Message-ID: <C2BC25EF42EE4B83B36152872E5B09D7@AGB>
From: "Graham" <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <20080826215353.05fced57@lurcher.twatt.local> <48B4F663.50303@telia.com> <20080827074721.CC39131E702@smtps01.kuleuven.be>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:08:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: LF: QRV on 500
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Nice to  see you have the  Good and the Bad ,

That just leaves us with the 'Ugly'  .... !

You using the main ae for rx ? perhaps a small loop would be better ?

G ..


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rik Strobbe" <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:47 AM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: QRV on 500

> Dear all,
>
> last night I did some first test on 500kHz after my "summer recess".
>
> Good:
> I found out that my digging over the past months had some success, the 
> antenna current is up with 10% (now 2.2A).
> Based on antenna simulation (with MMANA-GAL) the theoretical EIRP should 
> be 4.7 Watt, close to my 5 W EIRP limit. But I guess that in reality it 
> will be some dB less due to absorption in the surrounding greenery. I will 
> have to do some ERP measurements to check how much is lost.
> At 20.30 UT I could see my signal on various grabbers, up to the 
> Shetlands.
>
> Bad:
> I found out that some bad "machine gun type" interference has shown up. 
> The noise blanker of the TS440 can bring it down a bit, but it still 
> compromises any weak signal reception. I can null it out with a loop, but 
> unfortunately it is the same direction as southern UK. So using a loop RX 
> antenna is not a good solution.
> If I cannot track down (and shut down) the source of interference I will 
> have to cancel it out some way.
> An additional noise blanker?
> Or picking up the interference signal with a local "sense antenna" and use 
> that to phase it out (combine it with the right phase and amplitude with 
> the signal from the main antenna)?
> All suggestions are welcome.
>
> 73, Rik  ON7YD
>
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 
> 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 8/27/2008 07:01
>
>
>