Return-Path: Received: from mtain-de02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-de02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.202]) by air-de08.mail.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILINDE084-5ec14b6dc91d103; Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:55:09 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-de02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 335CA38000068; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NdqjB-000668-7d for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:54:01 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NdqjA-00065z-NO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:54:00 +0000 Received: from smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.35]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ndqj7-0006Vk-Un for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:54:00 +0000 Received: from pc1 (ndb.demon.nl [82.161.81.65]) by smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o16JrqSO014023 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 20:53:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from roelof@ndb.demon.nl) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:53:49 -0000 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "Roelof Bakker" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <12077821.1264946261487.JavaMail.root@wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1ACF@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <4C25D51A6FE646D5B8D9D37C87EA6BBC@lindavideo> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1AD4@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <0A1CC2C5367040E284D30F87A4967547@lindavideo> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1ADD@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <001e01caa508$f7157360$8cd9160a@EFREMOV> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1ADF@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1AEC@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1AEC@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.63 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: active ant on metallic mast Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: 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-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40ca4b6dc91c1a11 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hello Stefan, Yes, a metal mast will introduce unwanted reception of its own. I have seen a professional application where a common mode choke was used over the mast at the bottom to kill unwanted resonances of the mast, which could be easily coupled to the coax or antenna itself. Your idea of a optical link is interesting as it would decouple the whip completely. In the past I have carried out an experiment with a battery powered SPM-3 and a battery powered whip. When I raised the whole contraption, the signal level of a local NDB dropped! If this also will be the case with a battery powered whip, with the battery mounted close to the antenna to avoid a stray path to ground via the power feedline and an optical signal feedline, will to be seen. Depending on the size of the whip versus the size of the circuit ground it might still work, albeit in dipole mode. My standard mini-whip uses leaded parts and the capture area measures 30 x 40 mm. I have also made one with SMD parts, except a RFC and a 2N5109. This one delivers the same output, whilst the capture area is only 22 x 26 mm. The smaller SMD parts will introduce less stray capacitance and hence less signal loss due to a larger C-antenne to C-circuit ratio. So the capture area could be reduced. Output is ample and I have a passive four-port power devider in-line with still ample power at the receiver port. Regarding field strength, I found that at a field location the antenna delivered about 10 dB more signal at 400 kHz than received at my city location. However with the right measures the signal to noise ratio can be (almost) as good at home as it is in the field. We have bushes and large chestnut trees close by and it was necassary to raise the antenna up to 4 metre to get comparable results as in the field location. In the latter 2 metre was sufficient for a proper signal to noise ratio. The environment adds some screening, but as long as it does not degrade the signal to noise ratio, nothing is lost. My antenna is only 6 metre from the house mounted up the stem of a magnolia tree. To get rid of the local noise, traveling along the shield of the coax, grounding the shield at the bottom of the mast has been the most effective single measure. A second earth stake has been placed at the point where the cable enters the house. Feeding the antenna from a battery, mounted at the foot of the mast, will further reduce the local QRM level. However, it should be stressed that excellent results can be achieved using traditional feeding methods over a coaxial feedline. I won't boast, but using this set up, I have received many T/A stations on 137 kHz. So far 102 different non directional beacons from Canada have been logged as far as British Columbia. This shows that with a bit of sound engineering decent results can be obtained. DCF37 is here -57 dBm / S9 + 14 dB. I hope this helps. 73, Roelof, pa0rdt