Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp5138igl; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:38:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.20.228 with SMTP id q4mr5166725wie.1.1373758736361; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id rz11si15350847wjb.32.2013.07.13.16.38.55 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Uy8NL-0000x8-JB for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:33:11 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uy8NL-0000wz-27 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:33:11 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Uy8NJ-0008Dn-GO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:33:09 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r6DMX8oN031818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:33:08 +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 r6DMX68Q025814 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:33:07 +0200 Message-ID: <51E1D59E.2080104@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:33:02 +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: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> <7D6B8CBB38964C9C82487F5D0F3648FC@FMVXD1232> <20130707203537.GA30691@cs.utwente.nl> <51DA00C8.6000600@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA0212.8020808@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA03CE.6020508@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA1680.6030602@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DB6CB3.2080708@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <001601ce7c95$f235b360$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <51DBFF7D.9050807@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DC58E9.5030005@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DF1D06.8020208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DF43E7.8080300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51E147E2.8080302@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51E14E8A.9080104@kpnmail.nl> In-Reply-To: <51E14E8A.9080104@kpnmail.nl> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay.uni-heidelberg.de id r6DMX8oN031818 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: Hello Jan, The tuning of the whip was done in my office by using a noise generator and a spectrum scope. The noise was injected by another small short dipole. After adjusting to the peak i reduced the coupling of the 2nd dipole and checked if this made an effect to the resonance frequency (didn't). During the RX experiment on the roof, the transmit antenna was detuned (floating). I did not check the effect to the signal levels when the antenna is tuned to MF. Maybe next time. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: f62c7cf8eeb8e5a327b71719e9bffff1 Subject: Re: LF: Re: MiniWhip antenna, fiber optic TEST SIGNALS NEEDED on 630m WSPR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2824 Hello Jan, The tuning of the whip was done in my office by using a noise generator=20 and a spectrum scope. The noise was injected by another small short=20 dipole. After adjusting to the peak i reduced the coupling of the 2nd=20 dipole and checked if this made an effect to the resonance frequency=20 (didn't). During the RX experiment on the roof, the transmit antenna was detuned=20 (floating). I did not check the effect to the signal levels when the=20 antenna is tuned to MF. Maybe next time. 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 13.07.2013 14:56, schrieb pa3abk: > On 13-7-2013 14:28, Stefan Sch=E4fer wrote: >> .... >> Due to the lower signal levels of the short active dipole i now=20 >> resonated the antenna to 630m, where i plan to do my tests. This=20 >> prevents IM and causes a significant gain! >> ..... > Assume the whip itself is tuned and not the longwire TX antenna next=20 > to it :-) > > Do you see a difference in signal when you ground your TX antenna=20 > versus fully tuned on MF? > In other words does the TX antenna has any coupling to the MW. > > Jan/pa3abk >