive is the balanced probe to shielding effects (trees, 
>> houses)?
>
> Don't know yet. But see those screenshots. There are much less
> local interference lines visible.
>
>> Any difference to the E field probe?
>
> This IS an e-field probe, but a balanced one.
> Got the idea from there:
> http://www.vlf.it/immagine/minimal_E.html
> (tnx)
>
>> Where do you have the INA111 from?
>
> From Farnell, the TLE2426 voltage splitter too.
>
>> What are the differences on 137 kHz? Is there a significant S/N 
>> improvement?
>
> Not tested yet. But as I wrote it should work.
>
> Peter, df3lp
>
>