Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id w7NK5H70013375 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 22:05:18 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1fsvlJ-0007MQ-Ld for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:59:21 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1fsvlH-0007MH-Jn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:59:19 +0100 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1fsvlE-0005Ui-UR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:59:18 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46C421047 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 21:59:15 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=posteo.de Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1535054355; bh=oNgjZeClEg1cACkoxg0i6wlq9yikWo202Fha+EZuXBE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=aW3aIxMMa2YTPb7T0SnHCczvaTaCJMKxPFPmUqAvunXyd0ygUJZpvUgnHwyZrZUwz 6SNXyZUE8VAcu+eV4DVYaE+9npizEdMx/fXTgMYJmCz1otqNaCF1ZUJtykN0P/2NJy 0U8yrN7Ki3AbYKnu5GlFeHYIFc1B6GsQiO7ss3MiMQJwtmgdbww1T109gWBHnYTRDI ZSHaA4Stg6a6PyasxEqp8YhT5+7KE/Y5hGSQPfkknVIlAqtW2AwizTa8/NnPdarZeT HsDVhdfWcteq6T3XK+GO7lzILusEc5KzJJBK2ESI3fd+jT4W1C2v+1QaqHJAvGBe/l B4sz8BJ9z+f0A== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 41xFc30vQPz6tmH for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 21:59:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5B7F1211.1000109@posteo.de> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 21:59:13 +0200 From: DK7FC 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: <1613303827.20180823120801@gmail.com> <88af04ed-ef1c-03e3-464f-fc5e4155d0eb@n1bug.com> In-Reply-To: <88af04ed-ef1c-03e3-464f-fc5e4155d0eb@n1bug.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Chris, I think it's time to show us a photo of your BPF construction :-) Don't hesitate to leave all the stuff on the workbench as it is ;-) 73, Stefan [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [185.67.36.65 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 7ab87d4d3ea1d9dcb73a78e83fe4d608 Subject: Re: LF: Anyone good with Elsie? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 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 Chris, I think it's time to show us a photo of your BPF construction :-) Don't hesitate to leave all the stuff on the workbench as it is ;-) 73, Stefan Am 23.08.2018 20:26, schrieb N1BUG: > Hi Chris, > > I sent an earlier reply which seems to have gone into the bit bucket > somewhere, possibly to due to server settings in my mail client > which I've just now changed back to what was working previously. > That first reply was mostly off topic so if it does show up, please > ignore it. > > I've been following the comments on your topic and just wanted to > toss something in the mix. It appears the response of your actual > filter is more rounded and the skirts less steep than the model. I > leave it to those with more knowledge to correct me, but I believe > this suggests Q of components in your filter is significantly lower > than Q assumed by the model. Using higher Q components, if possible, > may give you more attenuation of unwanted out-of-band signals. I > built one of these filters and my response appears to be in closer > agreement with the model. > > Not speaking to a solution but a possible cause of the unexpected > filter response: If you used capacitors with reasonably good > tolerance, perhaps the inductors came out a bit low in value. I've > forgotten whether you used pre-made inductors or wound your own > using cores of some type. If the latter and the cores are ferrite, > the specific batch of cores might be enough to throw it off. I > believe ferrite materials typically don't have tight tolerance. > > Paul > > > > On 08/23/2018 07:08 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >> Hello LF'ers >> >> Is anyone able and willing to advise on my band pass RX filter design >> please? I have made a band pass filter for 137kHz reception and >> checked it with my SDR in real time. It is shifted a little high and I >> am wondering what I need to change to pull it a bit lower? Any >> practical advice or component values welcome. Adjustability would be >> nice! Thanks >> >> Filter design is at http://www.chriswilson.tv/lf-circuit.jpg >> >> Real world results at : http://www.chriswilson.tv/passband.jpg >> >> ELSIE plot at : http://www.chriswilson.tv/lf-plot.jpg >> >