X-GM-THRID: 1198237036359000497 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 5c2798448af9f260848d57d40a0c8053518cac56 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.70.14 with SMTP id s14cs14955wra; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:24:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.242.15 with SMTP id p15mr891156ugh; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:24:46 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id a1si3160259ugf.2006.03.18.16.24.46; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FKlgf-0002aT-Px for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:22:25 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FKlgf-0002aK-6r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:22:25 +0000 Received: from mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.147]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FKnHE-0005zv-AN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:04:36 +0000 Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.192]) by mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20060319002157.CURY19792.mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:21:57 +1200 Received: from quaycustomer ([210.86.65.176]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20060319002156.VEMH1416.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@quaycustomer> for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:21:56 +1200 Message-ID: <007401c64aeb$4b30d7e0$0600000a@quaycustomer> From: "Vernall" To: References: <000901c64aab$8824e460$1ce4fc3e@your4105e587b6> <002101c64adb$e5924720$6211f4cc@p1i5f0> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:23:04 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-1.452,HTML_40_50=0.086,HTML_FONT_BIG=0.232,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Re: Re: LOOPS V VERTICALS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0071_01C64B4F.DF5188C0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_FONT_BIG, HTML_MESSAGE 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5980 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C64B4F.DF5188C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, At Quartz Hill we have similar observations to Steve, in that we have = not noticed a fade using the tx antenna for rx, but we have noticed = fades on loop antennas. Temporary one turn receiving loops were = supported by ropes to poles in suitable directions for receiving the DX = station, and the area was large enough that QRN swamped the receiver = noise. The loops were in the vertical plane and fed at a bottom coner = closest to the operating room. There is no QRM at the rural Quartz Hill = site so the large tx antenna can deliver a good result (that is = definitely not the case in my suburban QTH, neighbourhood QRM is quite a = challenge, my top loaded vertical for tx is hopeless on rx). But = getting back to the theme of rx loops versus verticals, I can say there = have been unexplained loss of reception from a loop when the vertical = delivers a satisfactory result. At Quartz Hill (ZM2E) we no longer use = a loop for LF rx, instead we have a splitter and feed all receivers from = the tx antenna (a changeover switch prevents use from having a very = short distance contact). 73, Bob ZL2CA=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Steve McDonald=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:32 AM Subject: LF: Re: LOOPS V VERTICALS >Your comments on the smaller verts/loops welcome. Mal - during our last TransPacific tests with ZL, we had the = opportunity to run two rx's on the ZL frequency. One was our mainstay = and always reliable performer, the large 10' air-core tuned passive loop = while the other was our large vertical tx antenna. The ZL signal was = often 'O' copy on the vertical while the loop showed nothing at all. I = think there was only one short instance when the loop produced a signal = that the vertical did not hear. The loop had previously earned our = respect as an excellent rx antenna because we had always used it in our = own noisier environments but beside the ocean on Pender Island, there = was no noise at all, and the loop quickly lost it's main advantage. Both = Scott and I have since been using our tx verticals on rx at our home = stations more often, when the noise level permits and the verticals are = clearly better, when noise is not a factor. BTW, our next TransPacific ZM2E-VA7LF attempt is fast = approaching...April 3-5th our time. 73 Steve / VE7SL Web: "THE VE7SL RADIO NOTEBOOK" at http://www.imagenisp.ca/jsm ------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C64B4F.DF5188C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
At Quartz Hill we have similar = observations to=20 Steve, in that we have not noticed a fade using the tx antenna for rx, = but we=20 have noticed fades on loop antennas.  Temporary one turn receiving = loops=20 were supported by ropes to poles in suitable directions for receiving = the DX=20 station, and the area was large enough that QRN swamped the receiver=20 noise.  The loops were in the vertical plane and fed at a = bottom coner=20 closest to the operating room.  There is no QRM at the rural Quartz = Hill=20 site so the large tx antenna can deliver a good result (that = is=20 definitely not the case in my suburban QTH, neighbourhood QRM is = quite a=20 challenge, my top loaded vertical for tx is hopeless on rx).  But = getting=20 back to the theme of rx loops versus verticals, I can say there have = been=20 unexplained loss of reception from a loop when the vertical delivers a=20 satisfactory result.  At Quartz Hill (ZM2E) we no longer use a loop = for LF=20 rx, instead we have a splitter and feed all receivers from the tx = antenna (a=20 changeover switch prevents use from having a very short distance=20 contact).
 
73, Bob ZL2CA 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Steve=20 McDonald
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 = 10:32=20 AM
Subject: LF: Re: LOOPS V = VERTICALS

>Your = comments on the=20 smaller verts/loops welcome.
 
Mal - during our last TransPacific = tests with ZL,=20 we had the opportunity to run two rx's on the ZL frequency. One was = our=20 mainstay and always reliable performer, the large 10' air-core tuned = passive=20 loop while the other was our large vertical tx antenna. The ZL signal = was=20 often 'O' copy on the vertical while the loop showed nothing at all. I = think=20 there was only one short instance when the loop produced a signal that = the=20 vertical did not hear. The loop had previously earned our respect as = an=20 excellent rx antenna because we had always used it in our own noisier=20 environments but beside the ocean on Pender Island, there = was no=20 noise at all, and the loop quickly lost it's main advantage. Both = Scott and I=20 have since been using our tx verticals on rx at our home stations more = often,=20 when the noise level permits and the verticals are clearly better, = when noise=20 is not a factor.
 
BTW, our next = TransPacific ZM2E-VA7LF=20 attempt is fast approaching...April 3-5th our time.
 
73
Steve / VE7SL
 
Web: "THE VE7SL RADIO NOTEBOOK" = at   http://www.imagenisp.ca/jsm
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C64B4F.DF5188C0--