Message-ID: <4DC5AF77.2060706@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 22:45:43 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= <schaefer@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4DC527C4.3070903@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <D0EE688714534219A64EC627262F2114@JimPC> <4DC56FCB.1050509@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <14CAC29AA012468A844D715FA1A336F8@JimPC>
In-Reply-To: <14CAC29AA012468A844D715FA1A336F8@JimPC>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: CW...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Dear Jim,

Thanks for the foort to set up this comparison! I suppose the local 
noise is rather equal distributed. Of course i can reduce the effect of 
DCF39 but HGA22 would be E-W. Anyway, on a sunday morning HGA wouldn't 
be as strong as DCF.
I switched a 10th order Butterworth filter (2 kHz BW)  and a 
noiseblanker (12 dB threshold, 2 ms ramp time) in front of the the small 
CW filter. This removed the DCF bursts and sferics very well, without 
affecting the CW signals significantly.
Maybe your RST was 119 so at least this was excellent suitable to do 
such filter tests!!! I copied your "73" since this is a well known word 
in daily CW operation. As i was starting to improve my CW speed in 2002, 
the first words i understood in QRQ were "73" and "599" and so. This was 
the case again today, although not limited by my CW reading skill ;-)

Well, i have a 44 turn loop for 137 kHz, about 3 mH. BW is below 1 kHz. 
I will so some tests in the near future and have enough place there on 
the roof of the institute.
What do you think is better, the 44 turn loop or a 1 turn loop? I think 
a 44 turn loop is rather narrow band while a 1 turn loop is rather broad 
band, right? If so, the 44 turn loop is preferable here due to DLF, 
DCF39, DCF49 etc...

Thanks very much so far. Mybe i have some questions later :-)

73, Stefan/DK7FC

Am 07.05.2011 20:15, schrieb James Moritz:
> Dear Stefan, LF Group,
>
>> Using a loop antenna might bring the needed few dBs but means more 
>> effort and adjusting. Anyway i will do some tests soon.
>
> I have attached a 200Hz bandwidth spectrogram showing a comparison 
> between the noise level received here today using a loop oriented E-W 
> and a vertical antenna. I adjusted gain levels so that the received 
> level of DCF39 was exactly equal on both antennas. The loop noise 
> level in the right half of the spectrogram clearly includes less QRN, 
> and also the Loran C lines are nulled quite effectively, compared to 
> the vertical signal on the left. So for aurally receiving signals from 
> DL, the loop definitely improves SNR by a few dBs on this occasion.
>
> Of course, the improvement which can be obtained depends on such 
> things as the relative directions of signal and noise sources, and 
> whether local QRM sources are predominantly E field or H field, so one 
> cannot say if one type of antenna is going to be better than another 
> without doing the experiment. At this QTH in the southern UK, the E-W 
> loop works well for European reception, since the closest Loran 
> stations at Lessay and Anthorn are roughly N - S, and much of the QRN 
> seems to come from the south. In DL, I imagine the direction from 
> DCF39 and HGA22 would be important, due to the strong sidebands from 
> these stations. The mains QRM here sometimes affects the loop more 
> than the vertical, and sometimes the vertical is worse, so it pays to 
> have both!
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU