Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1102; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t8IHAWaG009405 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:10:32 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Zcz34-0005fi-09 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:02:10 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Zcz33-0005fZ-B1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:02:09 +0100 Received: from smtp-out01.xworks.net ([31.25.48.13]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1Zcz29-0007sA-6k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:02:08 +0100 Received: from mailbackend1 (cluster06.xworks.net [10.100.1.80]) by smtp-out01.xworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344D4609CB; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:00:55 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=kabelmail.de Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kabelmail.de; s=mail; t=1442595655; bh=Q3t3KN8/5HzgWgMpMHep0GuP8g6UnrTEMm47STc0oXo=; h=In-Reply-To:From:To:Date:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-type; b=x/ZnvnkHzzcQbyFIHY5zcP2XlFZG/huSif8M5hzVHl7qoUI+KA7p4qNJXR+E8AGB1 rVK41G6Rk9D+FFw6Z/fQJPP/yK6cYT1mtxgN1LRvlijA2ds3vmzs+5AwzdDiITa8B5 d1JFsG3exl0BHwmQ/NGik789tJGkb2TOPTNoM6EI= In-Reply-To: <55F8274B.9000308@posteo.de> From: uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de To: "DK7FC" , rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:00:54 +0200 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scan-Signature: 8556389a5ea14fbbf9b9d801ab70c592 Subject: AW: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4096

hi Stefan,
pse see

http://dj8wx-dl=2Ede/two=2Ehtm

Uwe/dj8wx

Von: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo=2Ede>
Gesendet: 15=2E09=2E2015 16:17An: &l= t;rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep=2Eorg>
Betreff: LF: Active E field antenna ve= rsus T antenna for LF/MF reception

Hi all,

Since= a while i'm now comparing RX results between two omnidirrectional
E= field antennas=2E One of them is active (similar to the PA0RDT antenna= ),
the other one is a T antenna, resonanted to the frequency of inte= rest
and matched to 50 Ohm=2E=2E=2E (So the T antenna could be used = for
transmitting)=2E The small active antenna is inside a plastic tu= be, so
(charged!) raindrops do not fall on the probe directly=2E The= charge can
flow to ground through the weak conducting water layer (= probably in the
range of 1E8 Ohm?)=2EDuring rain i saw that the "QRN= " was significantly
higher on the T antenna=2E

So, could it b= e a better idea to use an active antenna (with a limited
large signa= l capability and a non-perfect linearity!) instead of a
"real" or "t= raditional" band-selective T antenna? Maybe worth to compare
the res= ults on a stereo RX ;-) I my imagination i see the active antenna
wi= th an umbrella to protect from rain (charged drops, |q| > 0)=2E Ashigher the distance between probe and umbrella, the better the noise<= br>reduction and the lower the signal loss?
Time to build and test t= he performance of an active E field probe
consuming 5V/1mA=2E=2E=2E<= br>Just some thoughts=2E=2E=2E

73, Stefan

<= /body>