Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 5AD7C38000088; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SikpI-0005Qr-8w for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:17:56 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SikpH-0005Qi-Hx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:17:55 +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 1SikpF-0001Z5-K4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:17:54 +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 q5OBHrnn005510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:17:53 +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 q5OBHrHY003572 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:17:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4FE6F6F3.9040304@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:16:03 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3RlZmFuIFNjaMOkZmVy?= 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: <1474092.1340466836144.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <1474092.1340466836144.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> 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 Chris, Thanks for sharing this interesting paper. Well, the circuit looks quite complex but the image of the final construction looks compact. Since we got access to 472 kHz a weeks ago, i need another receive antenna now, since all my front ends are resonanted, i.e. mono band. So the advantage of a single receive antenna becomes more and more convincing to me. Of course it needs a high dynamic range without distortion of the spectrum then.. [...] 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: c1f72e5acb1277e013f90c915ad7ad68 Subject: Re: LF: Ferrite broadband (LF-MF) antenna? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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: 0:2:423851232:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604e4fe6f79c0f48 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Chris, Thanks for sharing this interesting paper. Well, the circuit looks quite complex but the image of the final construction looks compact. Since we got access to 472 kHz a weeks ago, i need another receive antenna now, since all my front ends are resonanted, i.e. mono band. So the advantage of a single receive antenna becomes more and more convincing to me. Of course it needs a high dynamic range without distortion of the spectrum then.. A question: The DC supply voltage is connected to e.g. C16? What might be the lower cutoff frequency if values for the input LP and HP filters are well choosen? It should be possible to extend the circuit to the VLF range (?). 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 23.06.2012 17:53, schrieb Chris Trask: > This amplifier provides better performance than either the Wellbrook or Pixel commercial products: > > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/Paper009.html > > > Chris Trask > N7ZWY / WDX3HLB > Senior Member IEEE > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/ >