Return-Path: Received: from mtain-da07.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-da07.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.79]) by air-di04.mail.aol.com (v128.1) with ESMTP id MAILINDI041-eac24bba0480b9; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:40:48 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-da07.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 426713800009C; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NyoOp-00026E-2r for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:39:39 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NyoOo-000265-NO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:39:38 +0100 Received: from 113-mo2-8.acn.waw.pl ([62.121.95.113] helo=paranoid.lipkowski.org) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NyoOm-0005XD-Fr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:39:38 +0100 Received: from paranoid.lipkowski.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id o35FdY8E000891 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 17:39:34 +0200 Received: from localhost (sq5bpf@localhost) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id o35FdXdF000888 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 17:39:33 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: paranoid.lipkowski.org: sq5bpf owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 17:39:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Jacek Lipkowski To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <001c01cad439$aa7aa830$0101a8c0@amd4800> Message-ID: References: <001c01cad439$aa7aa830$0101a8c0@amd4800> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score-sq5bpf: -2.601 () BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: E-field probe antennas for dreamers band? Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d404f4bba047e359b X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, George Vastianos wrote: > Does anyone who received DK7FC's signals was using e-field probe > antennas like BBB-4???? I used a modified PA0RDT mini-whip. I think i've managed to receive the long dash from the last transmission via an e-field antenna. I'm not 100% sure, therefore i won't be claiming reception, before i get conclusive results. Regarding E-field vs. H-field antennas, in a noisy environment in the city the E-field antenna is much better, because the electric fields are confined within buildings, while magnetic fields are not. The E-field antenna i'm using gives a noiseless signal when receiving SAQ on 17.2kHz, while a H-field antenna in the same building in 2006 used to give signals which are readable, but with strong qrm, and since 2007 i have only seen traces of SAQ in the qrm. In a noiseless environment there are electrostatic effects, which can cause noise to the E-field antenna, and a H-field would probably be better, but i have yet to see such a noiseless place. My bet would be on the e-field. VY 73 Jacek / SQ5BPF