Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 2E338380000AE; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QxzSg-0000rp-QC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:53:02 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QxzSg-0000rg-Ci for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:53:02 +0100 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QxzSe-0001o7-0V for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:53:02 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgAAPNuW05cF/Pd/2dsb2JhbABCmCZEjxN4gTsFAQEEAQgBAQNJAiYGAQEDBQIBAxEEAQEKJRQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAYdhArdGhkwEhzWcbw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,296,1312153200"; d="scan'208";a="363559489" Received: from host-92-23-243-221.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.23.243.221]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 29 Aug 2011 11:52:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01cc6639$caf90c30$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <7B6D5F6A8CEE4E3CAB04E35F1F9E9732@JimPC> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:52:48 +0100 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,none Subject: LF: Re: Ferrite rod antenna - on-air testing Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:471494976:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40d74e5b6fe11198 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This looks encouraging Jim for the ferrite rod/antenna approach. What value uH inductance es C did u need to resonate on 137. I wonder how good it might be on the long haul DX compared to the loops that you use or even larger inv L antennas. I am getting results with a ferrite bunch rods(9) and a suitable C to resonate but without a preamp the signals are well down, however it is inducing some voltage into the RX.When I get time I will build a preamp. I expect there are limitations but never the less a useful antenna. mal/g3kev ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Moritz" To: Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 7:44 PM Subject: LF: Ferrite rod antenna - on-air testing > Dear LF Group, > > The QRN level on 136kHz has finally died away, and I was able to record the > attached spectrogram, showing DK7FC calling CQ around 1755utc, using my > prototype ferrite rod antenna. On the left of the spectrogram, the rod is > oriented for N-S reception, and the background noise consists mainly of > horizontal Loran spectral lines, plus some unidentified, low-level, local > "mush". On the right of the spectrogram, Stefan's signal level increases as > the rod is rotated for E-W reception. Here, the noise level is mainly > vertical streaks due to sidebands of DCF39's FSK modulation. The black area > at the right hand edge of the screenshot is where the ferrite rod was > replaced by a "dummy antenna" inductor, and shows that the internal noise > level of antenna and preamp is below the band noise level (by around 10dB). > > The band noise seen with the ferrite rod is practically the same as seen > with larger loop antennas under quiet conditions, so this practical test > does show that a reasonably compact ferrite rod can give sensitivity limited > only by the external band noise on 136k. In fact, there is some margin for > making the rod smaller still in this case. > > BTW, Stefan was an S4 audible signal - CW would have been a bit difficult > due to the bursts of noise from DCF39, but a QSO would certainly be > possible, especially if a quieter frequency were chosen. > > Cheers, Jim Moritz > 73 de M0BMU >