Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id D811A380000A7; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SBskj-0003AF-2L for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:21 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SBskf-0003A6-Un for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:17 +0100 Received: from mail001.aei.ca ([206.123.6.130]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1SBske-0008N5-Bh for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:17 +0100 Received: (qmail 24428 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2012 19:05:13 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.2.0 ppid: 24425, pid: 24426, t: 0.0419s scanners: regex: 1.2.0 attach: 1.2.0 Received: from mail002.aei.ca (HELO mail002.contact.net) (206.123.6.132) by mail001.aei.ca with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 25 Mar 2012 19:05:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 9446 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2012 19:05:12 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.2.0 ppid: 9425, pid: 9433, t: 0.4705s scanners: regex: 1.2.0 attach: 1.2.0 clamav: 0.97.3/m: spam: 3.3.1 Received: from dsl-66-36-139-104.mtl.aei.ca (HELO ?192.168.1.201?) (planophore@66.36.139.104) by mail.aei.ca with ESMTPA; 25 Mar 2012 19:05:12 -0000 Message-ID: <4F6F6C67.3080103@aei.ca> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:05:11 -0400 From: Graham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <1FFFC71EA0BE4176BEFFBF7D095D3BA9@Extensa> <4106A79FDAE74690B0A2C710BDA51B55@Extensa> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Power experiment / Mini Whip / 8970 Hz ! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed 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: 0:2:418520480:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40924f6f6cac25c2 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none A quick search finds BFQ19 and BFQ19S with different specs. Can a BFQ19 be substituted for a BFQ19S or are they very different? cheers, Graham ve3gtc On 12-03-25 02:45 PM, Roelof Bakker wrote: > Hello Peter, > > I found that a BFQ19S gives slight better strong signal handling > performance. > But more important, it works better at a lower supply voltage. > So, for use with a 9V battery, the BFQ19S is recommended. > At 12V you will not notice any difference. > > You could also try to feed the antenna direct from a battery by a > separate two wire DC cable, instead of over the coax cable. > In this case the antenna interface can be omitted. > It is best to place the battery at the foot of the mast. > > There are more options, like using CAT5 cable, isolating transformers > etc. > However, it all depends on your specific location. > > 73, > Roelof, pa0rdt >