Return-Path: Received: from mtain-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.12]) by air-db04.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDB043-86464d322753207; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:01:40 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 9EF0338000098; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1PeF76-0005jK-Rr for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:00:52 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1PeF76-0005jB-AO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:00:52 +0000 Received: from cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PeF74-0000YL-AK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:00:52 +0000 Received: from smtps02.kuleuven.be (smtpshost02.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.75]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F017B8048 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:00:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB-N2.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub-n2.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.12]) by smtps02.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2299AF3862 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:00:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be ([10.112.11.13]) by ICTS-S-HUB-N2.luna.kuleuven.be ([10.112.9.12]) with mapi; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:00:41 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:00:40 +0100 Thread-Topic: Separate Receiving Antenna? Thread-Index: Acu1AK/F2RSF5TljT4ubdQzvz5ZWlQABoN+o Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, nl-BE Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, nl-BE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be 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="_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C88715AEA78ICTSSEXC2CAlu_" 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, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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: 3039ac1d600c4d3227526b89 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C88715AEA78ICTSSEXC2CAlu_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Tony, nice to see a message from you after long time. I remember our QSO's on 13= 7kHz in the late 90's. Big antennas have the reputation of being poor RX antennas, maybe because= they overload the RX. Maybe a 30 to 50dB attenuator between antenna and RX might help. About a separate RX antenna: if my memory does not fail there was a 137kHz= test at big commercial antenna in the UK (maybe 10 years ago) where was= reported that even a small RX antenna (loop ?) in the vincinity of the bi= g antenna failed to work because of unwanted coupling. Best solution might be a RX antenna at some distance (some km) with a RF= link. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.or= g] namens Anton B=E4rtschi [hb9asb@gmail.com] Verzonden: zaterdag 15 januari 2011 23:06 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: LF: Separate Receiving Antenna? Soon I may use a freestanding and isolated 125m mast with an excellent rad= ial network for LF. Should I use a separate receiving antenna or try to re= ceive also with the mast? 73 de Toni --_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C88715AEA78ICTSSEXC2CAlu_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Tony,
 
nice to see a message from you after= long time. I remember our QSO's on 137kHz in the late 90's.
 
Big antennas have the reputation of= being poor RX antennas, maybe because they overload the RX.
Maybe a 30 to 50dB attenuator betwee= n antenna and RX might help.
About a separate RX antenna: if= my memory does not fail there was a 137kHz test at big commercial an= tenna in the UK (maybe 10 years ago) where was reported that even a small= RX antenna (loop ?) in the vincinity of the big antenna failed to work because of unwanted coupling.
Best solution might be a RX antenna= at some distance (some km) with a RF link.
 
73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
 
Van: owner-rsgb_= lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Anton= B=E4rtschi [hb9asb@gmail.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 15 januari 2011 23:06
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: LF: Separate Receiving Antenna?

Soon I may use a freestanding and isolated 125m mast with an excellen= t radial network for LF. Should I use a separate receiving antenna or try= to receive also with the mast?
73 de Toni
--_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C88715AEA78ICTSSEXC2CAlu_--