Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp140763igl; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:36:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.77.99 with SMTP id r3mr2742527wjw.5.1374010610214; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gh7si7789716wib.48.2013.07.16.14.36.49 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:36:50 -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 1UzCQg-0005oA-SU for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:05:02 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UzCQg-0005o1-Eb for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:05:02 +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 1UzCQe-0000wX-40 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:05:01 +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 r6GL4dUN011823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:04:39 +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 r6GL4dgs014878 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:04:39 +0200 Message-ID: <51E5B561.3060008@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:04:33 +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-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) 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: MF!!! Am 13.07.2013 14:56, schrieb pa3abk: > [...] > > Do you see a difference in signal when you ground your TX antenna > versus fully tuned on MF? > In other words does the TX antenna has any coupling to the MW. > > Jan/pa3abk [...] Content analysis details: (-2.7 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] -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 6ffbd2c9950b634d6cc91f9565b01a8b 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: 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2827 MF!!! Am 13.07.2013 14:56, schrieb pa3abk: > [...] > > Do you see a difference in signal when you ground your TX antenna > versus fully tuned on MF? > In other words does the TX antenna has any coupling to the MW. > > Jan/pa3abk A few minutes ago i did another local test of the roof where the TX antenna is located. I run a spectrogram showing signals from the isolated short active dipole on 630m. To a certain time i detuned the antenna (there is no difference in my TX system between disconnecting the coax from the PA or disconnectinmg the coil from the wire. This is because i'm using an (isolating) transformer which is in series to the coil and acts as a L when the primary winding is open. The C of the coax is just 1 nF) and saw the difference! The difference is very big!!! See that image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/MF/ant%20disconnected%20from%20loading%20coil.png When the TX antenna is connected, the WSPR signal (it was I5MXX) is nearly down in the QRM! The QRN is also nearly covered by QRM! The signal levels itselfe did not change dramatically, probably less than 3 dB. This is a good example that the S/N of an active RX antenna can be much better than the S/N of the TX antenna when it uses a noisy earth :-) When using the "BIG" antenna for the RX (of course using a suitable attenuator to come out at the same signal level), which i have testes some time ago, i see the same vertical lines which lowering the RX performance. 73, Stefan/DK7FC