Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10628 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 10:58:04 -0000 Received: from netmail01.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.219) by mailstore with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 10:58:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 9634 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 10:57:42 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail01.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 10:57:42 -0000 X-SQ: A X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.12) id 18WaMX-0004l4-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:56:37 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from [147.197.200.9] (helo=hestia.herts.ac.uk) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18WaMW-0004kv-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:56:36 +0000 Received: from gemini ([147.197.200.44] helo=gemini.herts.ac.uk) by hestia.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 18WaM3-00018w-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:56:07 +0000 Received: from [147.197.232.252] (helo=rsch-15.herts.ac.uk) by gemini.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18WaM1-0001TM-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:56:05 +0000 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030108191419.0246d878@gemini.herts.ac.uk> X-Sender: mj9ar@gemini.herts.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:56:04 +0000 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "James Moritz" In-reply-to: <00d201c2b736$1bdbc5a0$b930fd3e@default> References: <29BDD4F529FCD311B631009027357C4E04D6A01C@btss103a.swh.sk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MailScanner: No Virus detected Subject: Re: LF: LFA 520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=6.0tests=DEAR_SOMEBODY,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01version=2.43 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Dear Tracey, LF group, At 16:50 08/01/2003 +0000, you wrote: >John Wilson did a comparison test in the Nov 2001 Short Wave Magazine >between the RF Systems 520 and the Wellbrook Communications LFL1010 VLF loop >antenna and the 520 was well beaten by the 1010 . > >http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/LFL1010.html > >The SWM review of the 520/1010 and John's savage comments about the 520 can >be found here! :-) > >http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/reviews/SWM2001Nov.html Looking at this review, it does not actually contain the information you really want to know for a receiving antenna, ie.is the antenna noise floor below the band noise level?. Unless that is true, it would not be much use for weak signal reception. However, the reviewer does compare the SNR when receiving what appears to be DCF29 (DBF29?) on 128.93kHz (see fig 3 and the paragraph above), and on the LFL1010 (the better of the two), gets an SNR of 33dB. I usually find this signal is 50 - 60dB over the band noise (in 300Hz BW - the bandwidth used in the test also does not seem to be stated), so it looks like this antenna has rather poor sensitivity, even though the reviewer likes it. The tests seem to have taken place near Exmoor, so somewhat further from DL than me, but I would not think far enough to reduce the signal level by 20dB. I suppose it is possible the transmitter was running lower power that day, but "Caveat Emptor", as Mr Wilson says! Incidentally, the stuff about having to mount an E-field antenna on a grounded metal pole is a bit peculiar - so long as the feeder is grounded somewhere, it should be happy. Also the idea that local noise is predominantly E-field is certainly not universally true, and at LF, in my opinion, probably a myth. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU