Message-ID: <5B645075.9090107@posteo.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 14:54:13 +0200
From: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <CA+GfORvAA10STf3zWSQ-dRFwk5BBS25Ht0x8cDZ3cYTa09dYbw@mail.gmail.com> <5B54CCCB.6060903@posteo.de> <5B59E687.5030805@posteo.de> <5B5C3ABF.3030809@posteo.de> <5B5C4A63.3040504@posteo.de> <5B5C5446.30105@posteo.de> <14080281532786049@iva8-6be7d23653d9.qloud-c.yandex.net> <5B5CD03F.40602@posteo.de> <14811811532865577@myt4-415a3339794b.qloud-c.yandex.net> <5B5DC8BC.9030601@posteo.de> <5B5E2D7D.6050908@posteo.de> <5B5F678B.7000506@posteo.de> <6dc15e3e-a325-4be2-55e3-44413e814f8a@web.de> <5B6050DA.60905@posteo.de> <5B60A72B.90103@posteo.de> <5B61E6FB.7090507@posteo.de> <072601d42a7a$66c4d7a0$344e86e0$@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <072601d42a7a$66c4d7a0$344e86e0$@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Ground loop antennas, how to tune best?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hello Jim,

Thanks for your contributions.

Well, the PA is not clipping, also it was fused at 5 A and it can deal 
with 10 A easily. The limiting factor was the available transformer 
which started to saturate at 2.97 kHz at the given number of primary 
turns. Also the output impedance was not well matched to the antenna 
load, and finally the load impedance had a reactive component. All this 
leads to a poor efficiency and thus i decided not to run even more power.
But now, for the coming experiment i'm better prepared with 3 different 
transformers which should operate well in the ULF spectrum, at least in 
the upper half of it.

Am 02.08.2018 18:03, schrieb hvanesce@comcast.net:
> If the above applies, one solution might be to characterize the transformer and load with a swept-sine (or impulse) signal, and then compensate with lumped L's and C's; but I have not done that with large VLF earth-loops or with large VLF buried copper-wire loops because I suspect that some of the parasitic L/C effects that I have seen with oscilloscope connected to the PA and matching network in those cases might be from distributed capacitances and 3-D distributed inductances in the earth; and compensation might therefore be difficult.
>    
Thus it may be necessary to add external reactive components, not only 
the series -C to compensate the inductive part on the fundamental 
frequency but also considering the impedances (and the radiation 
resistance!) on harmonic frequencies. Means, adding a filter :-)
But in the next experiment i will try to compensate the inductive 
component of the antenna only and then watch the V/I curves...

It is a most interesting project for me and i am glad that the antennna 
already showed such a good efficiency that the 8.27 kHz signal showed up 
very clearly on Paul's grabber, a distance almost 20x higher than the 
previous VLF distance record from a transmit earth antenna.
So i'm hoping to become able to carefully determine the inductance of 
the loop at various frequencies, which tells something about the 
imagined loop dimensions.

Also think about the 'records' down on the way to DC :-) Crossing the 
far field border on a certain band makes the main difference between 
'local tests' and serious RF radiation. It is a different league, at 
least in my personal view. Another league may be the crossing a distance 
of 1 wavelength.
On that QTH, the distance to my own grabber is 55.6 km so i can reach 
the far field on any frequency down to 870 Hz! So far, the lowest 
frequency detected in the far field (all by amateurs of course!) is 
still 2970 Hz! And last week i got an easy detection at 2970 Hz over 
that distance, even in 424 uHz and despite heavy QRN! So, with a 3...6 
dB stronger signal, maybe starting to transmit a few hours earlier, i 
assume that i can crack my own record and move a step deeper, down to 
2.47 kHz.

> Whether or not the above applies, I wondered if swamping parasitic-L/C-induced I/V peaks at the PA output with a lower-impedance PA (and perhaps some parallel resistance) might keep the PA transistors in their SOA, and enable 90% efficient operation closer to your goal of ~ 50W PA power. Using a 500W linear PA to provide 50W (at 90% efficiency) would be expensive, and inexpensive Class D is more susceptible to I/V peaks, but I thought I would mention this possibility just in case.
>    
Yes, certainly i will reach the limits very soon. But for a next 
experiment it is worth to run the current setup. It will depend on the 
results and the common interest if and how i proceed. I could borrow a 
generator an run > 1 kW... Then, and also for the best flexibility down 
on the way to DC, a H bridge class-D, driven with a variable supply 
voltage and steered by some IR2113 for example, may be the choice for 
me. Then i will not need an output transformer at all! But i would have 
to spend a low-pass filter of course...


73, Stefan