Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9101 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2001 23:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 18 Feb 2001 23:23:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 20615 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2001 23:23:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 18 Feb 2001 23:23:14 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14Ud2y-0001cZ-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:15:16 +0000 Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net ([195.40.1.40]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14Ud2x-0001c3-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:15:15 +0000 Received: from ericadodd (tnt-3-183.easynet.co.uk [195.40.202.183]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 68D0853B1D for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:14:58 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <001001c09a01$18269380$b7ca28c3@ericadodd> From: "g3ldo" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000c01c099e9$33c43420$4ba874d5@w8k3f0> Subject: LF: Re: Fw: Active antenna Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:13:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Dick said: >It has been mentioned several times that the input stage of an active receiving antenna is easily damaged by lightning in the vicinity due to the very high input impedance of the amplfier. >Several years ago Dr. (now professor) E.H. Nordholt of the Technical University Delft in The Netherlands developed an alternative design for an active antenna that does not suffer from this problem. >Instead of making the input impedance very high it has been made very low instead by means of negative feedback. As a result the E-field probe, a piece of copper tube of 50cm long and 3cm diameter, now feeds a current into the FET at the input. Because of the probe's capacitive impedance the current increases with frequency at 6dB/octave. >This is compensated by the negative feedback . This is most interesting. Some of us have active antennas from the Decca transmitter sites used for the monitor receivers. G3GRO has used one of these active antennas with a whip antenna, which when raised well above other electromagnetic obstructions (as suggested by G3JKV) gives results at least as good as with a resonant transmitting antenna. My own Decca active antenna, located on the side of the house only 7m high does not perform that well. I have received an active antenna, for testing in the EU environment, from Frank Gentges, K0BRA, with e-mail advice to mount the antenna as high as possible. However, the Decca active antennas did not use whip antennas, instead they used copper drums about .5m in diameter and .5m long, mounted only 1.5m above the ground (three of them located only 2m apart) . The Decca active antennas appear to have a couple of opamps with a resistor on a link, which can be changed to alter the gain (I do not have a circuit). Could these be a Prof Nordholt's design? Does this design need to be mounted high above electromagnetic obstructions to perform well as with the conventional active antenna with a whip? Regards, Peter, G3LDO