Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mh07.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mh07.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.219]) by air-mc06.mail.aol.com (v127_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILINMC062-a9744baa87182c6; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:41:44 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mh07.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DA3FC380000BA; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NuYJj-00074J-3J for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:40:47 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NuYJi-00074A-P8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:40:46 +0000 Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.32]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NuYJg-0001SO-5X for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:40:46 +0000 Received: from pc1 (ndb.demon.nl [82.161.81.65]) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2OLebXg099504 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:40:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from roelof@ndb.demon.nl) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <2a2c8.24f60f40.38d54e4e@aol.com> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1B81@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <4BA5CFAA.2030007@freenet.de> <56800827A5644E1BB3F320CB51E2300E@Black> <26E279AD762E44FB937A8A7DF8F934BC@Black> <8C7F2923D86B4517B1C156BA499E96E4@Black> <29746320.1346347.1269244849281.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb078> <4BA7361F.1030702@abelian.org> <4BA7A586.8080307@abelian.org> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1B87@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> <0A742B5B9F6A4E84A802D1F98B670E79@JimPC> <20100323130953.2BEFC31E702@smtps01.kuleuven.be> <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1B91@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:40:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Roelof Bakker" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <38A51B74B884D74083D7950AD0DD85E82A1B91@File-Server-HST.hst.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de> User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.50 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Subject: Re: AW: LF: Re: Mini-Whip 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: 3039ac1d60db4baa87164709 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hello Stefan, Just like you have reported some time ago, I have done tests to establish the best SNR for a whip antenna at LF in regard to the minimum length. I arrived at the same length as you did at 137 kHz: 30 cm. A longer antenna did improve the signal strength, but not the SNR. The capacitive probe is equivalent to a 30 cm whip. I can't see a reason why the SNR should change with frequency, but I will test it nevertheless. 73, Roelof, pa0rdt