Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7373 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2002 09:44:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by exhibition.plus.net with SMTP; 16 Mar 2002 09:44:40 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 21529 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2002 09:44:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 16 Mar 2002 09:44:35 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16mC9p-0000Zy-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:15:29 +0000 Received: from mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk ([194.201.52.152]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16mC9o-0000Zt-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:15:28 +0000 Received: from ldsas18-82-133-118.cw-visp.com ([212.137.133.118] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16mAR1-0001Te-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:25:08 +0000 Message-ID: <3C930F4C.E1B9415C@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:24:28 +0000 From: "gii3kev" Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: loops References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020315154947.00ad4900@gemini.herts.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: James Moritz wrote: > Dear Mal, LF group > > A couple of suggestions to try with your loop: > > > Hello Jim and some observations on your comments. > > This is not surprising in a quiet location, since the band noise will > define the SNR with any reasonable antenna - but the really interesting > experiment to try would be to compare efficiencies using the strength of > received signals, first with the loop, and second with the same antenna set > up as a vertical, ie. with one vertical leg and the bottom leg removed. The > vertical could be tuned with a small loading coil for receive only, wound > on a pot core for example. DCF39 could be used as a reference signal, and > your SPM12 would be ideal for comparing the sig levels. I could try this, but this antenna is not too far away from the main vertical and there could be interaction especially with the ground radial system near by. It might not be a good assessment. There is already some interaction between the loop and vertical. > > > . > > -But you could try some QRP tests without going to all the trouble of the > full power version. There would be just as much trouble on QRP building another atu for a one off job, that would also be a backward step, knowing it would never perform anything like the vertical. I should really be spending more time on improving the vertical ground radial system. > Wonder Jim if you could put out a signal on 73 khz and work xband 136 > sometime today so that I can try the loop for reception. Tnx de Mal/G3KEV > > > > Cheers, Jim Moritz > 73 de M0BMU