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 w8AKLmpp028132 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:21:51 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1fzScW-0005g7-Sy for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:17:16 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1fzScW-0005fy-6i for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:17:16 +0100 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1fzScQ-0001dF-DF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:17:15 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EF62130A for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:17:07 +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=1536610628; bh=hVh0N7JjMF8orrwiMyHFWWnhojBcCb0eCYm7mbgNYF4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=DpbIdLAEbr44HnlJq7cyJ/6i2IwHuNM+O2igvmN640vbVJF1UxnCYHmFskgICKMaK DoKnexGp/GYRsTe2b9Wgo+ltLJcnN+ThfXZmtyRQBXpeRgAkRSbSbzpDXsgnh7rjPr K74tSznB8EsbmEiz0yEk4g3MHjsSbokTZ5toQ/VSKzr+KkrRuno1uklkod9IrVML+u bR9RgortMmFv4DcLs5mm6wA5wO1vYfTosSK6CnVufl4gWdFn8+mo4vLC8DuZeWvXWV o9PKnKp8JB87ISXpAqvH2NL/dWtG6bw8EKIEky/L33Etgf2V7yVYgpNCC547KAlD/+ bFAmkQnqUn42A== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 428K8L3YWqz9rxP for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:17:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5B96D13E.9030803@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:17:02 +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: <5B94344B.3030503@posteo.de> <165bb2c1d17-1ebb-76dc@webjasstg-vaa41.srv.aolmail.net> <006701d448ce$391ad670$ab508350$@comcast.net> <5B966C69.6060000@posteo.de> <010e01d44934$60f6a190$22e3e4b0$@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <010e01d44934$60f6a190$22e3e4b0$@comcast.net> 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: Hi Jim, Yes, pure enjoyment. Here is a photo of the setup for the remote LF experiment, including PA, signal source and scope :-) http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/LF/20180909_192539.jpg 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 [185.67.36.66 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 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: URI host has a public dotted-decimal IPv4 address 0.0 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID BODY: Test for Invalidly Named or Formatted Colors in HTML 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 222431427b0fb799ed82c2c5d7851cd5 Subject: Re: LF: RE: ERP and loop efficiency Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010800080106080107050803" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010800080106080107050803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jim, Yes, pure enjoyment. Here is a photo of the setup for the remote LF experiment, including PA, signal source and scope :-) http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/LF/20180909_192539.jpg 73, Stefan Am 10.09.2018 20:30, schrieb hvanesce@comcast.net: > > Hi Stefan, > > Your ground-loop results are pure enjoyment at this spectator QTH; the > numbers that you provided in your “ERP and loop efficiency” message > below seem to suggest efficiency equal to or better than that of the > Norway (Dazey) test. This is a most remarkable and enjoyable > experiment in many ways. > > 73, > > Jim AA5BW > > *From:* owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] *On Behalf Of *DK7FC > *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2018 9:07 AM > *To:* rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > *Subject:* ULF: ERP and loop efficiency > > Hi Jim, > > (I changed the subject.) > Well, i remember there was a day where Markus transmitted on 8270 Hz, > and me too. We were both visible on Paul's grabber. > Markus told me i was about 5 dB stronger there. Here is a spectrum > from Pauls grabber (me on 8270.000 Hz) > http://78.46.38.217/fbins3.html#p=1532887200&b=120&s=pw&m=cardioid&w=r&h=42&z1=0.34&z2=0.64&c=1&mb=632,136,655,212,1 > > Well the Distance from Paul to Markus is 1028 km, the distance to my > ground loop is 840 km. Markus used an E field antenne, i used a H > field antenna, so there may be some better filter and antenna mixing > coefficients for one of the stations. Let's say, due to the different > distances, i have an advantage of 1.8 dB. > Markus states he emits 10 uW (i guess that is EMRP) so my signal seems > to have about 20 uW EMRP during that transmission, in which i run 550 > mA antenna current. > Meanwhile i can run 1.8 A antenna current (+10.3 dB), so the signal > could have 215 uW. That is with 255 W RF power. So the antenna > efficiency is about -60 dB at 8270 Hz, based on Markus' 10 uW > statement (?). > > I have no idea if the equivalent loop area actually increases with a > dropping TX frequency. On LF it seems to do at least :-) > Assuming the area is constant, the efficiency will be even 14.4 dB > lower on 1570 Hz and 18.6 dB lower on 970 Hz. Uuuh i hope this is not > true :-) > So the EMRP on 1570 Hz was maybe 8 uW at a -74.4 dB efficiency. > > 73, Stefan > > > Am 10.09.2018 08:19, schrieb hvanesce@comcast.net: > > > Hello Markus, Stefan, Paul, > > Is there any way of guessing the ERP of the 1570 Hz (or 2970 Hz) > earth-loop tests last week? > > I noticed that ERP/wallplug-power efficiency of the Norway (Dazey) > test at 1280 Hz might extrapolate to about 2E-8 with 1 km between > electrodes (with ~ 20 ohm electrode-to-earth resistance); and though > it might be informative to compare. > > 73, > > Jim AA5BW > > > --------------010800080106080107050803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jim,

