Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 40B413800009C; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TLaqy-0005oe-Qu for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:32:12 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TLaqy-0005oO-DC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:32:12 +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 1TLaqw-0003ZG-3Q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:32:11 +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 q99EW8CF028341 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:32:09 +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 q99EW87S019240 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:32:08 +0200 Message-ID: <50743561.9060504@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:32:01 +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: <50731B6C.2060506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50732867.7070201@telia.com> <5074294B.80807@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) 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 Roelof, In the moment it's just in my mind, not on the paper. I thought it is no good idea to publish anything as long as the problems are not solved. Of course all the problems are not only coming from the circuit design but also depend on the local situation. The AFN signal is a good example. I still don't know why it took so long until i discovered this strong signal. Another issue is the grounding situation, cable length and also the frequency response of the input impedance of a receiver. All this may let a circuit design appear as a nearly perfect solution in the one location but appers as complete rubbish in the other location... [...] Content analysis details: (-4.4 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] -2.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 086f3faad0220c9ae57a7913e711a86d Subject: Re: LF: active antenna output termination? 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-sid: 3039ac1d601a50743594727f X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Roelof, In the moment it's just in my mind, not on the paper. I thought it is no good idea to publish anything as long as the problems are not solved. Of course all the problems are not only coming from the circuit design but also depend on the local situation. The AFN signal is a good example. I still don't know why it took so long until i discovered this strong signal. Another issue is the grounding situation, cable length and also the frequency response of the input impedance of a receiver. All this may let a circuit design appear as a nearly perfect solution in the one location but appers as complete rubbish in the other location... Just found another bug: The IM coming a few seconds after adding the 50 Ohm termination load are coming from a 0.1 A poly switch fuse which is in the supply path of the RX, which feeds the probe. I should have switched 1 uF in series to the 50 Ohm, not to apply DC, of course. First i remembered the fuse but thought that this can't be the problem because there are still signals shown on the MF RX. The fuse does not lower the voltage to 0V but to 2V which seems to be enough to produce some signals for the MF RX, which has its own supply voltage. I'm going to make a drawing... 73, Stefan Am 09.10.2012 15:50, schrieb Roelof Bakker: > Hello Stefan, > > Where can I find the circuit diagram of your probe and also of the > "Fernspeiseweiche"? > > 73, > Roelof, pa0rdt