Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.57.9 with SMTP id e9csp55374igq; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 04:23:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.14.115.132 with SMTP id e4mr11600528eeh.54.1373023387527; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 04:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v7si5893871eew.336.2013.07.05.04.23.06 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 04:23:07 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Uv2JY-0007fY-Se for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:28:28 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Uv2JY-0007fP-Cy for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:28:28 +0100 Received: from mail-qe0-f54.google.com ([209.85.128.54]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Uv2JV-0001ts-Fi for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:28:27 +0100 Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ne12so1122773qeb.13 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:28:23 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=kP3+kT1J5WfOdkOG4EqR94KSzt6/wXjlnOvUm9tV1T4=; b=aR/JGDetxMChnvvpi6MsMPezowNNHgmgTaZ45h4PaAyu4nANUjnAYGgQLapwoaDaLH cr3tL04Jhd2ghWyAUB9FEln4xf59Sr3owTFYYA8Wwpd5Z+mGAQOPKvFFkHik00fA3rrh LNBZU7EKfwCtMrWnHerMHuYtPK0fRMzuiyKnfrRimSkuy4y1A5Gf2ZgyonQCaEf0wxYC k2YN5GABAu6axEHz42HIonpMS3Djf2BnrsWcRIG38TwlOnyJ/+E79t3YMaqhE3Uth2lM TY1owEQFcLzAAT9l2oxhsBa0LAb/rxucidg4+hnWXtwDqtxchFSVVu2cCQlQhzYL5wa3 9v1Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.58.240 with SMTP id u16mr6267730qeq.16.1373016502926; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.170.77 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 02:28:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <977A4C4B-4EE3-4BBD-9B0E-15DC077C197C@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:28:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: Roger Lapthorn To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" 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: Dave, Thanks for that. Yes I can see the potential issue: you transfer the overload issue from the active antenna to the RX. A bandpass filter for each band is not hard though. Guess it is a question of whether the wideband/no tune approach is better/more flexible, than a tuned loop. [...] 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 [209.85.128.54 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (rogerlapthorn[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 20fb97b64762a0bd80c12a4b2f6724b0 Subject: Re: LF: Wellbrook RX loops Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d9868ed859d04e0c050cd X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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: 3341 --047d7b6d9868ed859d04e0c050cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dave, Thanks for that. Yes I can see the potential issue: you transfer the overload issue from the active antenna to the RX. A bandpass filter for each band is not hard though. Guess it is a question of whether the wideband/no tune approach is better/more flexible, than a tuned loop. My current RX situation is not good on 136/472kHz and I am looking for a good solution on RX at the new QTH - moving in August all of 300m further east! 73s Roger G3XBM On 5 July 2013 08:27, DAVE PICK wrote: > Roger > > I have used a Wellbrook for many years on 136 and (now) on 472kHz. It > performs well but it will put massive signals from broadcast stations into > your RX! You may need a band-pass filter between the loop and the receiver. > Obviously it is directional. > It will be around 10dB down on a proper aerial, but that's not a problem > on LF. > > Dave G3YXM > > > On 5 July 2013 08:00, Roger Lapthorn wrote: > >> Can anyone advise, from actual use, how well a Wellbrook loop works on >> 136 and 472kHz RX ? The excellent OIP2 and OIP3 figures and directivity >> suggest one could be very useful. >> >> 73s >> Roger G3XBM >> > > -- http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ http://www.g3xbm.co.uk https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ http://qss2.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm --047d7b6d9868ed859d04e0c050cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dave,

Thanks for that. Yes I c= an see the potential issue: you transfer the overload issue from the active= antenna to the RX. A bandpass filter for each band is not hard though. Gue= ss it is a question of whether the wideband/no tune approach is better/more= flexible, than a tuned loop.

My current RX situation is not good on 136/472kHz and I am l= ooking for a good solution on RX at the new QTH - moving in August all of 3= 00m further east!

73s
Roger G3XBM


On 5 July 201= 3 08:27, DAVE PICK <daveyxm@virginmedia.com> wrote:
Roger

I have used a Wellbrook = for many years on 136 and (now) on 472kHz. It performs well but it will put= massive signals from broadcast stations into your RX! You may need a band-= pass filter between the loop and the receiver. Obviously it is directional.=
It will be around 10dB down on a proper aerial, but that's not a = problem on LF.

Dave G3YXM


= On 5 July 2013 08:00, Roger Lapthorn <rogerlapthorn@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
Can anyone advise, from actual use, =A0how w= ell a Wellbrook loop works on 136 and 472kHz RX ? The excellent OIP2 and OI= P3 figures and directivity suggest one could be very useful.

73s
Roger G3XBM




--
--047d7b6d9868ed859d04e0c050cd--