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 x33IUHBl005577 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:30:18 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1hBkYs-00048J-JZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:24:34 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1hBkYe-00048A-7x for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:24:20 +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 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hBkYc-0004kv-Bc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:24:18 +0100 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 900562400E5 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:24:17 +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=1554315857; bh=vOP0NZET7QmwifWrZTaFCfPePoEV++c8gP4LA2dgzjg=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=SmTMReM3XF5gyBLIF+Ueg6tRgjM65cyQLSaDTaZdFzXAwEcBdfQe4hpKo9dsd1QP7 GrVXmrYjCo2Gfd1cnQdaMGRlAV7kpbCTaTuL6qP98o4l0Z0Vsu5e2KtqBk7iTh++76 jvM6cmxELKdypRB1AJPofw/URIXhDGOeTJ1zC68quzMin5d77WIHGQ5NjkP3xI68LQ nKZMgsuAzXGUJpb5ch5W5lReTZc4jH/9e1nZeUR7p7igvK7Xgz7pgbl02DOTr9mulZ QGRM+/O6c5Ov/5mOHpbgud3p/yiAyFvpfjAXvGAp9fpSCYXJCM2pCJKW0Eo+UpTPdB r8Kue340g4hOw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 44ZDxY0wPvz9rxP for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:24:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5CA4FA50.7030804@posteo.de> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 20:24:16 +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: <5CA48798.6060900@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: 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 the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: PS: Earlier that day, the same test was done at 5170.1 Hz. But there, the antenna current was different: 900m: T2019-03-31_12:31,+19m at I = 2.74 A 1130m: T2019-03-31_12:57,+31m at I = 2.12 A i.e. the signal was 2.2 dB lower, due to the lower antenna current. 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 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: b183672d2d39521dd5e5027c4d070614 Subject: Re: VLF: Ground loop improvements and test carrier... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090303030205020807070207" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 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. --------------090303030205020807070207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PS: Earlier that day, the same test was done at 5170.1 Hz. But there, the antenna current was different: 900m: T2019-03-31_12:31,+19m at I = 2.74 A 1130m: T2019-03-31_12:57,+31m at I = 2.12 A i.e. the signal was 2.2 dB lower, due to the lower antenna current. It was a noisy day, but maybe you even catched that signal. Another thing: Determined resonance capacities: 8270 Hz: C (measured) L (calculated) delta 1130/900 900m Ant 0,147 uF 1,82 mH 1130m Ant 0,1 uF 3,00 mH + 65 % 5170 Hz: 900m Ant 0,389 uF 1,74 mH 1130m Ant 0,267 uF 2,85 mH + 64 % 2970 Hz: 900m Ant 1,147 uF 1,80 mH 1130m Ant 0,82 uF 2,80 mH + 56 % 970 Hz: 900m Ant 11 uF 1,75 mH 1130m Ant 7 uF 3,15 mH + 80 % (The system includes a 700 uH fixed inductor. This value has been already substracted in the calculated L) 73, Stefan Am 03.04.2019 18:00, schrieb Paul Nicholson: > > Stefan wrote: > > > A carrier transmission was done at 8270.1 Hz, using an antenna > > current of 2 A on both antennas. > > Received here - > > 900m Ant: T2019-03-31_13:58,+10m: 1.07fT S/N -10.4dB/1Hz > > 1130m Ant: T2019-03-31_14:12,+10m: 1.30fT S/N -7.6dB/1Hz > > The signal strength hasn't increased as much as the area has > increased. So maybe the ground return current has remained > at the same depth. Then the signal would increase as by 1130/900 > which is close to what I see here. > > Can you compare amplitude and not S/N? > > -- > Paul Nicholson > -- > --------------090303030205020807070207 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit PS: Earlier that day, the same test was done at 5170.1 Hz. But there, the antenna current was different:

900m: T2019-03-31_12:31,+19m at I = 2.74 A
1130m: T2019-03-31_12:57,+31m at I = 2.12 A

i.e. the signal was 2.2 dB lower, due to the lower antenna current.

It was a noisy day, but maybe you even catched that signal.


Another thing:
Determined resonance capacities:
8270 Hz: C (measured) L (calculated) delta 1130/900 
900m Ant 0,147 uF 1,82 mH  
1130m Ant 0,1 uF 3,00 mH + 65 %
       
5170 Hz:      
900m Ant 0,389 uF 1,74 mH  
1130m Ant 0,267 uF 2,85 mH + 64 %
       
2970 Hz:      
900m Ant 1,147 uF 1,80 mH  
1130m Ant 0,82 uF 2,80 mH + 56 %
       
970 Hz:      
900m Ant 11 uF 1,75 mH  
1130m Ant 7 uF 3,15 mH + 80 %
(The system includes a 700 uH fixed inductor. This value has been already substracted in the calculated L)

73, Stefan



Am 03.04.2019 18:00, schrieb Paul Nicholson:

Stefan wrote:

> A carrier transmission was done at 8270.1 Hz, using an antenna
> current of 2 A on both antennas.

Received here -

 900m Ant:  T2019-03-31_13:58,+10m: 1.07fT S/N -10.4dB/1Hz

 1130m Ant: T2019-03-31_14:12,+10m: 1.30fT S/N -7.6dB/1Hz

The signal strength hasn't increased as much as the area has
increased.  So maybe the ground return current has remained
at the same depth.  Then the signal would increase as by 1130/900
which is close to what I see here.

Can you compare amplitude and not S/N?

--
Paul Nicholson
--

--------------090303030205020807070207--