Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:48:04 +0100
Message-ID: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E828AD04@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de>
In-Reply-To: <20091226232910.zvm80doogowog4sg@webmail6.kuleuven.be>
Thread-Topic: LF: Influence of a TX antenna to a small rx antenna
Thread-Index: AcqGe2cNhrkb1ogsQkmevQLiQtsjjgAZMrfg
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <schaefer@hst.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: AW: LF: Influence of a TX antenna to a small rx antenna
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hi Rik es tnx for your answer.
In the first QSOs from /p I used the TX antenna. I quickly saw that SNR is=
 much better with a 6dB attenuator. In the last activity I even used 20dB.=
 But the SNR of the small active antenna is definitely better. Perhaps it=
 is a good idea to try even more attenuation, tnx, I will try that!
On my QTH at my parents (2003/2004) I also used the TX antenna but it was=
 much smaller. This antenna was more suitable for RX although the actual=
 QTH is apart from any house in a region of some 100s meters...
73, Stefan

-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacks=
heep.org] Im Auftrag von Rik Strobbe
Gesendet: Samstag, 26. Dezember 2009 23:29
An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Betreff: Re: LF: Influence of a TX antenna to a small rx antenna

Hello Stefan,

why not use the "big" TX antenna also for RX. With a sufficient =20
atenuator of course.
On 137kHz I alway used my TX antenna for RX, but a 40dB attenuator was =20
required to avoid overload at the RX.

73, Rik  ON7YD