Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29608 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 18:36:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan03.plus.net) (212.159.14.237) by ptb-mailstore03.plus.net with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 18:36:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 82390 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 18:36:41 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from ptb-mxcore03.plus.net (212.159.14.217) by ptb-mxscan03.plus.net with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 18:36:30 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1B6wBy-000KtC-Gg for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:36:30 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1B6wBM-0006Ma-Fc for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:35:52 +0000 Received: from [213.232.95.59] (helo=relay.salmark.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1B6wBL-0006MR-6l for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:35:51 +0000 Received: from hestia.herts.ac.uk ([147.197.200.9]) by relay.salmark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B6wBI-0001Au-7i for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:35:48 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: gemini Received: from gemini ([147.197.200.44] helo=gemini.herts.ac.uk) by hestia.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 1B6vB5-0006av-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:31:31 +0000 X-No-DNS-For: 147.197.232.252 Received: from [147.197.232.252] (helo=RD40004) by gemini.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1B6vB4-0006Mw-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:31:30 +0000 From: "James Moritz" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:31:29 -0000 Organization: University of Hertfordshire X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (RD40004) Message-ID: <000001c41358$2d534c20$fce8c593@RD40004> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <244640-220043526144032684@M2W081.mail2web.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-UH-MailScanner: No Virus detected X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Subject: LF: Re: Receiving Setup Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SPAMFiltered: yes X-Spam-Rating: 2 >James can we have a quick reminder of the set up you used last night. >thanks >peter G8AFN Dear Peter, LF Group, The receiving setup here is the same as it has been for the last couple of winters - the antenna is a 2m x 2m "bandpass" loop with preamp as described in the article downloadable from G3YXM's web site - http://www.wireless.org.uk/bploop.pdf Also on YXM's site is an article on the "lazy loop", http://www.wireless.org.uk/lazy.htm which is capable of similar results when used with a fairly big wire loop. The loop was aligned to null out Loran noise coming from a SW direction at my QTH - this also gives optimum pick-up for USA/Canadian sigs coming from the NW. The TX long wire antenna is not much use on receive here, due to the level of 50Hz-related noise it picks up from the house wiring. The loops are located at the bottom of the garden, which is electrically the quietest place at my QTH. Audibly, the Loran clatter is eliminated, although there is quite often still some mains-related noise present. Using separate RX antennas located in the best available low-noise site seems to be the factor which has the greatest influence on results in my case. It does mean I run around in a panic every time a new buzzing noise appears... The receiver is an old Racal RA1792, which possesses decent sensitivity (about 0.1uV for 10dB SNR in 300Hz BW) at 136kHz. The internal OCXO frequency standard is also very handy for LF narrowband modes. The sensitivity vs. frequency issue is quite important - O.K., if the receiver goes deaf at LF you can get the required sensitivity back by using a bigger antenna, or a preamp. But this will increase the sensitivity of the system in the MF range, where it is already much higher than at LF. So it is then important to add sufficient pre-selection as well as increasing the signal level, in order to avoid assorted intermods, reciprocal mixing, and cross-modulation due to broadcast signals. Life is therefore a lot easier if the receiver sensitivity is fairly constant over the whole LF - HF range, like the RA1792. Especially if you live in Brookmans Park! I mostly use DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab for copying QRSS - It is considerably more complicated to set up and use than Argo, but I like the facility to change all the display parameters whilst looking at different types of signal and noise. Having said that, Argo is much simpler for the operator, and gives just as good results with weak QRSS signals, which it is optimised for. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU