Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dh03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 2EE183800008D; Tue, 29 May 2012 14:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SZRYv-0004Pb-4p for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 29 May 2012 19:54:33 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SZRYu-0004PS-NZ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 29 May 2012 19:54:32 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SZRYs-0002jl-Gd for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 29 May 2012 19:54:31 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4TIsSph002451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:54:28 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q4TIsRiO024601 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:54:27 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC51B11.3010907@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:53:05 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4FC39CF3.7020701@legal-medicine.de> <003a01cd3cee$0e74a1a0$1502a8c0@Clemens04> <4FC51191.8060004@legal-medicine.de> In-Reply-To: <4FC51191.8060004@legal-medicine.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Peter, How sensitive is the balanced probe to shielding effects (trees, houses)? Any difference to the E field probe? Where do you have the INA111 from? What are the differences on 137 kHz? Is there a significant S/N improvement? [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 33d261536bb1467bb13d5764461d5ec4 Subject: Re: LF: Re: VLF/LF-Preamp 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: 0:2:407822688:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41174fc51bbb243c X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Peter, How sensitive is the balanced probe to shielding effects (trees, houses)? Any difference to the E field probe? Where do you have the INA111 from? What are the differences on 137 kHz? Is there a significant S/N improvement? A nice design. The only problem i see the the availablility of the special parts. But lastly both are E field antennas and will react on man made noise coming from the near field. However it is an interesting alternative for those who cannot find a separate local ground for the LF antenna (e.g. living in a high house)... 73,Stefan/DK7FC Am 29.05.2012 20:12, schrieb pws: > Hi Clemens et al. > > Thanks for all those hints! Finally I think I've found it. > It's somewhat trivial, should better write embarrassing (sic!). > > I used an old 9 Volts-block for testing. Since it ran out of > voltage (<7 Volts) during the trials I changed over to a bundle > of 8 AA-Cells. The effect now was nearly "invisible". > > Using a new 9 Volts-block it reappears but not such strong. > Strange. > > Adding some capacitors right over that battery of AA-cells > I have to knock very strongly now until the effect is discernable. > Touching the battery does not show any further interferences. > > Made some screenshots, distance of both probes approx. > 1 m (cave, big!). > > The old e-field probe running a BF981: > http://www.df3lp.de/misc/rx/Left_BF981.png > Images: http://df3lp.de/misc/rx/e-field_probe.png > > The new INA111 balanced probe: > http://www.df3lp.de/misc/rx/Right_INA111.png > > Greetings from Kiel es tu, > Peter, df3lp