Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.20000228164856.09a71d04@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:48:56
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Field strength revised
In-reply-to: <000701bf8166$fae4a900$c22597d4@win95.swipnet.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

If you calibrate the loop it is not nessecary to use an untuned loop. If
you use a tuned loop the output voltage will be much higher (factor Q, can
easily be 100 or more). This will allow to measure at larger distances.

The fact that Christers measures 6dB difference on 2 places each 2km from
his TX is interesting. I don't believe that the antenna can be that
directive, so there must be another reason.

73, Rik  ON7YD


At 22:09 27/02/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello All
>
>Thanks to PA0SE for suggesting the calibration method.
>I tried this method this evening and believe I'm somewhat closer to the
truth...
>
>Obviously the measuring loop with the connection wiring was resonant far
lower in frequency than expected. This made the figures a bit optimistic.
>
>Now I have a 6,3 dB difference between calculated (2,4 W) and measured
radiated power (0,65 W).
>
>More details on my home page
>http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-54761/fs.htm
>
>73
>Christer
>SM6PXJ
>
>
>
>
>