Return-Path: Received: from mtain-di11.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-di11.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.15]) by air-df04.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDF041-5eee4cc9fa85314; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:34:45 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-di11.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 291AD380000DE; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PBb1I-0003Y1-2K for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:32:28 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PBb1H-0003Xs-MO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:32:27 +0100 Received: from 113-mo2-8.acn.waw.pl ([62.121.95.113] helo=paranoid.lipkowski.org) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PBb1F-00076i-HQ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:32:27 +0100 Received: from paranoid.lipkowski.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id o9SMWMTt001054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:32:22 +0200 Received: from localhost (sq5bpf@localhost) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id o9SMWMk0001051 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:32:22 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: paranoid.lipkowski.org: sq5bpf owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:32:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Jacek Lipkowski To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <4CC9D240.6090402@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Message-ID: References: <4CC87C8C.2060206@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <000f01cb760d$d49e7d00$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <4CC9A2DB.90507@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <4CC9D240.6090402@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score-sq5bpf: -2.601 () BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: TF? Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="17435139-601387597-1288305142=:26567" 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: 3039ac1d400f4cc9fa826862 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --17435139-601387597-1288305142=:26567 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Stefan Sch=E4fer wrote: > There seems to be a tendency that E field antennas are performing better= =20 > than loop antennas in a noisy region and are mostly better than a long= =20 > wire antenna. actually longwires are good as well, provided, that you tune them to the= =20 frequency that you want to receive, and that you use some more filtering= =20 afterwards (longwires receive a lot of lf/mf/hf signals, and these cause= =20 BIG problems in sound cards). i used both for Stefan's 7th experiment, and a comparison can be seen=20 here: http://www.lipkowski.org/~sq5bpf/dk7fc_20101002/index_en.html the lower S/N at the end of the transmission for the longwire is probably= =20 due to too much gain, and some clipping. both are quite usable, but i've decided to use the active antenna, because= =20 then i can use the longwire for hf VY 73 Jacek / SQ5BPF --17435139-601387597-1288305142=:26567--