Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24965 invoked from network); 25 Apr 1999 03:18:13 +0100 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 25 Apr 1999 03:18:13 +0100 Received: (qmail 27848 invoked from network); 25 Apr 1999 02:19:02 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 25 Apr 1999 02:19:02 -0000 Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10bEQx-0005zg-00; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 03:14:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA32341 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:14:05 GMT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA32337 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:13:58 GMT Received: from mta.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3] helo=mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10bEQf-0005zd-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 03:13:57 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from [202.27.181.43] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990425021514.DFFM6531620.mta2-rme@[202.27.181.43]> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:15:14 +1200 Message-ID: <37226F82.5B8A@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:27:30 +1200 From: "vernall" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-XTRA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Further signals measured (2nd version) References: <01be8e9d$a644f7e0$0100007f@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Graham Phillips wrote: > > Hi Geri, Dave and all LF'ers. > > I am following with great interest the debate on our relative signals. > G3YXM / G3XTZ ) > > As Dave said, my vertical is 20 meters high, but the two 10 meter loading > wires from the top have to slope down at about 45 degrees ( to fit in the > available space ). I have always thought that the effective loss of height > was a price worth paying to avoid the need for a much higher value of > loading inductance ( and loss ) at the base of the vertical. However, I am > now FORCED into the position of HAVING to find a few more dBs of signal !!!! > I would like to hear what others may think of the options: (1) eliminate > the top capacity loading, and wind a bigger loading coil. ( 2 ) Fit a > small, lightweight inductance at the top of the vertical and reduce the > length of the capacity wires. ( 3 ) A combination of both. ( 4 ) Move. > > I would prefer the fourth option, since the local QRM here is curtailing > activity severely, but it is also the most difficult ! This seems a situation that would benefit from a separate RECEIVE ONLY antenna. The bigger and better the LF transmitting antenna, the wider the near field becomes from the point of view of local QRM becoming a nuisance. Several ZL LF experimenters, including myself, use separate antennas for receive only. An active whip, with JFET source follower, sited "down the backyard" can give a welcome improvement in S/N compared to receiving off the "big wire". There are even better types of specialised receive only antennas, but they all rely on being located in genuinely "quiet" spots for QRM. Regards, Bob ZL2CA