Yes, pure enjoyment.
Here is a photo of the setup for the remote LF experiment, including PA, signal source and scope :-)
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/schaefer_vlf/LF/20180909_192539.jpg

73, Stefan

Am 10.09.2018 20:30, schrieb hvanesce@comcast.net:

Hi Stefan,

 

Your ground-loop results are pure enjoyment at this spectator QTH; the numbers that you provided in your “ERP and loop efficiency” message below seem to suggest efficiency equal to or better than that of the Norway (Dazey) test. This is a most remarkable and enjoyable experiment in many ways.

 

73,

 

Jim AA5BW

 

From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of DK7FC
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 9:07 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: ULF: ERP and loop efficiency

 

Hi Jim,

(I changed the subject.)
Well, i remember there was a day where Markus transmitted on 8270 Hz, and me too. We were both visible on Paul's grabber.
Markus told me i was about 5 dB stronger there. Here is a spectrum from Pauls grabber (me on 8270.000 Hz) http://78.46.38.217/fbins3.html#p=1532887200&b=120&s=pw&m=cardioid&w=r&h=42&z1=0.34&z2=0.64&c=1&mb=632,136,655,212,1
Well the Distance from Paul to Markus is 1028 km, the distance to my ground loop is 840 km. Markus used an E field antenne, i used a H field antenna, so there may be some better filter and antenna mixing coefficients for one of the stations. Let's say, due to the different distances, i have an advantage of 1.8 dB.
Markus states he emits 10 uW (i guess that is EMRP) so my signal seems to have about 20 uW EMRP during that transmission, in which i run 550 mA antenna current.
Meanwhile i can run 1.8 A antenna current (+10.3 dB), so the signal could have 215 uW. That is with 255 W RF power. So the antenna efficiency is about -60 dB at 8270 Hz, based on Markus' 10 uW statement (?).

I have no idea if the equivalent loop area actually increases with a dropping TX frequency. On LF it seems to do at least :-)
Assuming the area is constant, the efficiency will be even 14.4 dB lower on 1570 Hz and 18.6 dB lower on 970 Hz.  Uuuh i hope this is not true :-)
So the EMRP on 1570 Hz was maybe 8 uW at a -74.4 dB efficiency.

73, Stefan


Am 10.09.2018 08:19, schrieb hvanesce@comcast.net:

Hello Markus, Stefan, Paul,

 

Is there any way of guessing the ERP of the 1570 Hz (or 2970 Hz) earth-loop tests last week?

 

I noticed that ERP/wallplug-power efficiency of the Norway (Dazey) test at 1280 Hz might extrapolate to about 2E-8 with 1 km between electrodes (with ~ 20 ohm electrode-to-earth resistance); and though it might be informative to compare.  

 

73,

 

Jim AA5BW



--------------010800080106080107050803--