Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mc04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.76]) by air-mc06.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMC064-a9764be936433e5; Tue, 11 May 2010 06:49:39 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 13906380000D2; Tue, 11 May 2010 06:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1OBn0p-0000Eg-Q3 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 May 2010 11:48:31 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1OBn0p-0000EW-AG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 May 2010 11:48:31 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OBn0n-0001Az-QT for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 May 2010 11:48:31 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4BAmH8F008995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:48:17 +0200 Received: from [129.206.29.99] (pc99.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.99]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id o4BA4Pom022595 for ; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:04:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4BE92BA0.3080406@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:04:16 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3RlZmFuIFNjaMOkZmVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: , <4BE855F1.9050909@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <25942409.3791470.1273567519765.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb079> In-Reply-To: <25942409.3791470.1273567519765.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb079> X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY=0.126,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: RE: 8,97 kHz active antenna circuit and pictures Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070902010901040104020909" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 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: 3039ac1d604c4be936411808 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --------------070902010901040104020909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de id o4BAmH8F008995 Hello Horst, VLF, Am 11.05.2010 10:45, schrieb Horst St=C3=B6cker: > > TV Transformer, interesting. I think it should work well on lower=20 > distance. QRP on 9kHz, hi. I also had this idea after my first tests=20 > on 9kHz. I wanted to test it but my few TV transformers are DST and I=20 > think I will need a flyback. The flybacks are common in the first=20 > generations of tv sets up to the seventies but hard to get nowadays. > Look here: http://www.oppermann-electronic.de/html/teslatechnik.html =20 (TESLA 82) > > I am not sure if the hoizontal antenna is the best solution. As we=20 > know in theory there are more ground losses. But if this will be of=20 > any significant influence at this low frequencies? > It is just a simple and "inofficial" test. But the transformer already=20 works. The antenna is very bad! Just 8...10m and 3m up. It is mounted in= =20 a tree and there are houses around it... A first test was negative=20 yesterday. It seems i've been to optimistic ;-) But anyway. Those TV transformers are only suitable for local near field tests. I=20 assume you will not radiate something that can be detected in the far=20 field, as long as you stay below QRSS-600000000 ;-) My goal is to=20 produce a signal in 1,1km. Then i can check if an improvement of the=20 grabber is really an improvement. You know, sometimes you think you have= =20 successfully reduced the noise but in fact you have also reduced the=20 wanted signal, so nothing is won. Increasing the SNR is the goal and=20 this is better to check if there is a wanted signal that is exactly on=20 the frequency and in usual modes... > I am looking foward to your tests again. > As soon as possible! > BTW I am waiting for more motivating weather conditions. I collected a= =20 > few hundred meters of isolated military wire. After confectioning it I= =20 > will have material for an earthbase of about 800 to 1000 m. This will=20 > be tested as soon as possible. > Earthbase? Do you want to try such a ground electrode antenna? This=20 would be very interesting! 73, Stefan > > --------------070902010901040104020909 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de id o4BAmH8F008995 Hello Horst, VLF,

Am 11.05.2010 10:45, schrieb Horst St=C3=B6cker:

TV Transformer, interesting. I think it should work well on lower distance. QRP on 9kHz, hi. I also had this idea after my first tests on 9kHz. I wanted to test it but my few TV transformers are DST and I think I will need a flyback. The flybacks are common in the first generations of tv sets up to the seventies but hard to get nowadays.


Look here: http://www.oppermann-electronic.de/= html/teslatechnik.html=C2=A0=C2=A0 (TESLA 82)

I am not sure if the hoizontal antenna is the best solution. As we know in theory there are more ground losses. But if this will be of any significant influence at this low frequencies?=

It is just a simple and "inofficial" test. But the transformer already works. The antenna is very bad! Just 8...10m and 3m up. It is mounted in a tree and there are houses around it... A first test was negative yesterday. It seems i've been to optimistic ;-) But anyway.
Those TV transformers are only suitable for local near field tests. I assume you will not radiate something that can be detected in the far field, as long as you stay below QRSS-600000000 ;-) My goal is to produce a signal in 1,1km. Then i can check if an improvement of the grabber is really an improvement. You know, sometimes you think you have successfully reduced the noise but in fact you have also reduced the wanted signal, so nothing is won. Increasing the SNR is the goal and this is better to check if there is a wanted signal that is exactly on the frequency and in usual modes...

I am looking foward to your tests again.

As soon as possible!

BTW I am waiting for more motivating weather conditions. I collected a few hundred meters of isolated military wire. After confectioning it I will have material for an earthbase of about 800 to 1000 m. This will be tested as soon as possible.

Earthbase? Do you want to try such a ground electrode antenna? This would be very interesting!

73, Stefan


--------------070902010901040104020909--