Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mp12.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mp12.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.193.80]) by air-mb04.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMB041-a2394d32c8a6139; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 05:29:58 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp12.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 2B566380000AF; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 05:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PePqb-0004fw-W8 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:28:33 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PePqb-0004fn-Hy for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:28:33 +0000 Received: from out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.239]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PePqZ-0001AG-Rt for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:28:33 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqUGADpXMk1cEY+Z/2dsb2JhbACSNgOEGI4Xc7xPhVAEgWCMfYJe X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,329,1291593600"; d="scan'208,217";a="334184133" Received: from unknown (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.17.143.153]) by out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 16 Jan 2011 10:28:25 +0000 Message-ID: <003301cbb568$1a159780$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:28:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: Re: Separate Receiving Antenna? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01CBB568.19CE2E40" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE 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: 3039ac1dc1504d32c8a42c73 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CBB568.19CE2E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tony Use the same antenna for both TX/TX. This is what I do at my QTH and= if works very well. On RX some control over gain would be convenient= to set the optimum front end RX gain. ie an adjustable attenuator. It= also depends on the RX in use. A vy sensitive RX would probably need= attenuation whereas a poor RX needs plenty of antenna gain. The ic - 706 works fb with a big antenna but vy poor on short antennas= . I have several receivers and they are all different on LF and MF Separate antennas for RX are ok if you have plenty of space to keep th= em away from the influence of the main Antenna.=20 On RX a large antenna has the advantage of plenty of capture area for= weak signals without preamps and related complications. I am QRV every day on 137.7 and await a call from you, also active dai= ly on 502.5 Kcs. CW and QRS3. Its a long time since our last CW qso=20 73 de mal/g3kev =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Anton B=E4rtschi=20 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:06 PM Subject: LF: Separate Receiving Antenna? Soon I may use a freestanding and isolated 125m mast with an excelle= nt radial network for LF. Should I use a separate receiving antenna or= try to receive also with the mast? 73 de Toni ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CBB568.19CE2E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Tony
Use the same antenna for both TX/TX.= This is what I=20 do at my QTH and if works very well. On RX some control over gain woul= d be=20 convenient to set the optimum front end RX gain. ie an adjustable atte= nuator. It=20 also depends on the RX in use. A vy sensitive RX would probably need= attenuation=20 whereas a poor RX needs plenty of antenna gain.
The ic - 706 works fb with a big ante= nna but vy=20 poor on short antennas. I have several receivers and they are all diff= erent on=20 LF and MF
Separate antennas for RX are ok= if you have=20 plenty of space to keep them away from the influence of the main = Antenna.=20
On RX a large antenna has the advanta= ge of plenty=20 of capture area for weak signals without preamps and related=20 complications.
I am QRV every day on 137.7 and = await a call=20 from you, also active daily on 502.5 Kcs. CW and QRS3.
Its a long time since our last CW qso=
73 de mal/g3kev
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Anton= B=E4rtschi=20
Sent: Saturday, January 15,= 2011 10:06=20 PM
Subject: LF: Separate Receivi= ng=20 Antenna?

Soon I may use a freestanding and isolated 125m mast= with an=20 excellent radial network for LF. Should I use a separate receiving= antenna or=20 try to receive also with the mast?
73 de Toni
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CBB568.19CE2E40--