Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id B434C38000087; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:15:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RcLFn-0008Ka-2N for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:14:31 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RcLFm-0008KR-FV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:14:30 +0000 Received: from out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RcLFj-0002Np-W8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:14:30 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEBAD4t7k5cHnT9/2dsb2JhbABEmw2OYAEBOoEvgQaBbQUBAQQBCAEBA0kCJgYBAQMFAgEDEQQBAQolFAEEGgYWCAYTCgECAgEBh2kCtkKMBASIA4UBKQGZfg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,372,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="355754013" Received: from host-92-30-116-253.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.30.116.253]) by out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 18 Dec 2011 18:14:21 +0000 Message-ID: <00ab01ccbdb0$db9c9e70$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <033201ccbcab$5c5fe640$1502a8c0@Clemens04> <000901ccbcc4$42768fe0$c763afa0$@com> <4EECC1E8.4000806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <002c01ccbd6f$572761c0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <39D91133A64A480596FBAA4395D85812@JimPC> <007901ccbd9e$69fe2ed0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>,<008701ccbda1$cacf4f70$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:14:17 -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: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.236 Subject: LF: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: TX system at DK7FC, schematic 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: 0:2:490293728:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40c94eee2dd46bed X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is the point I was making. High spec coils Q of 1000's unloaded then installed in a poor antenna system with poor Earth/Radials which degrades the Q and influences bandwidth. What is the groundloss you mention at the DK7FC site and overall efficiency. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rik Strobbe" To: Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 5:01 PM Subject: LF: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: TX system at DK7FC, schematic There is a difference between the coil Q (unloaded) and the antenna system Q. While the coil Q can indeed be > 1000 the antenna system Q will be much lower due to groundloss. As a fact it is mainly the groundloss that will determine the antenna bandwidth. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens mal hamilton [g3kevmal@talktalk.net] Verzonden: zondag 18 december 2011 17:26 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: LF: Re: Re: Re: Re: TX system at DK7FC, schematic ps With a Q in thousands the bandwidth even on 137 would be too narrow to be useful ----- Original Message ----- From: "mal hamilton" To: Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:02 PM Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: TX system at DK7FC, schematic > Jim es Co > The highest Q coils I have seen are self supporting encased in a helium > container and the Q specified was only in a few hundred. What sort of coil > construction yields 4000 and above ? > I have yet to encounter such a specimen > mal/g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Moritz" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 10:58 AM > Subject: LF: Re: Re: TX system at DK7FC, schematic > > > > Dear Mal, LF Group, > > > > > I can see you resonate your 3mH coild with a motor driven variometer but > > > how > > > do you match this to exactly 50 ohmz for a SWR of 1:1 to the TX > > > I can see your coil and transformer secondary are in series to earth > but > > > no > > > adjustment for matching. > > > > Essentially the same arrangement is in use here. The transformer ratio is > > adjusted to match the antenna resistance to 50ohms. > > > > A Q of 1000 is typical for a coil of this size wound using Litz wire. You > > might increase that somewhat by optimising length, diameter, winding pitch > > etc. For something big like the Balboa loading coil in Alex's mail, Q can > be > > considerably higher - Watt's "VLF Engineering" has data on this particular > > antenna system - the coil resistance at 25kHz is about 0.06ohms, and the > > reactance 225ohms, making the Q about 3800 - it might be higher at 136k, > > since reactance often increases faster than loss resistance as the > frequency > > goes up. Incidentally, I estimate L of the main loading coil about 1.3mH, > so > > GW0EZY would need the variometer in series as well ;-) > > > > Cheers, Jim Moritz > > 73 de M0BMU > > > > > >